Tag: Higher

  • Higher ed leaders warn of dire consequences after NIH cut

    Higher ed leaders warn of dire consequences after NIH cut

    In a move that sparked swift outrage from the higher education sector, the National Institutes of Health announced late Friday that it is dramatically cutting funding for grant recipients’ “indirect costs” of conducting medical research at universities, including hazardous waste disposal, utilities and patient safety. 

    “It is difficult to overstate what a catastrophe this will be for the US research and education systems, (particularly) in biomedical fields,” Carl Bergstrom, a biology professor at the University of Washington, posted on Bluesky. “It is deliberate and wanton devastation entirely out of scale with any concern about DEI activities on campuses. The goal is destroy US universities.”

    Effective Monday, the NIH is planning to cap funding of indirect costs at 15 percent of all grants, down from the average of 27 to 28 percent. The change means that colleges and universities are on the hook for millions of dollars. They’ll likely have to cut their budgets or reduce research activities to make up the difference.

    Republicans and President Trump have long sought to limit funding for indirect costs. The latest proposal is similar to a recommendation included in Project 2025, a conservative playbook for the second Trump administration that the president has disavowed. Project 2025 authors said the cap would “reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas.”

    Historically, universities have been able to negotiate reimbursement rates for those indirect costs, with institutional reimbursements averaging nearly 28 percent. Some of the nation’s leading research institutions, including Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins Universities, receive reimbursements of more than 60 percent. NIH said in a social media post that it expects to save $4 billion from the change; an Inside Higher Ed analysis of fiscal year 2024 grant data shows that colleges would lose about $4.3 billion in NIH reimbursements if indirect costs were capped at 15 percent.

    Previously, if a college or university received a $5 million grant, they could also be reimbursed up to $1.4 million to pay for related costs, such as renting space for a lab. Under this new policy, that will be capped at $750,000.

    “The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”

    While the NIH said it has the authority to cap indirect costs, Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington, said on social media Friday that the proposal is illegal.

    “It will mean shuttering labs across the country, layoffs in red & blue states, & derailing lifesaving research on everything from cancer to opioid addiction,” Murray wrote.

    Cuts to ‘Life-Saving’ Research

    While the NIH is casting indirect costs as a burden, Association of American Universities President Barbara R. Snyder said in a statement that they are “real and necessary costs of conducting the groundbreaking research that has led to countless breakthroughs in the past decades.”

    A $4 billion cut to reimbursements for NIH grants, she added, “is quite simply a cut to the life-saving medical research that helps countless American families.”

    NIH has worked feverishly in recent weeks to comply with President Trump’s executive orders to eliminate all support for diversity, equity and inclusion and “gender ideology.” Grant reviews stopped for two weeks, alarming researchers who rely on federal funding, and some scientists worried about the future of their funding under the agency.

    But researchers and their advocates say an abrupt $4 billion cut to NIH funding—which has not been approved by Congress—has dire implications for the future of the United State’s scientific research enterprise and will undermine the NIH’s stated goal of producing superior medical research.  

    “Cuts to reimbursement of these costs are cuts to medical research and represent the federal government stepping back from commitments it has made to world-leading researchers,” Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public Land Grant Universities, said in a statement. “This action will slow advances for millions of patients who desperately need critical breakthroughs and imperil the U.S.’s position as the world leader in biomedical innovation.”

    The NIH is the largest federal funding source for research universities, and has supported breakthroughs in medical technology and treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s. 

    Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said the decision was “short-sighted, naive, and dangerous.”

    “It will be celebrated wildly by our competitors, who will see this for what it is—a surrender of U.S. supremacy in medical research,” Mitchell said. “It is a self-inflicted wound that, if not reversed, will have dire consequences on U.S. jobs, global competitiveness, and the future growth of a skilled workforce.”



    Source link

  • DOGE’s access to Education Department data raises concerns

    DOGE’s access to Education Department data raises concerns

    Just last month, Lorena Tule-Romain was encouraging families with mixed citizenship to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. She and her staff at ImmSchools, a nonprofit dedicated to improving educational access for immigrants in Dallas, walked students and parents through the complicated federal aid process. Along the way, they offered reassurance that information revealing their undocumented status would be securely held by the Department of Education alone.

    Two weeks ago, ImmSchools stopped offering those services. And Tule-Romain said they’re no longer recommending families fill out the FAFSA. 

    That’s because the Department of Government Efficiency, a White House office run by Elon Musk, now has access to Education Department data systems, potentially including sensitive student loan and financial aid information for millions of students, according to sources both outside and within the department who spoke with Inside Higher Ed. 

    With immigration officers conducting a blitz of deportations over the past few weeks—and the new possibility of ICE raids at public schools and college campuses—Tule-Romain is worried that applying for federal aid could put undocumented families in jeopardy. Instead of answering parents’ questions about the FAFSA contributor form, she’s hosting Know Your Rights workshops to prepare them for ICE raids.

    “Before, we were doing all we could to encourage families to apply for federal aid, to empower students to break cycles and go to college,” she said. “Now we are not in a position to give that advice. It’s heartbreaking.”

    Student data is technically protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, which prevents departments from sharing personally identifying information unless strict exceptions are met or a law is passed to allow it. The FUTURE Act, for example, gave the IRS access to financial aid data to simplify the FAFSA process. 

    Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, told Inside Higher Ed that because DOGE has not said why they might be interested in department data or what data they have access to, it’s unclear if they’re acting in accordance with the law.

    In the past, that law has been strictly enforced for federal employees. In 2010, nine people were accused of accessing President Barack Obama’s student loan records while employed for an Education Department contractor in Iowa. The charges levied against them in federal court were punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000, according to the Associated Press.   

    On Thursday, Democratic Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia wrote to the Government Accountability Office requesting a review of the Education Department’s information technology security and DOGE’s interventions in the department in order to determine their legality and the “potential impact on children.” On Friday, a group of students at the University of California sued department officials for allowing potential privacy act violations. 

    “The scale of the intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive, unprecedented, and dangerous,” the plaintiffs wrote. 

    In recent days, labor unions and other groups have sued to block DOGE”s access to databases at several federal agencies and have secured some wins. Early Saturday morning, a federal judge prohibited DOGE from accessing Treasury Department data, ordering Musk’s team to “immediately destroy any and all copies of material” from the department’s systems.

    Concerns about DOGE’s use of private student data come as Musk and his staff take a hacksaw to agencies and departments across the federal government, seeking to cut spending and eliminate large portions of the federal workforce. The Trump administration has singled out the Education Department in particular, threatening to gut its administrative capacity or eliminate the department all together. 

    Spokespeople for DOGE did not respond to a list of questions from Inside Higher Ed. Madi Biederman, the Education Department’s deputy assistant secretary for communications, wrote in an email that DOGE staff “have the necessary background checks and clearances” to view department data and are “focused on making the department more cost-efficient, effective and accountable to the taxpayers.”

    “There is nothing inappropriate or nefarious going on,” she added. She did not respond to questions about what data DOGE has access to or how they plan to use it.

    A ‘Gaping Hole’ in Data Security 

    The Education Department’s student financial aid systems contain unique private information that families submit through FAFSA: not only social security numbers but also addresses of relatives, property taxes, sources of income and more. The National Student Loan Database, which tracks loan borrowers’ repayment history and which DOGE may also have access to, includes a wealth of personally identifying information for many more millions of current and former students. 

    A current department staffer provided Inside Higher Ed with a screenshot from the department’s email address catalog containing the names of 25 DOGE employees who may have access to student data—including a 19-year-old who, according to a Bloomberg report, was once fired by a cybersecurity firm for allegedly leaking internal data. And the Washington Post reported that DOGE employees fed sensitive education department data through artificial intelligence software.

    “It could become a gaping hole in our cybersecurity infrastructure,” a former department official said. “I cannot stress enough how unusual it is to just give people access willy-nilly.”

    Two former department officials told Inside Higher Ed it is unclear how the DOGE officials could have legally gained access to department data. McCarthy compared DOGE’s murky activity in the department to a “massive data breach within the federal government.”

    “Normally, there’d be a paper trail telling us what they’ve requested access to and why,” she said. “We don’t have that, so there’s a lot of uncertainty and fear.”

    A current department official told Inside Higher Ed that DOGE staff have been given access to PartnerConnect, which includes information about college programs that receive federal financial aid funding; and that they have read-only access to a financial system. Neither of those databases contain personally identifying information, but the official wasn’t sure DOGE’s access was limited to those sources—and said department staff are worried sensitive student information could be illegally accessed and disbursed. 

    “It just creates a kind of shadow over the work that everyone’s doing,” a prior department official said. 

    Fears of a FAFSA ‘Chilling Effect’

    Families with mixed citizenship status were some of the hardest hit by the error-riddled FAFSA rollout last year, with many reporting glitches that prevented them from applying for aid until late last summer. 

    Tule-Romain said mixed-status families in her community had only just begun to feel comfortable with the federal aid form. In the past few weeks that progress has evaporated, she said, and high school counselors working with ImmSchools report a concerning decline in requests for FAFSA consultations from mixed-status students. 

    “If they weren’t already hesitant, they are extremely hesitant now,” Tule-Romain said. 

    It’s not just mixed-status families who could be affected if data is shared or leaked. McCarthy said that concerns about privacy could have a wide-spread “chilling effect” on federal aid applications.

    “There have always been parents who are reluctant to share their information and the counterargument we always fall back on are the privacy laws,” she said. “A lot of Pell money could get left on the table, or students could be discouraged from going to college altogether.”

    Kim Cook, CEO of the National College Attainment Network, said that after last year’s bungled FAFSA rollout, community organizations and government officials had worked hard to rebuild trust in the system and get completion rates back to normal. She worries that fears about privacy could set back those efforts significantly. 

    “Chaos and uncertainty won’t give us the FAFSA rebound we need,” she said. 

    The confusion could also affect current college students who need to renew their FAFSA soon. Tule-Romain said one undocumented parent who filled out her first form with ImmSchools last year came back a few weeks ago asking for advice. 

    She was torn: on the one hand, she didn’t trust Musk and Trump’s White House not to use the information on the form to deport her. On the other, if her son didn’t receive federal aid, he’d have to drop out of college. Ultimately, she chose to renew the application.

    “If you came [to America] for a better life, you cannot let fear stop you from pursuing that,” Tule-Romain said. “Instead, you arm yourself with knowledge and you move forward—maybe with fear, but you move forward anyway.”

    Source link

  • Education Department to end internal “gender ideology” programs

    Education Department to end internal “gender ideology” programs

    The Department of Education is ordering an end to all spending and programs that “promote gender ideology,” according to an internal email sent to all department employees and obtained by Inside Higher Ed. 

    The email lays out steps the department will take to uphold President Trump’s executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Those steps include a “thorough review and subsequent termination of Departmental programs, contracts, policies, outward-facing media, regulations and internal practices that fail to affirm the reality of biological sex.”

    The email also prohibits employee resource groups that “promote gender ideology” from meeting on government property or during work hours. 

    The email appears to be targeted primarily at internal department activities and spending, as opposed to schools and universities that receive federal funding. But the Trump administration has in recent days launched investigations into colleges over the participation of trans athletes in women’s sports, and Trump’s executive order attacking diversity, equity and inclusion could have wide-reaching effects on college programs and curricula.  

    A spokesperson for the department did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for clarification or comment in time for publication.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Community College Meltdown: Can It Get Worse?

    Higher Education Inquirer : Community College Meltdown: Can It Get Worse?

    The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has documented the decline in community college enrollment for more than a decade.  And the Higher Education Inquirer has been reporting on the decline for much of that time.  

    The question we are asking now is, where is the floor for the community college meltdown?  The answer, from what we gather, is not clear. Folks should not assume the bottom has already been felt, even if there are signs of a rebound. 

    The downward path for community colleges is likely the result of several factors related to economics (including the economics of individual states and counties), demographics, and consumer choices.  And we do not see these variables, in general, improving in the near future. Especially in states with declining youth and young adult populations. 

    If state-level austerity lies ahead for many states, the floor could be lowered, even though these community colleges provide job training at a fraction of the cost of state universities.  Working class folks, in particular, would have to change the way they think about themselves and their perceptions of community colleges. And community colleges would need to provide stronger returns on investment for those who attend. 

    There are some bright spots, including the use of College Promise (low-cost college) in many states and proposed increases in funding in California.  Community colleges have also shored up these declines with dual enrollment (high school students taking courses).  

    (Source: US Department of Education, IPEDS)

    Source link

  • Senate schedules Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearing

    Senate schedules Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearing

    Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s nominee for education secretary, will appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week—a key step in her confirmation process.

    And though the former business mogul was originally expected to sail through the confirmation process, she’ll likely have to answer questions at the hearing next Thursday about recent upheavals in the Education Department and the president’s plan to get rid of the agency.

    In the last week, news broke that the Trump administration put dozens of department employees on paid leave and is planning an executive order to shut down the department, setting off alarm bells across the higher ed sphere. At the same time, Trump’s attempts to freeze thousands of federal grants and push agency staff toward “deferred resignation” are caught up in court. Education advocacy groups say that halting the grants violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers and that cutting the number of unionized agency staff is not only illegal but also could hinder key operations like the federal student aid program.

    But while many of Trump’s executive orders remain in limbo, department appointees who don’t require confirmation are quickly moving behind the scenes to carry out Trump’s education agenda. They’ve opened multiple civil rights investigations into colleges over antisemitism and transgender participation in women’s sports, announced changes to the federal aid application, and removed more than 200 DEI-related webpages from the department’s website.

    Trump has yet to announce who will join McMahon and fill other key agency roles, such as under secretary and head of Federal Student Aid, nor has he formally named all the acting officials who will fill those roles in the meantime. The lack of transparency regarding who will lead the department and who is currently serving in temporary roles now has only heightened concerns among higher education officials, policy experts, lobbyists and advocacy groups. The lack of clarity makes it hard to decipher what Trump’s regulatory priorities will be and how colleges, universities, accreditors, students and others should prepare for the next four years. But many are hopeful that McMahon’s hearing will shed some light on the subject.

    The secretary-designate, who is best known as the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has limited experience in education policy aside from serving for one year on the Connecticut State Board of Education and a long-running tenure on the Sacred Heart University Board of Trustees. And to this date, she has made little comment about her views on public education.

    She does, however, have some experience working in Washington. McMahon served as director of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term. Then, in 2021, as the president reluctantly left office, she helped found the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank.

    Now, the billionaire is likely to lead the very department Trump has said he wants to see dismantled. The president told White House reporters Tuesday that he told McMahon, “I hope you do a great job and put yourself out of a job.

    The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the new administration is preparing an executive order about the department’s future, though the specifics are still in the works.

    Sources told the Journal that the order could “shut down all functions of the agency that aren’t written explicitly into statute or move certain functions to other departments,” but other sources familiar with talks about the order told Inside Higher Ed that the order could direct McMahon, once confirmed, to come up with a plan to break up the department entirely. (The second suggested order, and its resulting plan, would have to include legislative action from Capitol Hill, as the department’s existence is written into law.)

    But for now, McMahon is awaiting confirmation and the department still exists. So who’s running the agency and carrying out its statutory duties?

    So far, the White House has only formally announced an acting secretary, Denise Carter, who had previously served as acting head of the Federal Student Aid office. A news release from the department several days later listed 10 other appointees, ranging from chief of staff to deputy general counsel. On Thursday, the department shared the names of six more officials, including deputy under secretary and senior adviser of the communications office.

    But the department’s announcements about appointees haven’t indicated who is temporarily filing some of the top jobs at the department, such as under secretary. Under federal law, the default acting official is the first assistant to the vacant position or the top deputy for that office, though the president can designate someone else who meets the criteria. Details about who is serving as those acting officials has instead come from other department statements.

    For example, James Bergeron—president of the National Council of Higher Education Resources and a Republican former House policy adviser—was named deputy under secretary Thursday. But on Tuesday, the department identified him in a news release as acting under secretary. Before Tuesday’s release, Bergeron had not been listed as an appointee at all. Thursday’s announcement only referred to him as deputy under secretary, not acting.

    In another instance, the department named Craig Trainor—who worked under Trump’s attorney general Pam Bondi as an AFPI senior litigation counsel—deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Office for Civil Rights. And then, in later news releases, the agency identified Trainor as the acting assistant secretary for civil rights.

    Although the department has yet to announce an acting chief operating officer for FSA, a department official told Inside Higher Ed that Carter is wearing two hats and continuing to lead FSA while serving as acting secretary. Phillip Juengst, a longtime FSA official, they said, is also helping lead the agency.

    The Education Department did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for further detail about who is serving in what acting role and why it hasn’t formally been announced. Instead, they pointed reporters back to the news releases mentioned prior.

    Most of the appointees so far are unfamiliar faces to D.C. area policy experts and former department staffers.

    Bergeron, however, is an exception. He worked at the National Council of Higher Education Resources starting in 2014, advocating for higher education service agencies that work in the student loan space. Some debt-relief groups raised concerns about Bergeron’s appointment. But former department officials described Bergeron as a competent and more reasonable choice than some other Trump appointees. Before serving as president of NCHER, he worked as a staffer on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

    Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education, said the day after Trump took office that the initial lack of clarity about who was serving in what role didn’t concern him. He didn’t expect Carter or other acting appointees to carry out substantial policy actions before confirmed appointees took control. Guillory said Thursday that his comments haven’t changed, so he remains unconcerned two weeks later.

    Source link

  • Five ways the Education Department impacts higher ed

    Five ways the Education Department impacts higher ed

    Republicans’ long-sought goal of shuttering the Education Department got a boost this week as several media outlets reported the Trump administration was finalizing plans for an executive order to wind down the agency.

    Trump added to the speculation, telling reporters Tuesday he wanted his education secretary nominee, Linda McMahon, to put herself out of a job. Then, on Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said getting rid of the department is “an idea whose time has come.”

    The specifics and timing of the executive order are still unclear, though media reports say the directive could instruct department officials to shut down some programs not directly approved by Congress or come up with a plan to move functions to other departments in the federal government. At the very least, the Trump administration wants to see a much smaller version of the department, particularly because only Congress can actually eliminate the agency.

    More than 4,000 people currently work for the department, which was created in 1979. In fiscal year 2024, the department had a $80 billion discretionary budget. Its spending makes up just over 2 percent of the federal budget.

    Some conservative think tanks have been planning for the department’s demise for years. Most recently, Project 2025, a policy manual for the second Trump administration, detailed how to dismantle the agency—from which offices to shutter to which ones to move.

    While those plans delve into all the department’s functions, much of the recent commentary about why the agency could go revolves about its role in K-12 education, largely ignoring how shutting it down could affect higher education.

    But the federal government is deeply embedded in higher education, thanks to the billions it sends to colleges and universities each year. Unwinding the department would be complex and likely disruptive for colleges and the students they serve.

    “That’s not something our community could handle at this point in time,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, on an episode of the organization’s podcast this week. “From our perspective, it’s highly unlikely that such a transition would be quick or smooth.”

    As talks ramp up about the department’s future, here are the five key roles the department plays in higher education—and what could happen to them if the agency is shuttered.

    Doles Out Billions in Grants and Loans

    The department’s wide-ranging role in federal financial aid is one of its most important functions for higher education. The botched rollout of the 2024–25 federal aid application showed just how critical the system is to colleges and students.

    Each year, the Education Department issues about $100 billion in student loans and doles out more than $30 billion in Pell Grants to more than six million low-income students. More than 5,000 colleges and universities are eligible for federal financial aid.

    The department’s Office of Federal Student Aid manages the government’s $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio, oversees contractors who service those loans, carries out many of the regulations related to higher education and holds colleges accountable. Under the Biden administration, for example, FSA issued $61.7 million in fines and cut off aid to 35 colleges for violating federal law and rules.

    The Trump administration hasn’t said what would happen to federal financial aid programs, or to the more than 1,600 employees who work for the Office of Federal Student Aid, if the department goes away. But some conservative plans recommend moving the whole system to the Treasury Department.

    Proponents argue that moving the system to the Treasury makes sense given that the department already deals with money and lending. Additionally, they say the switch shouldn’t be too disruptive or leave students and colleges worse off. Critics of that plan disagree and question whether the Treasury has the capacity to administer the federal student aid program.

    Enforces Students’ Civil Rights

    While federal financial aid is key to helping students access college, the department’s Office for Civil Rights helps to ensure they are protected from discrimination once on campus.

    The OCR can have a direct impact on students and colleges through investigations of complaints or guidance that prompts institutions to change their policies or rethink their civil rights offices. Colleges watch the agency’s actions closely to avoid running afoul of federal law.

    In recent years, the office has seen a record number of complaints from students who allege violations of their civil rights, though the agency has struggled to keep up with the growing caseload. Biden administration officials pleaded with Congress last spring for more funding to hire 86 employees who could investigate complaints. As of last March, 557 employees worked for OCR, according to department budget documents.

    The office received 22,687 complaints in fiscal year 2024, and the Biden administration projected that number to grow to nearly 24,000 in 2025. Most of the complaints in the past year related to sex-based discrimination, while 37 percent alleged discrimination based on disability. In many cases, seeking help from the federal office can be a last resort for students.

    Project 2025 recommended moving OCR to the Justice Department and limiting enforcement to litigation.

    Manages Grant Programs

    The Education Department sends millions of dollars appropriated by Congress to colleges and universities that help to support student success, childcare on campus and other priorities for lawmakers.

    In fiscal 2024, Congress allocated $3.3 billion toward higher education programs. That includes a $400 million fund to directly support historically Black colleges and universities as well as a $229 million grant program for Hispanic-serving institutions.

    The department also spends about $2.14 billion on Federal Work-Study and supplemental grants to directly support low-income students.

    Some institutions rely on federal support to stay open. For instance, Gallaudet University, a school for the Deaf in Washington, D.C., gets its own line item in the federal budget. The university was created by Congress and received $167.3 million in fiscal 2024, which was about 65 percent of Gallaudet’s annual revenues, Forbes reported this week.

    Trump sent a shock wave through higher ed last week when his administration threatened to freeze all federal grants and loans. College administrators and lobbyists representing them warned of devastating consequences if that source of funding was turned off.

    While a federal judge blocked the freeze from taking effect, the Education Department is reviewing many of the grant programs for compliance with Trump’s recent executive orders that target diversity, equity and inclusion. That review could threaten to shut off some of the programs, though technically only Congress has that authority.

    Gathers Data on Students and Institutions

    Researchers and policymakers rely on reams of data that the Education Department collects about students and institutions in order to better understand higher ed. As some federal databases have gone dark in recent weeks, some advocates and researchers have worried about the future and security of the department’s data.

    From annual surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics to the National Student Loan Data System, the data offers insights into student enrollment, graduation rates, earnings, student lending and more. In 2015, the department made that data more accessible when it launched the College Scorecard.

    The future of those databases is unclear if the department goes away. Project 2025 and other analysts have recommended moving the National Center for Education Statistics to other agencies—the Bureau of Labor Statistics, perhaps, or the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau.

    But few proposals suggest getting rid of the data-collection responsibilities altogether. In fact, Project 2025 declares that the federal government’s only role in education policy should be “that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states.”

    Oversees Colleges and Universities

    The federal government works with states and accreditors to oversee colleges and universities—a three-pronged system referred to as the triad. Getting rid of the Education Department would throw the triad into flux. That would likely mean less red tape for colleges but fewer protections for students.

    The department recognizes accreditors who in turn recognize colleges. Institutions can only access federal financial aid if they are accredited by a department-recognized accrediting agency and have the necessary approval from state authorizing agencies.

    The Biden administration sought to require accreditors to set benchmarks for student achievement and give states more authority over distance education. Neither of those proposals moved forward, but the push shows the federal government’s role in overseeing other members of the triad in addition to colleges.

    Project 2025 proposed to remove accreditors from the triad or give states more authority to authorize accreditors, breaking the federal government’s hold over the process.

    Source link

  • Freedom is the bedrock for learning

    Freedom is the bedrock for learning

    Two big things, personally, happened this week, and I want to explain how while they may seem different on the surface, they’re sort of inextricable from each other.

    One thing that happened was the release of my book More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI. Regular readers of this space will be well familiar with the subjects and themes of the book, but of course a book is a different thing than a blog or column.

    I do my best to always make what I share here worth reading, but often the ideas I explore in this forum are in a much earlier stage of gestation. Writing is thinking, and while sufficient thinking has to occur for me to get a post onto the page, posting a column does not end the thinking.

    A book is a chance to hone that thinking into an extended argument and experience, seeing those initial individual thoughts join together, and in this joining shift in important ways as I seek greater clarity and more impactful presentation. One of the reasons I don’t really understand people’s enthusiasm for turning their writing over to large language models is that the process of working through my own thoughts is 100 percent necessary to delivering the final product.

    There is no shortcut if I want the book to be as good as possible.

    Anyway, as I wrote at my personal newsletter in a post celebrating the book’s release, I’m proud of it. It’s good! Or the best I can do at this time, anyway, which is its own form of good. If you’re at all concerned about how tools powered by generative AI are encroaching on our spaces of working, learning and thinking, you might find some value in it.

    Kirkus Reviews had this to say:

    The other thing that happened this week is the launch of a new newsletter, Academic Freedom on the Line, that I’ll be helping oversee as part of my fellowship for the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom (CDAF).

    CDAF has been organized around a vision statement and a mission statement.

    Vision Statement

    We believe that teaching, learning, and the pursuit of knowledge are essential to creating and sustaining multi-racial and plurinational societies. For those of us working and studying within institutions of higher education, this means pursuing knowledge wherever it leads, free from intimidation and retaliation. Such freedoms serve as the foundation upon which we educate students, produce and disseminate credible research, nurture artistic expression and foster critical inquiry.

    Mission Statement

    The Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom is committed to preserving and expanding conditions that make it possible to work, teach, learn, create, and share knowledge in ways that promote the common good. The center serves as a resource and knowledge hub for all people—including faculty, students, campus workers, alumni, administrators, trustees, parents, journalists, policymakers, and business leaders—seeking to build a flourishing higher education system, rooted in institutional autonomy, workplace democracy, and freedom from coercion and external interference.

    To work towards these goals we:

    • create practical resources and build strategic partnerships for those engaged in defending academic freedom,
    • produce original research that can serve as the evidentiary basis for this work, and
    • communicate the value of academic freedom and institutional autonomy to wide audiences.

    The first newsletter post is an annotated version of these statements, where some of the other fellows comment on different parts of each, and I encourage you to check it out for yourself to see how important individual perspectives are even inside of communication that is meant to reflect group consensus.

    I also encourage you to sign up for the newsletter ,since we’ll be sharing more information and research all the time.

    A couple of weekends ago, we had an in-person gathering of CDAF, along with some other folks concerned about the attacks on academic freedom (PEN, AAUP, et al. …), and I was struck by how important it is to have all these different perspectives when considering complex and important problems.

    Even though it was a gathering of people with a broad base of shared values, there were many different perspectives, and I lost track of the number of times I experienced a moment of, I hadn’t thought of it that way.

    Here’s how I see these two different strains of my work as intimately related. At the heart of More Than Words is my belief that humans have a right to their own minds, that part of exercising our freedom is being given the chance to interpret the world and then impress ourselves onto the world around us through communication rooted in our unique intelligences. Writing is a great way to achieve this, as I’ve experienced firsthand, not just because I have some public platforms for my writing, but because the act of writing allows me to know what I think and believe.

    The boosters of the syntax-generating technology speak of it in liberatory terms, that the technology frees one up to not have to do difficult and maybe even unrewarding work. But in my view, giving over the work of writing to a probability machine is anti-freedom. The process matters.

    The process of academic freedom matters, too, which is why we sometimes (often) have disputes about what academic freedom means or how it can be supported in institutions. As a baseline, we need people to believe that academic freedom matters, that it is more than an abstract idea and it is, in fact, a way to make possible the work we want our institutions to do. This is what is being threatened at this time.

    One of the consistent themes of the weekend gathering was that deep down, we’re not just defending academic freedom, a term that we all acknowledge comes with some baggage, but we are trying to preserve important parts of our democracy.

    I don’t want to overinflate the importance of this work, either my own with my writing about writing or the efforts of the fellows of CDAF. There are clearly more urgent threats at this moment.

    But at the same time, I don’t want to shy away from the fact that there’s a lot at stake, and that what’s being threatened is our ability to self-govern.

    It matters. It all matters.

    Source link

  • Professors fear DeepSeek “censorship” on students’ work

    Professors fear DeepSeek “censorship” on students’ work

    “Censorship” built into rapidly growing generative artificial intelligence tool DeepSeek could lead to misinformation seeping into students’ work, scholars fear.

    The Chinese-developed chat bot has soared to the top of the download charts, upsetting global financial markets by appearing to rival the performance of ChatGPT and other U.S.-designed tools, at a much lower cost.

    But with students likely to start using the tool for research and help with assignments, concerns have been raised that it is censoring details about topics that are sensitive in China and pushing Communist Party propaganda.

    When asked questions centering on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, reports claim that the chat bot replies that it is “not sure how to approach this type of question yet,” before adding, “Let’s chat about math, coding and logic problems instead!”

    When asked about the status of Taiwan, it replies, “The Chinese government adheres to the One China principle, and any attempts to split the country are doomed to fail.”

    Shushma Patel, pro vice chancellor for artificial intelligence at De Montfort University—said to be the first role of its kind in the U.K.—described DeepSeek as a “black box” that could “significantly” complicate universities’ efforts to tackle misinformation spread by AI.

    “DeepSeek is probably very good at some facts—science, mathematics, etc.—but it’s that other element, the human judgment element and the tacit aspect, where it isn’t. And that’s where the key difference is,” she said.

    Patel said that students need to have “access to factual information, rather than the politicized, censored propaganda information that may exist with DeepSeek versus other tools,” and said that the development heightens the need for universities to ensure AI literacy among their students.

    Thomas Lancaster, principal teaching fellow of computing at Imperial College London, said, “From the universities’ side of things, I think we will be very concerned if potentially biased viewpoints were coming through to students and being treated as facts without any alternative sources or critique or knowledge being there to help the student understand why this is presented in this way.

    “It may be that instructors start seeing these controversial ideas—from a U.K. or Western viewpoint—appearing in student essays and student work. And in that situation, I think they have to settle this directly with the student to try and find out what’s going on.”

    However, Lancaster said, “All AI chat bots are censored in some way,” which can be for “quite legitimate reasons.” This can include censoring material relating to criminal activity, terrorism or self-harm, or even avoiding offensive language.

    He agreed that “the bigger concern” highlighted by DeepSeek was “helping students understand how to use these tools productively and in a way that isn’t considered unfair or academic misconduct.”

    This has potential wider ramifications outside of higher education, he added. “It doesn’t only mean that students could hand in work that is incorrect, but it also has a knock-on effect on society if biased information gets out there. It’s similar to the concerns we have about things like fake news or deepfake videos,” he said.

    Questions have also been raised over the use of data relating to the tool, since China’s national intelligence laws require enterprises to “support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence efforts.” The chat bot is not available on some app stores in Italy due to data-related concerns.

    While Patel conceded there were concerns over DeepSeek and “how that data may be manipulated,” she added, “We don’t know how ChatGPT manipulates that data, either.”

    Source link

  • The big chill for academic medical centers (opinion)

    The big chill for academic medical centers (opinion)

    Recent executive actions by President Trump, most notably a blanket freeze of federal grants and loans, sent chills through higher education. Even though the full funding stoppage was quickly rescinded and subjected to legal challenges, universities probably will continue to face partial pauses on federal funding, as well as questions over the impact of other recent executive actions, like ones aimed at DEI.

    While consequential for all of higher education, pending and potential moves by the Trump administration that implicate funding could especially affect what has become an increasingly dominant aspect of multiple universities in terms of budgets and focus—academic medical centers (AMCs). AMCs are major funding recipients from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. AMCs and their health enterprises also are deeply connected to patient care programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

    For some higher education institutions, AMCs have come to play a central role in campus life and identity, especially as more AMCs have expanded to become full-fledged health systems. While some raise concerns and others celebrate this trend, the fact remains that some research universities are increasingly shaped by their AMCs. Using our own institution, the University of Kentucky, as one example, its health-care enterprises now account for around $5 billion of an $8.4 billion budget.

    Media outlets covered the “confusion and chaos” that beset university presidents, medical center vice presidents, deans and researchers after the initial federal funding freeze. Now that the freeze has been temporarily rescinded, leaders of academic medical centers should move beyond confusion and chaos to focus on public presentations that emphasize their competence, compliance and cooperation with federal reviews. Now is an opportune time to pick up on President Trump’s recent emphasis on “merit” as the key to gaining federal support. University academic medical centers are well positioned to demonstrate and document their case.

    To showcase “merit,” for example, a university academic medical center could cite ratings and commentaries about its successful NIH grant proposals, illustrating the talent and competitive advantages of its principal investigators and research teams. And they should emphasize that the NIH-funded research projects are not isolated: They are inseparable from a cooperative network within university health centers and hospitals. Evaluating these complex applied research alliances helps answer external questions about efficiency, effectiveness and significance of projects. The same kinds of questions are continually monitored in analysis of existing and new university degree programs for the education of medical doctors, nurses, physician assistants, pharmacists, medical technicians and health-care administrators. In addition to evaluating the training and preparation of researchers and health-care practitioners, an AMC pays systematic attention to accountability and responsibility for patient care and treatment as part of its daily and annual operations. These stories need to be told.

    There are other sources that can be used to document AMC merit and performance. One can look at accreditation reports, specialized degree program reviews and financial balance sheets for the mosaic of health services and programs that are housed under the umbrella of an academic medical center. Institutional data can show that an academic medical center that aligns colleges of medicine and health care with such disciplines as biochemistry, physiology, bioengineering and statistics has evolved into a dynamic institution in which practice and advanced research are intertwined with providing professional services within a community.

    A few summary statistics indicate this presence. The top 20 university AMCs each brought in more than $400 million in NIH research grants in fiscal year 2023. Within this group, Johns Hopkins University is first, with $843 million, followed by the University of California, San Francisco, with $789 million, and in third place, the University of Pennsylvania with $703 million. These are the peak of a cluster of 220 university medical centers in which academic programs such as the college of medicine partner with university medical foundations.

    The fusion represents a new academic model in which the medical and health programs typically constitute about 60 percent or more of the total university budget. At universities with this structure, the AMC typically is home to a majority of the university faculty positions and student enrollments. The AMC also becomes a major economic force and employer in metropolitan areas and regional communities.

    The academic health and medical complexes are economic engines. They often are the largest employer in the metropolitan area or even in the state, such as is the case for the University of Alabama at Birmingham and its health system. Universities in this category are the major provider of health services to large constituencies of patients. This academic health organization includes partnerships with Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance companies. Federal grants for research and service to the university often stimulate state financial support in terms of program grants and capital funding from state legislatures and governors and major gifts from foundations and private donors.

    The message for “merit” is that these universities represent a new type of American organization—what might be termed the academic health business model. An abundance of quantitative and qualitative data makes external evaluation and detailed analysis of accountability possible. Sound policy evaluation from several constituencies—the executive branch, Congress, federal and state agencies, university leaders, and patient advocacy groups—calls for thoughtful, informed analysis to review and perhaps renew what has evolved as a distinctive academic enterprise.

    A lively dialogue about the promises and benefits of AMCs that includes consideration of recent executive actions and potential future decisions, such as funding levels for Medicaid, is timely. The events of the last two weeks provide a much-needed moment for academic constituencies to reflect on what the expansion of AMCs means for individual research universities and higher education broadly in the future. If a funding freeze causes a chill for AMCs and their health enterprises, does the rest of the campus catch a cold, or even worse?

    Recent presidential actions from Washington, D.C., have highlighted how much the budgets and identities of some research universities are more and more defined by their AMCs. In addition to helping AMCs continue to sustain and enhance their vital missions, all higher education groups need to contemplate the implications for universities whose mission and purposes are increasingly characterized and shaped by their academic medical centers.

    John R. Thelin is University Research Professor Emeritus at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of several books on the history of higher education.

    Neal H. Hutchens is a professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation at the University of Kentucky. His research focuses on the intersection of higher education law, policy and practice.

    Source link

  • Ed Department investigates SJSU, UPenn over trans athletes

    Ed Department investigates SJSU, UPenn over trans athletes

    The Trump administration launched its first Title IX investigations into transgender athletes participating in college sports on Thursday, targeting San José State University and the University of Pennsylvania, according to a press release. The investigations came a day after President Trump signed an executive order banning transgender athletes from women’s sports and single-sex facilities.

    San José State and Penn are pointed choices for the first investigations by the Office for Civil Rights: Both were at the center of high-profile controversies over their acceptance of trans athletes on women’s teams. At SJSU, reports that one member of the women’s volleyball team was transgender spurred a months-long conflict in the NCAA last year, prompting a slew of teams to forfeit their games against the university in protest. And Penn swimmer Lia Thomas’s performance in 2022 led to an explosion of conservative backlash against trans athletes.

    “The previous administration trampled the rights of American women and girls—and ignored the indignities to which they were subjected in bathrooms and locker rooms—to promote a radical transgender ideology,” Craig Trainer, the department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in a statement. “That regime ended on January 20, 2025.”

    The press release also said that the Office for Civil Rights is “actively reviewing athletic participation policies” at other institutions.

    Source link