Tag: Higher

Survey gauges whom college students trust most
Undergraduates’ level of trust in their institution has been positively linked to individual student outcomes, as well as the broader institutional culture and reputation. So trust matters. And a new analysis of data from Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab shows which groups of campus employees students trust the most—and least—to promote an enriching experience.

Asked to rate their level of trust in the people in various roles across campus to ensure that they and other students have a positive college experience, nearly all students have some (43 percent) or a lot (44 percent) of trust in professors. This is consistent across institution size, classification (both two-year and four-year) and sector, though students at private nonprofit institutions are somewhat more likely than their peers at public institutions to say they have the highest level of trust in their professors (51 percent versus 42 percent, respectively).

Methodology

Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May 2024 in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

Other highlights from the full survey and from follow-up student polls on key issues can be found here, while the full main survey data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. In addition to questions about academic life, the main annual survey asked questions on health and wellness, the college experience, and preparation for life after college.

Trust in professors is also relatively consistent across a swath of student characteristics, including gender, household income level and even political affiliation, with 47 percent and 44 percent of Democratic- and Republican-identifying students, respectively, having a lot of trust in them. By race, however, Black students (32 percent) are less likely to say they have a lot of trust in professors than are white (47 percent), Asian American and Pacific Islander (42 percent), and Hispanic students (41 percent).

Academic advisers come next in the list of which groups students trust a lot (36 percent), followed by campus safety and security officers (32 percent). The trust in security is perhaps surprising, giving heightened concerns about overpolicing in the U.S., but some general public opinion polling—including this 2024 study by Gallup—indicates that confidence in policing is up year over year. That’s as confidence in other institutions (including higher education) remains at a low. In a 2022 Student Voice survey, undergraduates were about equally likely to have a lot of trust in campus safety officers.

Toward the bottom of the list of campus groups students trust a lot is financial aid staff (23 percent). This finding may be influenced by the tenor of national conversations about college costs and value, as well as last year’s chaotic Free Application for Federal Student Aid overhaul. Revised national data suggests that the FAFSA mess did not have the negative impact on enrollment that was feared. But another Inside Higher Ed/Generation Lab flash survey in 2024 found that a third of students disapproved of the way their institution communicated with them about the changes, with lower-income students especially likely to say this communication had been poor.

Victoria Nguyen, a teaching fellow at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education and a program coordinator in the Office for Community Conduct at the university, recalls worrying about the financial aid process during her undergraduate years. “The issue is transparency and understanding … Did my scholarship go through? Are they going to reimburse me [for tuition paid]? … It’s not a lack of trust, but since there’s no transparency it feels as though financial aid staff does not have that care,” says Nguyen, who earned her bachelor of science degree in 2023.

At the very bottom of the trust hierarchy are presidents and other executive-level college and university leaders, with just 18 percent of students expressing a lot of trust in this group. It’s been a tough few semesters for college leaders, with presidents, in particular, in the hot seat—including before Congress—over their responses to campus dynamics surrounding the war in Gaza. And those current tensions aside, the presidency appears to be getting harder and harder to hold on to, with average tenures shrinking.

In any case, the newly released Student Voice data shows that students, too, may be losing faith in presidents and other senior leaders. These findings are relatively consistent across institution and student type.

Closing the Presidential Trust Gap

One recent study that sought to identify essential competencies for any modern college president ranked trust-building No. 1 in a list of seven that emerged from focus groups and surveys of presidents themselves: Some 96 percent emphasized that presidents need to behave “in a way that is trustworthy, consistent and accountable.”

Jorge Burmicky, assistant professor of higher education leaders and policy studies at Howard University and co-author of that study, says that while this particular survey item on trust-building was drafted without a specific population in mind, presidents in focus groups emphasized the importance of building trust with students, as well as with faculty members. Participants’ ideas for building trust included bringing campus stakeholders into decision-making processes, minimizing surprises, supporting shared governance and showing consistency by aligning actions with personal and institutional values. Respondents also identified listening to and understanding the needs of various campus groups as a related, critical skill.

Presidents “shared that it was important for them to maintain visibility on campus and that they often took time to visit with students as a way of staying connected to their campus,” Burmicky notes. He also encourages further study on what students—not just presidents—think about core competencies for presidents and means of building trust, including and perhaps especially around communication. Some presidents in his study shared feelings of frustration that students were not reading weekly or monthly presidential newsletters, and he advises that presidents develop trust in a way that works for their campus. Town hall–style gatherings might work in smaller settings, but not others, for instance.

“There is clearly a perception gap between students and presidents on important issues such as trust-building and feeling heard,” he says. “Presidents ought to reach students where they’re at by using outlets that are relevant to their day-to-day lives,” such as social media or athletic events.

Nguyen of Harvard would like to see college presidents showing care by attending more events where they can listen to students’ concerns, such as student organization meetings and workshops, or meetings of task forces that include students. Leaders’ “presence in the room matters so much more than they think,” she says.

Tone and authenticity are additional considerations: Generic messages “do not resonate with most people as they lack empathy, as expressed by our participants,” says Burmicky.

Nguyen adds that campus leaders should assess their communication to ensure they’re not “using tactics from 20 years ago that don’t match our student population anymore.”

Faculty ‘Trust Moves’

Another study published last month shed new light on the concept of student-faculty trust, seeking to better understand how students perceive its value. The study, involving hundreds of engineering students in Sweden, identified showing care and concern as the most important trust-building approach for professors. Teaching skills also mattered.

Co-author Rachel Forsyth, of Lund University, explains that students “seem to want to have confidence that the teacher knows what they are talking about, is able to communicate their ideas and will attempt to build an effective relationship with them.” Student participants indicated that they could learn without trust, “but that the process felt more effective if it were present and that they had more options in terms of supporting that learning and extending their engagement with the materials.”

The question of faculty trust is only gaining urgency with the rise of artificial intelligence–powered teaching tools, she adds.

Peter Felten, executive director of the Center for Engaged Learning, professor of history and assistant provost for teaching and learning at Elon University, notes that prior research in this area has defined trust as both “students’ willingness to take risks based on their judgment that the teacher is committed to student success” (original study here) and as “the perception that the instructor understands the challenges facing students as they progress through the course, accepts students for who they are and cares about the educational welfare of students.”

Felten says that his own research—completed with Forsyth and involving experienced faculty members teaching large science, engineering, technology and math courses—found there are four categories of “trust moves” faculty can make in their teaching:
1. Cognition, or showing knowledge, skill and competence
2. Affect, or showing care and concern for students
3. Identity, or showing sensitivity to how identities influence learning and teaching
4. Values, showing that they are acting on professional or cultural principles
These trust moves, Felton says, include “not only what instructors do and say, but how they design their courses, how they assess students and more.”

What do you do to build trust in your classroom or on your campus? Let us know by sharing your ideas here.
Source link
January 29, 2025
We need new ways to protect academic freedom (opinion)

Katherine Franke, formerly a law professor at Columbia University, is just the latest of many academics who have found themselves in hot water because of something they said outside the classroom. Others have been fired or resigned under pressure for what they posted online or said in other off-campus venues.

In each of those cases, the “offending party” invoked academic freedom or freedom of speech as a defense to pressures brought on them, or procedures initiated against them, by university administrators. The traditional discourse of academic freedom or free speech on campus has focused on threats from inside the academy of the kind that led Franke and others to leave their positions.

Today, threats to academic freedom and free speech are being mounted from the outside by governments or advocacy groups intent on policing colleges and universities and exposing what they see as a suffocating orthodoxy. As Darrell M. West wrote in 2022, “In recent years, we have seen a number of cases where political leaders upset about criticism have challenged professors and sought to intimidate them into silence.”

We have seen this act before, and the record of universities is not pretty.

During the 1940s and 1950s, an anticommunist crusade swept the nation, and universities were prime targets. In that period, “faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning across the country experienced increased scrutiny from college administrators and trustees, as well as Congress and the FBI, for their speech, their academic work, and their political activities.”

And many universities put up no resistance.

Today, some believe, as Nina Jankowicz puts it, that we are entering “an era of real censorship the likes of which the United States has never seen. How will universities respond?”

If academic freedom and freedom of expression are to be meaningful, colleges and universities must not only resist the temptation to punish or purge people whose speech they and others may find offensive; they must provide new protections against external threats, especially when it comes to extramural speech by members of their faculties.

They must become active protectors and allies of faculty who are targeted.

As has long been recognized, academic freedom and free speech are not identical. In 2007, Rachel Levinson, then the AAUP senior counsel, wrote, “It can … be difficult to explain the distinction between ‘academic freedom’ and ‘free speech rights under the First Amendment’—two related but analytically distinct legal concepts.”

Levinson explained, “Academic freedom … addresses rights within the educational contexts of teaching, learning, and research both in and outside the classroom.” Free speech requires that there be no regulation of expression on “all sorts of topics and in all sorts of settings.”

Ten years after Levinson, Stanley Fish made a splash when he argued, “Freedom of speech is not an academic value.” As Fish explained, “Accuracy of speech is an academic value … [because of] the goal of academic inquiry: getting a matter of fact right.” Free speech, in contrast, means “something like a Hyde Park corner or a town-hall meeting where people take turns offering their opinions on pressing social matters.”

But as Keith Whittington observes, the boundaries that Levinson and Fish think can be drawn between academic freedom and free speech are not always recognized, even by organizations like the AAUP. “In its foundational 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure,” Whittington writes, “the AAUP asserted that academic freedom consists of three elements: freedom of research, freedom of teaching, and ‘freedom of extramural utterance and action.’”

In 1940, Whittington explains, “the organization reemphasized its position that ‘when they speak or write as citizens,’ professors ‘should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.’”

Like the AAUP, Whittington opposes “institutional censorship” for extramural speech. That is crucially important.

But in the era in which academics now live and work, is it enough?

We know that academics report a decrease in their sense of academic freedom. A fall 2024 survey by Inside Higher Ed found that 49 percent of professors experienced a decline over the prior year in their sense of academic freedom as it pertains to extramural speech.

To foster academic freedom and free speech on campus or in the world beyond the campus, colleges and universities need to move from merely tolerating the expression of unpopular ideas to a more affirmative stance in which they take responsibility for fostering it. It is not enough to tell faculty that the university will respect academic freedom and free expression if they are afraid to exercise those very rights.

Faculty may be fearful that saying the “wrong” thing will result in being ostracized or shunned. John Stuart Mill, one of the great advocates for free expression, warned about what he called “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.” That tyranny could chill the expression of unpopular ideas.

In 1952, during the McCarthy era, Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter also worried about efforts to intimidate academics that had “an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice.”

Beyond the campus, faculty may rightly fear that if they say things that offend powerful people or government officials, they will be quickly caught up in an online frenzy or will be targeted. If they think their academic institutions will not have their back, they may choose the safety of silence over the risk of saying what they think.

Whittington gets it right when he argues that “Colleges and universities should encourage faculty to bring their expertise to bear on matters of public concern and express their informed judgments to public audiences when doing so might be relevant to ongoing public debates.” The public interest is served when we “design institutions and practices that facilitate the diffusion of that knowledge.”

Those institutions and practices need to be adapted to the political environment in which we live. That is why it is so important that colleges and universities examine their policies and practices and develop new ways of supporting their faculty if extramural speech gets them in trouble. This may mean providing financial resources as well as making public statements in defense of those faculty members.

Colleges and universities should also consider making their legal counsel available to offer advice and representation and using whatever political influence they wield on behalf of a faculty member who is under attack.

Without those things, academics may be “free from” the kind of university action that led Franke to leave Columbia but still not be “free to” use their academic freedom and right of free expression for the benefit of their students, their professions and the society at large.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

Source link

January 29, 2025
Saint Augustine’s U faces ticking clock to fix finances

Approaching a critical vote on its accreditation status next month, Saint Augustine’s University has made controversial moves in recent months to stabilize its shaky financial position, but so far none have paid off, putting the beleaguered institution in a more precarious position.

First, the historically Black university in North Carolina took out a $7 million loan last fall that many critics have described as predatory given its 24 percent interest rate and 2 percent management fee. The university also put real estate up as collateral in case of a loan default.

Then, in November, SAU officials also struck a $70 million deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, a fledgling Florida company, to lease its campus and develop university property for 99 years. The deal would have provided a much-needed financial lifeline for the cash-strapped university that needs to urgently fix its finances before the accreditation review. (The college was previously stripped of accreditation due to university financial and governance issues but appealed.)

But that lifeline is in legal limbo after the North Carolina attorney general declined to sign off on the deal Monday.

The North Carolina attorney general’s office, which reviewed the deal due to state law on the transfer of assets from a nonprofit, announced it would not approve the arrangement with 50 Plus 1 Sports as written due to a lack of “sufficient documentation to support the proposal” and concerns that the payout “is too low to justify transfer of the lease rights” for SAU’s campus, which is appraised at $198 million. The attorney general’s Office also expressed concerns about SAU’s “ability to continue to operate.”

Ongoing Financial Struggles

Saint Augustine’s has faced rising pressures since December 2023 when it fired then-president Christine McPhail, who subsequently lodged a gender-based discrimination complaint against the board. That same week the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges announced it had voted to strip SAU’s accreditation due to board and finance issues.

(SAU lost an appeal to that decision but won a reprieve in court in July before SACSCOC voted again in December to strip accreditation. The accreditor will vote on SAU’s appeal next month.)

Since early 2024—under the guidance of interim president Marcus Burgess—SAU has navigated a series of challenges in a bid to stay afloat. In February, it was hit with a $7.9 million tax lien. That same month, local officials encouraged SAU to explore a merger with nearby Shaw University, another HBCU. Months later, SAU board chair Brian Boulware cast the proposal as an aggressive effort to ramrod a partnership. (Local officials have denied his account.) In May, a group called the Save SAU Coalition sued Boulware and other trustees, alleging malfeasance and self-dealing by the board.

That case was later dismissed due to a lack of standing.

Enrollment has also plummeted, falling from more than 1,100 students in fall 2022 to a head count of around 200 students last fall, according to recent estimates. SAU has also announced major staff reductions.

As its financial pressures added up, Saint Augustine’s borrowed $7 million from Gothic Ventures, an investment firm, and secured a $30 million line of credit. The deal, which came with a 24 percent interest rate and a 2 percent loan management fee, sparked alumni protests in the fall.

Mark DeFusco, a senior consultant with Higher Ed Consolidation Solutions and sector finance expert, told Inside Higher Ed the terms of the Gothic Ventures loan were “crazy” and “irresponsible.” DeFusco agreed with the description of the loan as “predatory.”

SAU officials have defended the agreement, writing that the deal is “crucial for maintaining educational services” and securing the loan contradicted “claims of irresponsibility in financial dealings” leveled by critics. SAU has cast criticism of the deal as a “smear campaign.”

Earlier this month, two local publications, INDY Week and The Assembly, reported that last fall SAU turned down a more favorable loan offer of $19.5 million with a 9 percent interest rate. That offer, from Self-Help Credit Union, stipulated that two board members, including Boulware, resign, and would have included purchasing the existing Gothic Ventures loan. The university balked at the attached conditions.

To DeFusco, the board resignations as part of the loan conditions were a reasonable request.

“There are provisions in leadership for all kinds of lending. And with all due respect, it was a wise provision, because you have a board that’s allowed [financial issues] to go on for several years now. This isn’t something new,” DeFusco said. “They haven’t broken even for at least five years from what I could see in their records, and their accrediting body was going to close them down, except for that arbitration. And now they’re about to close them down again.”

Continued financial struggles ultimately led SAU to a deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, which describes itself on its website as a financing and development firm. That agreement, according to a university statement, would “generate a $70 million upfront investment” from the company.

But the North Carolina attorney general’s office shut down that proposed deal.

Beyond the lack of documentation on the proposal and the low payout, Assistant Attorney General Kunal Choksi also raised questions about the university’s due diligence of the deal.

“SAU’s board and trustees were obligated to perform due diligence on whether 50+ can meet its obligations under the transaction and has the experience to develop revenue-generating property on the leased land,” Choksi wrote in a letter shared with Inside Higher Ed.

Choksi added that the attorney general’s office had requested “sufficient proof that 50+ has the financial ability to comply with its obligations to SAU and avoid default with its financiers” and “details about similar deals 50+ has developed, including deals with other universities, or the company’s audited financial statements.” Choksi indicated in his letter that SAU had not yet provided those details on the proposal.

In a Tuesday statement, SAU officials said little about the concerns raised by the attorney general about the 50 Plus 1 Sports deal or its ability to operate. Instead, university officials took aim at Self-Help Credit Union.

SAU noted concerns “about the process that led to the recent rejection” of the agreement. Specifically, they pointed to a meeting between Marin Eakes of Self-Help Credit Union and alleged that the attorney general’s letter reflected comments made by Eakes in unspecified media coverage and alleged the 50 Plus 1 Sports proposal was shared without SAU’s consent.

SAU officials wrote in the statement that they “suspect that the Attorney General’s Office used Mr. Eakes’ counsel and input to subsequently influence their decision. Such interference by Self-Help raises significant concerns about fairness. It suggests their attempt to weaponize the NC Attorney General’s Office to obstruct the approval process for the 50 Plus 1 Sports deal.”

An Unknown Partner

With the North Carolina attorney general’s office shutting down the 50 Plus 1 deal, SAU has little time to fix its finances ahead of a looming vote on its accreditation status in late February.

And questions about both the deal and the company linger.

Information on 50 Plus 1 Sports is sparse and it is unclear, as noted by the attorney general’s office, whether the nascent company has the resources to back the deal. Little is known about 50 Plus 1 Sports, which unsuccessfully big on a $800 million stadium development deal in St. Petersburg, Fla., in early 2023. The firm was not selected for the project amid questions from local officials about how it would finance the deal and a lack of experience as a lead developer.

In its St. Petersburg proposal, 50 Plus Sports listed a $1.4 billion deal to develop a sports and entertainment district for the University of New Orleans among its reference projects. However, a UNO spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed by email it is not “moving forward with the project.”

Monti Valrie, founder and CEO of 50 Plus 1 Sports, did not respond to a request for comment.

What’s Next for SAU?

The attorney general’s office did leave the door open to reconsider the deal. But the university would have to provide more details to the office, including evidence that SAU conducted due diligence on 50 Plus 1 Sports and its finances.

SAU officials noted in their statement that “despite these challenges, SAU remains committed to working collaboratively with the Attorney General’s Office. We believe transparency and open dialogue are essential in securing the funding for our university’s sustainability and growth.”

But SAU is facing a ticking clock to get that information to the attorney general or rework the deal. University officials have said that the deal needed to close by Jan. 31. Otherwise, “SAU risks failing to demonstrate financial sustainability” before its appeal hearing next month, according to a university statement.

But DeFusco wonders if SAU’s finances are too far gone to fix.

“Their finances are so bad they may be criminal,” he said, pointing to payroll and tax issues. (The university also allegedly failed to maintain worker’s compensation for employees recently.)

As pressure mounts, DeFusco believes the board needs more scrutiny for SAU’s financial problems, arguing “they missed it for years” as the university slipped deeper into the red.

“Now the question is, is the board acting as a fiduciary?” DeFusco said.

Source link

January 29, 2025
Trump’s federal funding freeze concerns colleges

President Trump’s plan to temporarily freeze federal grants and loans set off a wave of confusion and concerns across higher ed Tuesday. But just minutes before it was set to take effect, a federal judge blocked the order.

It is now on hold until next Monday, at least.

College leaders worried they would lose access to a wide variety of federal funds, though the specific programs affected by the pause remained in flux throughout the day. Education Department officials said Pell Grants, student loans and Federal Work-Study would not be subject to the pause. But critical STEM research and student success initiatives were among the thousands of programs whose funding would have been paused until at least Feb. 10, according to the original White House directive released late Monday night.

University lobbyists and administrators predicted earlier Tuesday that the president’s unprecedented action would be blocked in the courts, but they warned of significant consequences as they worked to gather more information about the order. Comparable to a government shutdown, they said, the impact of a freeze, if it ever comes to pass, would largely depend on how long it lasts.

“Obviously it’s of great concern,” said Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday morning. “Most of us are finding the memo to be so broad and so incomprehensible that we don’t even quite know what the long-term impact is … But it makes no sense. Rather than helping ‘make America great again,’ it absolutely debilitates America.”

Conservative policy experts say Trump’s actions are necessary to combat years of misguided spending and argue that institutions shouldn’t run budgets so razor-thin that a short-term loss of federal funds empties their coffers. But McGuire and other higher ed representatives say the proposed freeze along with other executive actions raises questions about whether they can count on stable federal funding in the long run.

Universities have already seen some disruptions to research funding since Trump took office eight days ago, as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation canceled meetings to review grant applications last week. Before the federal court released its ruling, the proposed extension of that freeze had only further fueled academics’ initial concerns.

The White House Office of Management and Budget had directed all federal agencies to pause any grants and loans they supervised in order to ensure that federal spending aligns with the president’s priorities, such as cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and illegal immigration. OMB specifically said it is aiming to cease any funding to activities that “may be implicated by the executive orders, including but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” according to the memo.

The two-page directive specifically exempted Social Security, Medicare and other programs that provide direct financial assistance to individuals. But colleges and universities would still lose access to grants that are targeted at minority-serving institutions, college preparation programs, childcare for student parents, food banks, student retention and graduation initiatives, campus hospital systems, and more. Over all, more than 2,600 grant programs are up for consideration across dozens of agencies, Bloomberg reported.

A follow-up memo was published Tuesday in an attempt to help clarify the president’s orders, but higher ed stakeholders said much uncertainty remains.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said early Tuesday afternoon that the freeze would not be “a blanket pause on federal assistance and grant programs,” and she repeatedly said that direct federal assistance to individuals wouldn’t be affected. But she didn’t have a clear answer about what would happen to federal money that goes to states, organizations or colleges that support individuals. She also pushed back on questions about the legality of the pause and said the move was aimed at ensuring that federal spending aligns with the president’s priorities.

“No more funding for illegal DEI programs,” she said. “No more funding for transgenderism and wokeness.”

Leavitt was asked about funding for minority-serving institutions and said she hadn’t “seen the entire list” of programs either affected or exempted from the pause.

Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said concerns remain despite the legal injunction.

In the initial memo, OMB instructed agencies to conduct a comprehensive review by Feb. 7 of federal programs to ensure they comply with Trump’s executive orders. White House officials offered more guidance Tuesday about what that would entail. Agencies will have to answer a series of questions for each program listed on the 52-page document by Feb. 7. Those questions include whether the programs fund DEI or support “illegal aliens,” the promotion of “gender ideology” or “activities overseas.”

It’s just going to cause a lot of chaos when it comes to planning. It is definitely a developing story.”

—Sarah Spreitzer, American Council on Education

It’s unclear whether the judge’s order affects the broader review.

To Spreitzer and others, that broader review could threaten more federal programs, as those considered unaligned with the president’s agenda could be altered or cut back entirely.

“If there’s an injunction within a week and everything can start up again, I think that the impact is minimal,” Spreitzer said. But “there’s so much in that [memo] about the examination of all grants going forward … that go beyond just the pause that I think I’d have to see the further implementation instructions to understand the complete impact on the scientific and education enterprise.”

‘Unnecessary and Damaging’

Higher ed officials and student advocacy groups warned throughout the day that the pause, in addition to a recent flurry of executive orders, would cause unnecessary disruption to the primary goals and functions of American colleges and universities and could jeopardize crucial scientific research. The National Association of College and University Business Officers said in a statement that the pause could cause “unnecessary disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of students and families at colleges and universities across the country.”

“The overall impact to programs … could be both significant and chaotic,” NACUBO president Kara D. Freeman said. “College and university chief business officers will be front and center with their presidents, boards, and executive leadership in developing plans to mitigate immediate exposure and impacts. We urge the Trump administration to reconsider and rescind this misguided policy.”

Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, called the memo’s orders “unnecessary and damaging.”

“While we understand the Trump administration wants to review programs to ensure consistency with its priorities, it is imperative that the reviews not interfere with American innovation and competitiveness,” Becker said. “It will have far-reaching impacts in every corner of the country and hamper American innovation at a moment when it’s being fiercely challenged on a global stage.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement that she hopes Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill will see how the pause could hurt American citizens and address the gap by resuming grant distribution.

“Federal programs need to be more efficient, but no one voted for a president to halt their services—services that were appropriated, authorized and extended by Congress,” she said in a statement. “Americans need a federal government that works for them, not against them.”

Democratic lawmakers have also raised the red flag, responding with outrage and “extreme alarm,” warning that the pause would undermine Congress’s authority and have “devastating consequences across the country.”

Reactions from professors and student advocacy groups were swift late Monday and early Tuesday.

“I don’t see how any Democrat can get away with voting to confirm Linda McMahon after this memo. The entire hearing should be focused on how the U.S. government is tearing apart everyday life for regular people,” Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, wrote on X.

Jody Freedman, a professor at Harvard Law School, took to BlueSky. “What is going on here?” she wrote. “I think what’s going on here is that Russell Vought (perhaps others in the administration too, but certainly him) … are testing the Republicans in Congress on this issue to see if they spring to life.”

“It’s like Hey, the door’s open, no one’s home, let’s rob the place. And by rob I mean, let’s take all the power Congress thinks it has over the appropriations,” she added.

‘Extremely Widespread’ Abuse

Congressional Republicans have said little in response to the pause, and conservative policy experts say the freeze is a necessary step to address years of “illegal spending” by Democrats to advance their political motives.

Inside Higher Ed reached out to both Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy and Representative Tim Walberg, chairs of the congressional committees that handle education policy, but neither responded with comment.

Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, said that the Trump administration’s actions—though “aggressive”—are justified decisions aimed to restore the rule of law and ensure that government money “isn’t being set on fire at every turn.”

“What you’re seeing overall across the administration is an attempt to get a handle on the waste and the abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Brickman said.

He went on to say that though it would be ideal to only freeze certain programs and limit the consequences of stalled grants, breadth was a necessity in this scenario.

“We saw during the Biden administration, brazen attempts again and again to ignore the law” when utilizing federal funds, Brickman said. “Why let good money continue to go out the door when we know for the last four years that so much of it has been wasted … I wish it were narrow and targeted, but unfortunately, the abuse is extremely widespread.”

And if colleges don’t have a contingency plan in place for any kind of budgetary disruption, “that’s malpractice on their part,” he added.

‘Plan for the Worst’

McGuire, from Trinity, said the pause would likely affect grants for predominantly Black institutions, which her university uses to provide student advising, new lab materials and certification programs in high-demand areas of the workforce.

Trinity has already received its $250,000 in such grants for the current academic year, so no programs will have to shut down immediately if the freeze is reinstated, she said. But she worries about the reliability of federal funds moving forward. She explained that uncertainty about grants could mean cuts and amendments to the budget for fiscal year 2026.

“We hope for the best but plan for the worst,” she said. “We’re going into budget season right now, so we will probably have to plan alternative support for the programs funded through the PBI [grants].”

Spreitzer, from ACE, echoed the future impact but also noted that certain colleges could pay the price more immediately. Many large research universities require billions of dollars in federal grants to keep their labs and hospitals running every day, she said, and there’s variation in when grant funds are dispersed, so many may have yet to receive the dollars needed to keep the lights on.

“It’s going to depend on whether institutions have existing grants and whether they’re waiting for disbursements. It’s just going to cause a lot of chaos when it comes to planning,” she said. “It is definitely a developing story.”

Source link

January 28, 2025
Trump Administration Threatens to Cut Off Grants to Higher Ed

More information at the College Investor.

Source link

January 28, 2025
The King’s College aims to reopen

When the King’s College in New York shut down in summer 2023, its leadership said the cancellation of fall classes and termination of faculty and staff did not mean permanent closure. Now its Board of Trustees is seeking to revive the evangelical institution, according to a report from Religion Unplugged.

The news outlet obtained a document that detailed a plan “to gift the college, including its charter and intellectual property … to likeminded evangelical Christians who propose the most compelling vision to resume the operations of the college.” The document—reportedly a request for proposals—listed a deadline of Feb. 7 for potential partners.

TKC officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

The King’s College shut down in July 2023 amid severe financial pressures and a failed $2.6 million fundraising effort earlier that year that officials said was necessary to meet immediate needs. However, the emergency fundraising effort only brought in $178,000 by its initial deadline.

The college, which enrolled a few hundred students a year, had faced declining enrollment in its final years and the loss of generous donors who had long buoyed TKC. Richard DeVos—the co-founder of Amway and father-in-law of former education secretary Betsy DeVos—donated millions of dollars to the college before his death in 2018. Another major donor, Bill Hwang, also contributed several million before he was arrested in 2022 on fraud charges.

Facing financial pressures in 2021, the college put its faith in another wealthy entrepreneur, striking a deal with Canadian investment company Primacorp Ventures, owned by Peter Chung, a for-profit education mogul who had also loaned the college $2 million in early 2023. Acting as an online program manager, Primacorp Ventures promised to enroll 10,000 students over three years, sources previously told Inside Higher Ed. The catch, according to one source, was that Primacorp would collect 95 percent of the revenue generated from online enrollment, a deal that struck experts as predatory. The online program—which cost TKC at least $470,00 to launch, according to tax documents—delivered around 150 students its first year and soon folded.

The college had previously tried and failed to find a partner to keep it open in 2023. If it finds one this time, the board will submit a “go-forward plan” to the New York State Education Department by mid-July, according to the RFP obtained by Religion Unplugged.

The King’s College will face a series of obstacles in its reopening effort, including accreditation. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education stripped TKC’s accreditation in May 2023, noting a failure “to demonstrate that it can sustain itself in the short or long term.”

If the King’s College manages to reopen, it would be history repeating itself. Founded in New Jersey in 1941, TKC closed in 1994, only to be revived in 1997 and re-established in New York City.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Three questions for JHU’s Ira Gooding

Ira Gooding is well-known and highly respected within our digital and online learning community. At Johns Hopkins University, Ira serves in the provost’s office as a special adviser for digital initiatives, and he is the assistant director for open education at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Q: Tell us about your roles at the provost’s office and the Bloomberg School. What does your work at Hopkins entail and how do your leadership positions interact?

A: My work in the provost’s office is focused on three goals: fostering teaching innovation through digital technology, facilitating collaboration and connection across divisional lines, and managing our engagement with Coursera.

A major project that incorporates all three goals is our Digital Education and Learning Technology Acceleration (DELTA) initiative. Each year, we use a portion of our Coursera royalty revenue to award internal grants of up to $75,000 to develop, implement and evaluate an innovative application of technology intended to enhance teaching and learning. To date, we’ve awarded more than $2.6 million to 41 different project teams focused on a wide array of innovative approaches, including VR/AR, generative AI, learning at scale, faculty development programming and clinical simulation, among others.

We also hold an annual Provost’s DELTA Teaching Forum that brings together faculty and teaching and learning staff from across Johns Hopkins to provoke conversation, spark new thinking and advance the ongoing pursuit of teaching excellence. The next forum will be held on May 1.

In the Bloomberg School of Public Health, I lead a small team within the Center for Teaching and Learning. We focus our attention on developing open learning experiences and open educational resources for independent learners and public health educators beyond the boundaries of our master’s and doctoral programs. We’ve supported the development of more than 80 MOOC courses, specializations and teach-outs, and we’re in the process of developing a new OER repository for JHU.

The repository project is a good example of the interaction between my two roles. The Bloomberg School’s Center for Teaching and Learning is developing the platform, but it will serve as a repository for OER from across the entire university, and publishing authority will be distributed in order to reduce bottlenecks.

Q: Looking forward to 2025, what challenges, trends and opportunities related to online and digital learning are at the top of your mind?

A: I hope it’s OK that my answers go beyond 2025.

I’m curious to see how higher education will be affected in the years ahead by the arrival of students whose early primary school years were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the switch to emergency remote teaching. The oldest members of that cohort are hitting high school this year, and it won’t be long before they arrive (or not) on our campuses. What expectations will they have for digital learning? Will they value in-person experiences differently from today’s students? What learning habits will they bring with them? So, I see an opportunity to start designing that cohort’s learning experiences now. How might we prepare ourselves to offer them a higher education experience that meets their needs and helps them thrive?

Also, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about David Wiley’s recent argument about generative AI’s impact on open educational resources. In September, he gave a talk titled “Why Open Education Will Become Generative AI” for the University of Regina. In it, he argues pretty persuasively that generative AI has the potential to become a more effective tool than OER for increasing educational access due to its profound impact on the process of authoring, revising and remixing instructional materials.

That’s a provocative position, and I don’t know whether things will play out as he predicts. Regardless, I’m curious to see the interplay of generative AI and OER in the years ahead.

Q: What advice would you give an early or midcareer colleague interested in working toward a digital/online learning leadership role?

A: I’d encourage them to look for opportunities to reduce institutional friction and to develop a reputation for clearing paths instead of erecting obstacles. A certain amount of friction is necessary for managing risk and encouraging high-quality work, but a lot of friction in higher ed comes from simple inertia.

People who aspire to lead can make a lot of progress by understanding the constraints that hinder innovation and then actively working to mitigate them on behalf of the innovators within their institutions.

Of course, people run the risk of becoming gatekeepers as they advance into leadership positions, so it’s important to question one’s own assumptions and the value of yesterday’s solutions and to look for new solutions instead of continuing to rely on the old ones.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Skipping remedial courses impacts students’ completion

Developmental education has come under scrutiny for delaying students’ academic attainment and overall degree progression. While the purpose of remedial courses is to prepare learners to succeed in more difficult courses, it can produce the opposite effect, discouraging learners from pursuing more advanced courses or pushing them to drop out.

A December report from the Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness (CAPR)—a partnership of MDRC and the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College—identified the benefits of placing students into college-level math and English classes and how it can impact their credit attainment and completion.

“This research finds evidence that colleges should consider increasing the total number of students referred directly to college-level courses, whether by lowering their requirements for direct placement into college-level courses or by implementing other policies with the same effect,” according to the report.

Methodology: Around three-quarters of colleges use multiple measures assessment (MMA) systems to place learners in remedial education, relying on standardized tests and high school GPA, among other factors, according to the CAPR report.

This study evaluates data from 12 community colleges across Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin and 29,999 students to see how effective MMA systems are compared to traditional test-only placement methods on dictating students’ long-term success.

Incoming students who took a placement test were randomly assigned to one of two groups: test-only referral or MMA placement. Researchers collected data on how students would have been placed under both systems to analyze different outcomes and gauge long-term outcomes.

The findings: For most students, there was no material difference in their placement; 81 percent of the math sample and 68 percent of the English sample referred students to the same level of coursework, which researchers classified as “always college level” or “always developmental.”

Around 44 percent of students from the New York sample were “bumped up” into a college-level English course, and 16 percent were bumped up into a college-level math class due to being assigned to the MMA group, whereas the test-only system would have sorted them into developmental education. Seven percent of learners were “bumped down” into developmental ed for English.

In Wisconsin, 15 percent of students in the MMA group were bumped up in English, and 14 percent were bumped up in math placement.

Students who were assigned to the MMA group and were placed into a higher-level course were more likely to have completed a college-level math or English course, compared to their peers in the test-only placement group with similar GPAs and scores.

This bump-up group, across samples, was eight percentage points more likely to pass a college-level course and earned 2.0 credits more on average. These learners were also more likely to earn a degree or transfer to a four-year institution within nine semesters by 1.5 percentage points.

Inversely, students who were recommended by MMA placement to take developmental ed, but not according to the test-only system, were less likely to succeed.

So what? The evidence shows that referring more students into college-level courses is a better predictor of success than the placement system.

Implementing an MMA is a small cost to the institution, around $60 per student, but it can result in students saving money because they take fewer developmental courses over all, and maybe earn more credits entirely.

“Overall, this report concludes that MMA, when it allows more students to be directly placed in college-level coursework, is a cost-effective way to increase student educational achievement,” researchers wrote.

If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Thoughts on 20 years of college teaching (opinion)

I have now been teaching at Duke University for 20 years. I have been through all kinds of teaching fads—active learning, team-based learning, alternative grading, service learning, etc. You might assume that I have become a better teacher over these many years. Yet I am noticing a curious trend in my course evaluations: Some of my students like me and my courses less and less.

As a teaching faculty member, this matters greatly to my own career trajectory, and so I’ve wondered and worried about what to do. Why am I struggling to teach well and why are my students struggling to learn?

Looking back on the past two decades of my teaching and reaching further back into my own college experience, I see six clear differences between now and then.

Difference No. 1: Access to Information

When I took my first college environmental science class, way back in 1992, I was mesmerized. This was before the days of Advanced Placement Environmental Science, so I came into the class knowing almost nothing about the topic, motivated by my naïve idea to be part of “saving the world.” To learn, I had a textbook (that I still have, all highlighted and marked up) and the lectures (for which I still have my notes). Sure, I could go to the library and find books and articles to learn more, but mostly I stuck to my textbook and my notes. I showed up to the lecture-based class to learn, to listen, to ask questions.

Today, my students show up in my course often having taken AP Environmental Science, with access to unlimited information about the course topics, and with AI assistants that will help them organize their notes, write their essays and prepare for exams. I have had to shift from expert to curator, spending hours sifting through online articles, podcasts (SO many podcasts) and videos, instead of relying on a single textbook. I look for content that will engage students, knowing that some may also spend their class period fact-checking my lectures, which brings me to …

Difference No. 2: Attention

When I lecture, I look out to a sea of stickered laptops, with students shifting their attention between me, my slides and their screens. I remind them that I can tell when they are watching TikTok or texting, because the class material probably isn’t causing their amused facial expressions.

Honestly, I am finding myself more distracted, too. While lecturing I am not only thinking about the lecture material and what’s on the next slide—I am also wondering how I can get my students’ attention. I often default to telling a personal anecdote, but even as they briefly look up to laugh, they just as quickly return their eyes to their screens.

The obvious advice would be to have more engaging activities than lecturing but …

Difference No. 3: More Lectures, Please

After 2020, one comment showed up over and over on my course evaluations: lecture more. My students seemed not to see the value of small-group activities, gallery walks, interactive data exercises and discussions. They felt that they were not learning as much, and some of them assumed that meant that I didn’t know as much, which leads me to …

Difference No. 4: Sense of Entitlement

While I teach at a private elite university, my colleagues across a range of institutions have backed this up: Some students seem to not have much respect for faculty. The most common way this shows up is at the end of the semester, when students send me emails about why my course policies resulted in a grade they think is unfair, or after an exam, when they argue that I did not grade them fairly, which leads me to …

Difference No. 5: Assessment Confusion

When I was in college, I took midterms and finals. I rewrote my notes, made flash cards, created potential exam questions, asked friends for old exams and studied a lot. I took multiple-choice exams and essay exams, in-class exams and take-home exams. When I first started teaching my lecture-based class, I assigned two midterms and a final. I took the business of writing exams seriously, often using short-answer and essay exams that took a whole lot of time to grade. I wanted the experience of taking the exam to help students feel like they had learned something, and the experience of studying to actually entice them to learn.

Then, two things happened. We faculty got all excited about alternative assessments, trying to make our classes more inclusive for more learning styles. And the students started rebelling about their exam grades, nitpicking our grading for a point here and there, angry that, as one student put it, I was “ruthless” in my grading. Students didn’t show up at my office hours eager to understand the concepts—they wanted more points.

So, I threw out exams in favor of shorter papers, discussions and activities. In fall 2024, I had 74 students and I gave a whopping 67 of them A’s. To do well in my class now, you don’t really have to learn anything. You just need to show up. Except the problem with grading for attendance is …

Difference No. 6: Our Students Are Struggling

We all know that our students are struggling with more mental and emotional health issues, perhaps due to COVID-related learning loss, the state of the world and so many other things. Many of us include mental health resources in our syllabus, but we know that’s not enough. Students are much more open about their struggles with us, but we aren’t trained therapists and often don’t know the right thing to say. Who am I to determine whether or not one student’s excuse for missing a class is valid while another’s is not? How can I keep extending the deadlines for a struggling student while keeping the deadline firm for the rest? Sure, there are suggestions for this (e.g., offer everyone a “late assignment” ticket to use), but I still spend a lot of time sifting through student email requests for extensions and understanding. How can we be fair to all of our students while maintaining the rhythm of course expectations?

Usually, one acknowledges the differences between students now and “back then” at retirement, reflecting on the long arc of a teaching career. But I am not at the end—I have a long way to go (hopefully). I am expected to be good at this in order to get reappointed to my teaching faculty position.

Teaching requires much more agility now as we attempt to adapt to the ever-expanding information sphere, our students’ needs, and the state of the community and world beyond our classrooms. Instead of jumping to solutions (more active learning!), I think it’s reasonable to step back and acknowledge that there is no one change we need to make to be more effective educators in 2025. We also can acknowledge that some of the strategies we are using to make our classes more engaging and inclusive might backfire, and that there still is a time and place for really good, engaging lectures and really hard, useful exams.

There are fads in teaching, and over the past 20 years, I have seen and tried plenty of them. We prize teaching innovation, highlighting new techniques as smashing successes. But sometimes we learn that our best-laid plans don’t work out, that what students really want is to hear from an expert, someone who can help them sort through the overwhelming crush of information to find a narrative that is relevant and meaningful.

The students in our classrooms are not the same students we were, but maybe there is still a way to spark their enthusiasm for our subjects by simply asking them to be present. As debates about the value of higher education swirl around us, maybe caring about our students and their learning means asking them to put away their screens, take out a notebook and be present for our lectures, discussions and occasional gallery walk. For my part, I’m reminding myself that some students aren’t all that different than I was—curious, excited, eager to learn—and that I owe it to them to keep showing up committed to their learning and, maybe, prepared with a few more light-on-text lecture slides.

Rebecca Vidra is a senior lecturer at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Essays in the Transformation of Higher Education (Dan Morris and Harry Targ)

From Upton Sinclair’s ‘Goose Step’ to the Neoliberal University (lulu.com)

Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter One: Macro and Micro Analyses of Higher Education
Chapter Two: Discourses On Ideology
Chapter Three: Branding
Chapter Four: What Do Universities Do?
Chapter Five: Universities and War:
Conclusion
Appendix

Introduction

In the following pages, you are going to find a lot of specific information about what is happening at one major public research university, but we believe what is happening at Purdue is analogous to a canary in a coal mine. We believe that Purdue under Mitch Daniels, a former George Walker Bush administrator and Governor of Indiana, is becoming a high profile and influential spokesperson for the transformation of public higher education in the 21st century in directions that we find dangerous and that go against how we value higher education. We realize that, while we address extensively institutional changes and policies at Purdue, Indiana’s Land Grant University, our interest is in using this case study to illustrate larger patterns and issues that should be of concern to readers who care about the future of higher education in a broader sense.

Harry Targ’s pieces do tend towards a wider-angle perspective than do those by Dan Morris, although both of us rely on our “boots on the ground” level understanding of Purdue to counteract and contest official media versions of what is happening at Purdue. We write at a moment when there is something of a “media desert” in terms of local news coverage of higher education in small markets such as Lafayette, Indiana. We have both tried to work to rectify the “media desert” landscape in our community by contributing to the Lafayette Independent, an electronic newsletter. We appreciate efforts by local journalists such as Dave Bangert and the student staff of the Purdue Exponent to offer coverage of the university in ways that are more substantial, and, often, more critical, than what one finds in the area’s only mainstream newspaper, the Journal and Courier, and main local TV news source, and the Purdue NPR radio station, whose ownership in the last year has been mysteriously transferred to an Indianapolis corporation. Paradoxically the richest data for many of the essays below come from the official daily public relations newsletter from Purdue called Purdue Today. This public relations source celebrates Purdue’s latest connections with multinational corporations, the military, and state politics, and provides links to editorials published by Purdue’s President and other officials in the national press. Ironically, oftentimes what Purdue celebrates becomes the data for our more analytical and discursive writings.

Like alternative media sources, we see this book as another intervention in offering an alternative view of what is happening at our campus, but we also write with the hope that readers can apply the readings we bring to Purdue to begin conversations about the promise and problems of contemporary higher education on campuses. The authors wish to praise and encourage further research and activism around the transformations of higher education in general. We identify with what some scholars have referred to as Critical University Studies (CUS). The essays below, we believe, are part of this emerging tradition of critical and self-reflective scholarship.

The authors also wish to identify at least three major elements of the transformation of higher education. First, Purdue, like many other universities, is once again pursuing research contracts with huge corporations, and perhaps most importantly, the Department of Defense. As essays below suggest, Purdue research is increasingly justified as serving the interests of United States “national security.” Often this is conceptualized as helping the United States respond to “the Chinese threat,” rarely identifying what exactly is the threat, or considering the possibility that contributing to a new arms race with a perceived adversary may increase, rather than reduce, the possibility for conflict between nations.

Second, the work below and other writings in CUS, highlight the purposive transformation of the content of higher education. Universities are moving resources away from the liberal arts, creating new programs in “artificial intelligence” and “data science,” and in response to political pressures are diminishing programs that emphasize interdisciplinarity, intersectionality, and the structural problems of race, class, gender, and sexual preference in history and contemporary society. Essays below on “civics literacy” suggest that leading administrators at Purdue, while refusing to defend its universally praised Writing Lab after it was ridiculed on Fox News for its recommendation that student writers select gender-neutral terms such as postal worker when writing about occupations, seek to avoid the controversaries around Critical Race Theory by requiring all students to study in some fashion “civics literacy.” President Daniels has made it clear that the study of civics literacy will illustrate the “vitality” of US political institutions (as opposed to over-emphasizing the slaughter of the original inhabitants of the North American continent or the history of slavery and white supremacy).

Third, the essays below do not dwell enough on the transformation of the university as a workplace. While there have been attacks for years on the tenure system, a system of job security which was initially designed to protect faculty from external political pressures, recent additions to the transformations of the university as a work site should be noted.

Adjunctification is a term that refers to the qualitative increase in the hiring of various forms of part time instructors: full-time instructors for a set time period, instructors to teach less than a full complement of courses, and instructors with various arrangements that limit their work life, their ability to do research and prepare for their class time, and their time to serve the many needs of students. The fundamental trend in higher education is to “cheapen” and make insecure instructors, ultimately to destroy the job security that comes with academic tenure. In many cases this impacts negatively on the quality of the educational experience. (In colleges and universities in general about 70 percent of classes now are taught by instructors who are not tenure-line faculty).

And finally, every effort is made by universities to limit and derail the workplace concerns of non-teaching staff, particularly opposing their right to form unions.

One positive development from all of this-destroying the tenure system and job security, adjunctification, increased exploitation of graduate students, and finally restricting the rights and the wages and benefits of staff has been the rise of labor militancy. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and various unions such as the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the United Electrical Workers (UE) with a history of militancy have been organizing graduate students and staff.

Finally, the authors acknowledge that in the months after we completed our manuscript, Purdue administrators and trustees have announced a series of initiatives without an appropriate level of input from university stakeholders and the wider Lafayette area community:

1. Purdue is building a housing complex near the Discovery Park part of campus to attract higher income earning technologists to relocate in West Lafayette. To encourage new high-income residents, the West Lafayette city government has authorized $5,000 cash incentives for any purchasers of these new housing units adjacent to Purdue. Such offers are not available to lower income earners or students.

2. To deal with record enrollments, Purdue has purchased a privately constructed apartment complex across from campus at a price well more than the cost of its construction.

3. Purdue officials have expanded partnerships with Saab, Rolls Royce, the Raytheon Corporation, one of the world’s five largest military contractors, and undertaken a controversial business mission with the Indiana governor to Taiwan to pursue research and production of semi-conductors, in part to respond to what Purdue officials have described as a ”Chinese threat” to national security in the United States.

4.The College of Liberal Arts has announced it will be partnering with the College of Science to develop a new interdisciplinary degree program in artificial intelligence. CLA calls its “new field” of interest, “sociogenomics.”

5. Purdue received an award recognizing its “excellence in counterintelligence,” one of only four such award recipients in 2022. Purdue joins those few universities which protect “sensitive national information from foreign adversaries.” The award announced in Purdue Today, August 24, 2022, noted that the university continues to work with the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and the FBI.

In short, the transformation of Indiana’s Land Grant university continues at a rapid pace. And while the essays below concentrate on the developments and forces leading to these changes, the broader point of this collection of essays is to suggest that higher education in the twenty-first century is changing in a rapid and largely deleterious way. The appended essay by Carl Davidson reflects a similar critique of the university during the height of the Cold War. What we are witnessing today is a revitalization of that trend.

For those who value the university as a site for informing students about the world and debating the value of changes occurring in it, the developments highlighted in these essays are a warning. And for faculty and students alike the antidote to the militarization of the university, the transformation of the curricula, and the disempowering of those who work in universities is organizing against those elements of change that are antithetical to the educational process.

And More:

“The Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue has created a category of its own. As part of the nation’s leading national security university, it is rapidly becoming the world’s premier institution focused on Tech Statecraft, a new model of diplomacy bridging the gap between technology experts, government officials and policymakers, and business leaders to ensure tomorrow’s tech secures our freedoms,” said (Daniel) Kurtenbach. ‘I’m excited to contribute to the Krach Institute’s already-impressive momentum by enhancing and building its innovative partnerships and relationships to achieve our shared vision of a future that prizes individual freedom through trusted technology.’ ”

https://www.citybiz.co/article/378157/krach-institute-for-tech-diplomacy-at-purdue-names-daniel-kurtenbach-as-chief-growth-officer/

Homepage – Tech Statecraft (techdiplomacy.org)

Source link

January 27, 2025