Tag: Higher

VMI board rejects extension for superintendent

Virginia Military Institute’s Board of Visitors voted 10 to 6 on Friday against a contract extension for Major General Cedric Wins, a VMI graduate and the first Black leader in the college’s history.

All 10 votes against the extension came from members appointed by Republican governor Glenn Youngkin, though four Youngkin appointees voted to renew the contract, joining two holdovers named to the board by Democratic governors, The Richmond-Times Dispatch reported.

Wins’s contract expires June 30.

The vote will end a contentious tenure for Wins, who joined VMI in 2021. He replaced General J. H. Binford Peay III, who led the college from 2003 to 2020, when he stepped down after an investigation determined systemic racism and sexism went unchecked under his watch.

(Peay was awarded VMI’s highest honor in 2022 despite those findings.)

Wins’s tenure at VMI, where he was tasked with righting the ship amid the fallout from the investigation, has been marked by controversy. He has faced off with alumni, whom he accused of spreading mistruths about VMI’s curricular offerings; clashed with student journalists over alumni involvement in the campus newspaper; and faced accusations that he went too far with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at VMI, which didn’t accept Black students until 1968 and women until 1997.

Alumni have called for his firing and complained about his bonuses in recent years.

Source link

March 3, 2025
Income-driven repayment applications on hold for three months

Student loan borrowers won’t be able to apply for income-driven repayment plans for at least three months, The Washington Post reported.

The Post obtained a memo sent last week from the Department of Education to student loan servicers directing them to stop processing all income-driven repayment and consolidation applications until at least May. The memo offers more clarity on how the department plans to proceed after a federal appeals court blocked the department from implementing a new income-driven repayment option for borrowers put in place by the Biden administration. That injunction also implicated parts of other income-driven repayment plans.

Up until this point, all that student aid experts knew was that the department had disabled new online applications. Now, they know that all existing applications have also been included in the freeze.

The application freeze is a problem for some borrowers who rely on income-driven repayment plans for more affordable payments and to avoid default. Under the plans, borrowers’ monthly payments are based on their disposable income and other factors, and after 20 to 25 years of payment, the remaining balance would be forgiven. But now, millions of borrowers no longer have access to IDR and are left with only the most expensive loan repayment options.

Scott Buchanan, executive director of the Student Loan Servicing Alliance, a trade group for loan servicers, told the Post that “there is a lot to clean up.”

“We will be working for [the Office of Federal Student Aid] to implement that transition once courts clear things up and bring some finality so borrowers can have certainty and confidence in their options now and in the future,” Buchanan said.

The Education Department has said the pause is necessary under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruling, but paper applications for loan consolidation will be allowed.

“A federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Education from implementing the SAVE Plan and parts of other income-driven repayment (IDR) plans,” a department spokesperson said. So “The department is reviewing repayment applications to conform with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling.”

But legal experts on federal loans have told Inside Higher Ed taking down the applications entirely is not necessary. As the department noted in its statement, the injunction only declares “parts” of the IDR plans—such as the end-of-program loan forgiveness—illegal. It does not ban the use of lessened monthly payments.

Source link

March 3, 2025
One-day event creates institutional goals for student success

Across higher education, identifying stakeholders who are engaging in similar initiatives or working toward mutual student success goals can be a challenge, and this is true at the institutional level as well.

In a 2024 survey of student success professionals conducted by Inside Higher Ed and Hanover, over half (59 percent) of respondents said they believe their institution is very or extremely effective at making student success an institutional priority.

Two administrators at DePaul University in Chicago created a one-day event on campus to unite practitioners and leaders who care about student success to identify common goals and challenges.

“It’s so necessary … to think about the gathering of individuals, because it really elevates what was most important for us, which is student success being everyone’s job,” says Ashley Williams, director of student success initiatives.

Gathering together: The inaugural summit took place Dec. 3, 2024, with 350 staff, faculty members and administrators participating. The event featured outside experts, such as Monica Hall-Porter from the University of Texas at Austin as the keynote speaker, and the university president and provost addressed institutional goals for student success and closing achievement gaps.

The goals for the summit, as outlined by organizers, included defining student success, determining how success is measured, fostering a coordinated culture for student success, charting a road map for enhancing student success and creating awareness of technology, systems and data relevant to student success, as well as sharing of best practices in place at the institution.

The summit was titled Charting Student Success From Orientation Through Graduation, to reflect the student life cycle and how each practitioner contributes to student success. DePaul, as a Catholic institution, also frames student success through St. Vincent DePaul’s mission.

Organizers were intentional about selecting individuals from various areas and disciplines across the university to drive creative and diverse conversations, says Michael Roberts, senior assistant dean for student success.

DePaul’s summit united diverse professionals from a variety of areas and disciplines on campus.

“I think folks can get … tunnel vision in trying to solve their problems and [trying] to cultivate expertise within their immediate or closest community,” Williams says. “We know there’s a lot of knowledge and strengths that exist across in the institution and in places you may not necessarily [be] thinking about in your day-to-day.”

Unsiloing the institution and breaking organizational barriers allows for sharing resources, strengths, ideas and innovation through collaboration, Williams says.

Putting it together: When creating the summit, Roberts and Williams prioritized institutional buy-in and ensuring their work was collaborative and not in competition with the work of others who engaged in student success spaces.

The organizers engaged with others who were leaders in student success to contribute to planning and guide decision-making to ensure the event could execute goals in the ways they intended, Williams says.

Partnerships also included identifying internal and external groups that could contribute resources and serve as sponsors to finance and run the event.

One facet that was important to Roberts was not having the summit be a pep rally to gather enthusiasm, but something that could apply to faculty or staff members’ work directly. “Like, ‘this event is going to matter to me, and I’m going to be able to take something away from this and actually make use of it,’” he says.

Looking ahead: The inaugural summit had a goal of 50 attendees, so reaching over 300 was a happy surprise, Roberts says. Attendees were a mix of faculty and staff, and feedback was overwhelmingly positive, Williams shares.

Anecdotally, organizers heard that having a space to discuss topics and be exposed to other work happening across campus was valuable to attendees, as was building community with peers.

“People felt informed; they walked away enlightened and kind of motivated, inspired to think about how they could lead, how they could pivot some of their work to better fit within a standard model of student success,” Williams says.

In the future, organizers are looking to implement more programming that allows practitioners to participate in hands-on activities that allow them to engage in work directly.

What’s being done at your institution to ensure administrators and practitioners in various areas are aware of and using data relevant to student success? Tell us about it.

Source link

March 3, 2025
Penn State blocks embattled trustee from re-election

Embattled Pennsylvania State University trustee Barry Fenchak’s time on the board may be nearing an end: A subcommittee voted Wednesday that he was “unqualified and ineligible” to run again.

Fenchak is one of nine trustees on the 36-member board who are elected by alumni. His term is set to expire at the end of June. But Fenchak—who is already locked in litigation with Penn State over what he considers its lack of fiscal transparency—plans to fight the decision.

“This is completely in line with Penn State’s long-standing pattern with regard to trying to maintain their secrecy, and myself and our legal team will be evaluating these recent actions by Penn State and taking the appropriate actions in the court,” Fenchak told Inside Higher Ed.

The outspoken trustee has been at the center of controversy for nearly a year as he has sought to obtain more details on the university’s rising endowment management fees, even filing a lawsuit for that information. Penn State initially refused to provide the financial details that Fenchak, an investment adviser, said he needed to perform his fiduciary duties; he argued that endowment management fees inexplicably climbed from 0.62 percent in 2013–14 to 2.49 percent by 2018–19. Eventually, as a result of his litigation, he was able to obtain the requested documents, he told Inside Higher Ed.

His lawsuit is one of two brought against the university last year by trustees alleging a lack of transparency by the board. A local media outlet has also sued for alleged violations of open meetings laws.

Efforts to Remove Fenchak

Fellow trustees previously tried to boot Fenchak from the board last fall after he made a crude joke to a female staff member. Paraphrasing the PG-rated Tom Hanks movie A League of Their Own, Fenchak—who is bald and had just received a Penn State baseball cap as a gift at a university event—joked that it made him look like “a penis with a hat on,” according to court records.

Fenchak’s remark prompted the board to call a meeting in October in an effort to remove him. However, a judge intervened, halting the board’s attempt to oust Fenchak.

In his opinion granting the preliminary injunction, Centre County Court Judge Brian J. Marshall wrote that while he “is not suggesting that plaintiff should not be sanctioned,” the court had been “presented with credible and, in many instances uncontroverted, evidence that Plaintiff has been subject to ongoing retaliation by Defendants.”

The judge also noted that Fenchak had sued Penn State just three days before the remark that the board used as justification for his removal.

Now, months later, the board landed on a new tactic to remove Fenchak: The nine-member nominating subcommittee voted 8 to 1 last week to bar him from running for re-election.

Daniel Delligatti, vice chair of the subcommittee, argued that Fenchak had been warned multiple times about “inappropriate behavior” and that he failed to live up to the board’s code of conduct.

Fenchak’s attempt at humor made staff members feel uncomfortable, Delligatti said, and his candidacy for a second term was not in “alignment with Penn State’s mission and values.”

Trustee Jay Paterno was the sole dissenting vote. He argued that “the process” as he understood it was “outside the scope of our review.”

Fenchak attended the virtual meeting but was denied an opportunity to speak on his own behalf.

Deliberations on blocking Fenchak from running for re-election were largely confined to a closed executive session meeting of the nominating subcommittee, which preceded the deciding vote.

A Legal Fight

Though a judge halted Penn State’s initial efforts to remove Fenchak, the board and the university’s legal team are again trying to oust him. The same day that the nominating subcommittee shot down Fenchak’s re-election bid, the university filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction that allowed Fenchak to remain on the board as his lawsuit proceeded.

Fenchak alleges the motion was filed mere minutes after the subcommittee’s decision, which would prevent him from finishing his current term as well as serving another one.

Penn State officials did not provide a comment on the situation.

In response to a request for an interview with trustees, Shannon Harvey, assistant vice president and secretary for the board, referred Inside Higher Ed to a video of the subcommittee’s virtual meeting.

As of publication, Fenchak had not filed a legal response. But he noted one is coming. Beyond the impact on him personally, he also has broader concerns about the board’s process to bar trustees from re-election, which was adopted over the last year as he pressured the university to release financial documents.

“Forget about my specific situation. This process disenfranchises and essentially steals the vote from our alumni,” Fenchak said. “That’s a right our alumni have had for 150 years, and now we are telling those alumni who they can and who they cannot vote for to represent them on the board. Frankly, that’s unconscionable. As a Penn Stater, it’s heartbreaking.”

Changes to the way alumni trustees are elected have also caught the attention of state lawmakers.

At a Feb. 20 Pennsylvania House Appropriations Committee hearing, Republican representative Marla Brown questioned Penn State president Neeli Bendapudi about the change. Brown said she had fielded complaints from constituents and seemed skeptical about the new processes.

“I can tell you that people are not happy about it, and the optics on it are not good. As I’m sure you’re aware, it looks like a conflict of interest that the board is mainly concerned with picking and choosing the muscle in which the candidates will be serving on the board,” Brown said.

Asked why Penn State made the change, Bendapudi noted it was a board decision.

“Did you support the change?” Brown asked.

“I report to them and I have no say in it one way or the other,” Bendapudi answered.

Source link

March 3, 2025
Higher Education Inquirer Approaches Half Million Views

Source link

March 1, 2025
It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’
Dr. Detris AdelabuOn the day of his death in 2020, an op-ed appeared in the New York Times, pre-written by Congressman John Lewis, urging Americans to stand up for justice and what he called “good trouble, necessary trouble. Even in his death, Congressman Lewis fought for a more equitable America, where every individual recognizes their moral obligation to persist in the struggle for a more just nation.

The recent Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions policies, followed by anti-equity legislation across more than 40 states and at the highest level of government, erodes decades of collective efforts to rectify a history of gross social and structural inequities. In higher education, these legislative attacks have led to a decline in Black and Latino student enrollment at selective colleges and universities and have prompted institutions to abandon their commitment to equity. Universities such as Harvard, Rutgers, Northeastern, the University of Texas, and Louisiana State University are scrubbing their website of all references to diversity, equity, and inclusion, shuttering DEI offices and laying off staff, and scrutinizing the curriculum for any references to DEI. If ever there was a time for “good trouble” in higher education, that time is now. But can higher education leadership muster the political will to stand firm for equity?

Institutional Responsibility and Moral Leadership

Legislative setbacks to equity beckon colleges and universities to take bold and creative strategies to reaffirm their commitment to equitable access to resources and opportunities in education. Institutions can, for example, place greater emphasis on partnering with under-resourced high schools and expand outreach to marginalized communities to signal their commitment to equity. While such measures are imperfect, they signal a refusal to yield to a regressive interpretation of equity and justice.

Higher education institutions can leverage their platforms to articulate their mission and commitment to equity beyond their campuses by working together to:
1. Form Multi-Institutional Alliances to Challenge Anti-DEI Legislation: Colleges and universities can form alliances on a national scale to amplify their collective advocacy against policies that restrict access to resources and opportunities. Sharing strategies and best practices can strengthen collective efforts to promote equity. Dr. Felicity Crawford
2. Invest in Community Partnerships: By deepening relationships with K-12 schools, particularly those in strategically under-resourced areas, institutions can create robust pathways for diverse talent. Mentorship programs, financial support, and academic preparation initiatives can help bridge gaps in access and opportunity.
3. Prioritize Transparency and Accountability: By publishing detailed reports on their equity and diversity metrics, institutions can enhance accountability and demonstrate their progress towards equity.
Upholding the Educational Mission of Higher Education

The mission of higher education extends beyond the transmission of knowledge. It encompasses the cultivation of informed, engaged, and socially responsible citizens. Failing to prioritize equity undermines this mission, leaving graduates ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of a global society. Institutions that acquiesce to the erosion of equity risk not only their reputations but also their relevance in a rapidly changing world.

Resisting harmful laws and policies that oppose equity is not without risks. Institutions may face political backlash, reduced funding, or legal challenges. However, the cost of inaction—both in terms of societal impact and institutional integrity—is far greater. By taking a principled stand, colleges and universities can position themselves on the right side of history, inspiring future generations to do the same. Equity, when implemented with fidelity, fosters diversity.

The current sociopolitical landscape presents a defining moment for higher education. Gross social and structural inequities will not resolve themselves. Left unattended, they will continue to generate detrimental social and economic consequences for American society, with effects that can span generations. By developing innovative strategies, advocating for systemic change, and upholding their educational missions, institutions can resist attacks on progress and continue to serve as beacons of opportunity and justice. In doing so, they not only honor their moral and societal obligations but also preserve the transformative power of education for generations to come.Dr. Linda Banks-Santilli

This moment calls for moral leadership in higher education that not only resists the immediate consequences of anti-DEI legislation but also envisions a more just and inclusive future. This moment calls for good trouble. To echo the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

“In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”

Dr. Detris Honora Adelabu is a Clinical Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

Dr. Felicity A. Crawford is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

Dr. Linda Banks-Santilli is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development
Source link
February 28, 2025
UK-Egypt mission sparks new era of higher education partnerships

From 16-18 February 2025, a high-level delegation from the UK visited Egyptian universities: Ain Shams University, and European Universities in Egypt (EUE); with a planned visit to New Cairo Technological University, to explore possible collaborations between the two countries.

“Over the course of three enriching days, the education team in Egypt led a higher education mission that was launched in the New Administrative Capital, under the patronage of the Minister of Higher Education through the Supreme Council of Universities and the Egyptian Bureau for Cultural and Educational Affairs in London in collaboration with the British Council in Egypt, and the support of the British Embassy,” Heba ElZein, director of education at the British Council in Egypt told The PIE.

The delegation comprised representatives from prestigious UK universities, including Sheffield Hallam University, Loughborough University, the University of Essex, the University of East Anglia, the University of Exeter, and the University of Chester.

Universities UK International representatives were also in attendance, with Anouf El-Daher, policy officer for Africa and Middle East at UUKi, presenting at the British Embassy in Cairo and British Council Egypt, highlighting the value of international collaboration and the potential for long-term, mutually beneficial, EU-Egypt education relationships.

“Over three days, we visited higher education institutions across Egypt, gaining valuable insights into the local landscape and exploring opportunities for deeper collaboration. This mission allowed us to engage with key stakeholders, understand the evolving higher education landscape in Egypt, and witness the impact of UK-Egypt partnerships firsthand,” a LinkedIn post from UUKi read.

Over the course of three enriching days, the education team in Egypt led a higher education mission that was launched in the New Administrative Capital
_{Heba ElZein, British Council}

The mission offered numerous networking opportunities, as well as joint meetings for Egyptian universities wishing to cooperate and discuss opportunities with their British counterparts.

The delegation’s primary focus was to foster academic exchange, establish international university branch campus opportunities, and strengthen research collaborations. One of the most significant outcomes of the visit was the signing of multiple Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) between UK and Egyptian universities.

During that high-profile participation, three MoUs were signed between the University of Essex and Ain Shams University, the University of East Anglia and Ain Shams University, and the University of Sheffield Hallam and the British University in Egypt.

These agreements are expected to facilitate joint programs, faculty exchanges, and shared research initiatives in the coming years.

Students in Egypt show a strong interest in TNE as the UK-affiliated programs offer tuition fees from £800 to £13,500, depending on the partnership model. And due to economic and currency challenges, Egyptians are increasingly likely to opt to study in Egypt on a TNE model, as well as inbound students to the country, primarily from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, and Iraq.

Thus, with a population of around 111 million, and a youthful median age of 24.3, Egypt leads the MENA region in TNE enrolments with 27,865 students in 2022-2023, making it the 5th largest UK TNE host country globally.

Egypt has emerged as a leading host of UK transnational education students in the MENA region, and the UK remains Egypt’s largest partner in higher education.

This delegation’s visit is part of a broader initiative to further deepen these ties and provide Egyptian students with greater access to high-quality British education.

Source link

February 28, 2025
A letter to NEH on compliance with Trump orders (opinion)
On Feb. 11, the National Endowment for the Humanities announced on its website that it had modified its funding criteria for eligible humanities projects in compliance with three recent executive orders. According to the announcement, “NEH awards may not be used for the following purposes:
- promotion of gender ideology;
- promotion of discriminatory equity ideology;
- support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives or activities; or
- environmental justice initiatives or activities.”
These prohibitions impose the terminology of Executive Orders 14151, 14168 and 14190 onto future applicants for NEH funding, whether individual scholars, museums, nonprofit organizations or colleges (including historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges). Published well within the stipulated 60-day window for government agency compliance with the order to terminate all “equity-related” initiatives, grants or contracts, these prohibitions represent a swift implementation of the Trump administration’s point-by-point mandate for “Ending Radical Indoctrination.”

I can only begin to conjecture here about what the consequences of the NEH’s new criteria might be for the humanities, the domain of cultural and intellectual inquiry the NEH was created to foster. To cite the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, “While no government can call a great artist or scholar into existence, it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent.”

To uphold conditions defined by prohibition rather than freedom—and with prohibitions explicitly targeting the right to existence of queer and transgender people (“gender ideology”), the ability in any way to offset egregious structural inequalities in educational and cultural access (“DEI”), and even the very right to advocate on behalf of anyone’s rights (“discriminatory equity ideology”)—is to betray the very terms under which the NEH was created. In revising its Notice of Funding Opportunities, the NEH is in violation of its public mission.

Presumably, as a government agency perpetually under threat of budget cuts, the NEH hastened to implement Trump’s executive orders in order to fend off wholesale elimination. The NEH is a federal agency and is thus directly implicated in the executive orders, provided those orders are constitutional. By complying with Trump’s ideology, the National Endowment may perhaps live to see another day, thereby preserving the careers of at least some of its approximately 185 employees and its ability—to do what?

The NEH has not yet fully overhauled its website to reflect its compliance. Of its current listings of Great Projects Past and Present, perhaps “The Papers of George Washington,” “Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,” and “The Real Buffalo Bill” might manage to squeeze through under the new stipulations, but would the Created Equal documentary film project be so lucky? Would a biography of union organizer César Chavez manage to qualify as a fundable project, or a documentary about “A Black Surgeon in the Age of Jim Crow”? How about the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database? The NEH has leveraged its own institutional survival on the forfeit of future such projects.

The problem is a far deeper one, however. In what universe should it be too much to ask that a state-sponsored institution created to uphold the “material conditions” for freedom of thought, imagination and inquiry put up even the slightest resistance to the inhumane, reactionary and repressive edicts issued by the Trump regime? Even today, the NEH website champions its past support for projects that uphold justice in the face of oppression, that resist totalitarian erasure. Yet the NEH itself has mustered no such resistance. Instead, it has announced that any such projects are now ineligible for consideration.

Of one thing I am certain: The National Endowment for the Humanities has forfeited its claim to the word “humanities.” The humanities do not designate a prohibitive sphere of capitulation to ruling forces. The humanities are not furthered by a governmental agency that serves, willingly or unwillingly, as an ideological extension of a political party. The humanities are a domain of inquiry, of questioning and investigation, not of unquestioning acquiescence.

As a literature professor and an educator in the humanities for more than a quarter century, I have assured my students that the study of cultural, artistic and intellectual production is continuous with its practice. This not only means that humanistic inquiry involves creativity, creation and a commitment to thinking freely, but it also means that humanistic inquiry necessarily upholds the same responsibility to questions of ethics, value and meaning with which any other historical action must reckon. Humanists cannot, and do not, stand meekly aside while the “real” agents of historical change make big decisions.

In posting a recent message to the frequently asked questions web form on the NEH website, I wrote that in light of the NEH’s silent capitulation to Trump’s executive orders, I was ashamed to call myself a humanist. I hereby recant that statement. I am not ashamed to call myself a humanist. It is the National Endowment for the Humanities that should be ashamed. Or, better yet, I call on the NEH and all its 185 employees, including and especially NEH chair Shelly C. Lowe, to recant their compliance with Executive Orders 14151, 14168 and 14190 and join other national and international agencies, organizations and individuals in resisting the inhumane and unconstitutional decrees of the Trump administration.

Jonathan P. Eburne is a professor of comparative literature, English and French and Francophone studies at Pennsylvania State University and director of undergraduate studies in comparative literature.
Source link
February 28, 2025
Final “Intellectual Affairs” column by Scott McLemee (opinion)

The historian and political analyst Garry Wills once described writing for magazines and newspapers as a way to continue his education while getting paid to do it. The thought made a lasting impression on me and has been a driving force since well before I started writing “Intellectual Affairs” in 2005.

Twenty years is a sizable portion of anyone’s life; a kind of record of it exists in the form of something short of a thousand columns. I am a slow writer (my wonderful and long-suffering editors at IHE can confirm this), and quantifying the amount of time invested in each piece would probably make me feel older, even, than I look.

The launch of the column came after a decade of covering scholarly books and debates, first as a contributing editor at Lingua Franca and then as a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education. The founders of Inside Higher Ed approached me with an offer of far less money but complete freedom in what and how I wrote. The decision was easy to make. The offer seemed as close to tenure as a perpetual student could hope to get.

The shift from writing for dead-tree publications to an online-only venue was not an obvious choice to make, but IHE’s audience and reputation grew rapidly. Getting review copies of new books was not always straightforward or quick. Confusion with other publications having similar names was also a problem. But “Intellectual Affairs” began to draw a certain amount of attention—whether enthusiastic, contemptuous or trollish—in the academic blogosphere of the day.

The work itself, while grueling at times, was for the most part gratifying. Scholars would write to express astonishment that I’d actually read their books, and even understood them. It seemed best to regard that as a compliment.

I tend to forget about a column as soon as it’s finished and rarely look at it again. To explain this it is impossible to improve upon Samuel Johnson, who was a columnist of sorts even though the term had not yet been coined. In 1752 he wrote,

“He that condemns himself to compose on a stated day will often bring to his task attention dissipated, a memory embarrassed, an imagination overwhelmed, a mind distracted with anxieties, a body languishing with disease: he will labour on a barren topic till it is too late to change it; or, in the ardour of invention, diffuse his thoughts into wild exuberance, which the pressing hour of publication cannot suffer judgment to examine or reduce.”

It’s not always that bad, but the experience he describes is familiar and typically yields the resolution to start earlier next time. But there is no next time with this column.

I’ve revisited the digital archive in recent days to assemble the selection below. If “Intellectual Affairs” has served as the notebook of an intellectual vagabond, here are a few pages from a long, strange trip.

Among the earlier columns was one considering the practice of annotating texts while you are reading—specifically, ones printed on paper with ink. A few people found my account of an improvised method useful. These days I mark up PDFs along much the same lines.

Much Sturm und Drang over e-publishing was underway during the column’s first decade—not least in scholarly circles. A column from 2014 surveys some of the trends predicted, emergent and/or collapsing at the time. Another piece described efforts to rethink literary history with an eye to the prevailing energy sources at the time a text was written.

More offbeat (and a personal favorite) was this exposé of the unspeakable secret behind Miskatonic University’s financial stability. Another piece brought together the purported psychic powers of Edgar Cayce, a.k.a. “the sleeping prophet,” with news of a technological advance permitting someone to “read” a closed book, or its first few pages, at any rate.

Early in the last decade, the New York Public Library prepared to offload a sizable portion of its holdings to locations outside the city—freeing up space for more computer terminals. Scholars and citizens spoke up in protest. A second column was necessary to correct the record after an official spun his way through a response to the first one.

Compulsive and compulsory technological change was at issue in this column suggesting that the Pixar film WALL-E owed a lot to the dystopian satire presented in the cultural theorist Kenneth Burke’s “Helhaven” essays. It was a bit of a stretch, sure, but the point was to honor their “margin of overlap,” as KB would say.

Many interviews ran in “Intellectual Affairs” over the years. Two in particular stand out. The earliest was with Barbara Ehrenreich on the occasion of her 2005 book about white-collar labor. I also reviewed two of her later books, here and here.

The other interview was with George Scialabba—a public intellectual working at a certain distance from the tenure track—on the occasion of his first book. His collected essays appeared not too long ago.

I stand by this assessment of Cornel West’s self-portrait. It caused a ruckus for a few days, but nothing changed in its wake, which is disappointing.

While by no means prescient, a column on the scholarly study of ignorance from 2008 still feels topical. The subject remained far too relevant 15 years later. Someone will eventually start an Institute for Applied Agnotology; it won’t have trouble finding financial backing.

Also distressingly perennial is a column considering social-scientific analysis of American demagogues of the 1930s and ’40s. A sequel of sorts, at least in hindsight, was this look into the stagnant depths of a spree killer’s worldview. And I was at work on a column about Ku Klux Klan historiography when Charlottesville broke into the news.

Less connected to the news cycle but likewise bloody was an item filed after attending a seldom-performed Shakespeare play in 2009. A year earlier, I looked into the far-fetched legend that The Tempest was inspired by a small island near New Bedford, Mass. (Copies of this column were available for a while in pamphlet form at the local historical society.)

Finally—and a matter of bragging rights— there’s this piece on the first volume of a biography of the long-forgotten Hubert Harrison, a Caribbean-born African American polymath and pan-African activist from the early 20th century. On more than one occasion the author told me that nothing generated more interest in the book than the column.

George Orwell characterized the professional book reviewer as someone “pouring his immortal spirit down the drain, half a pint at a time.” I once considered this amusing; now it makes me wince. (It’s not even a whole pint, mind you.) The rewards of non-celebrity-oriented cultural journalism tend to be meager and infrequent, but writing this column for Inside Higher Ed has provided more than my share. Thanks in particular to Scott Jaschik, Sarah Bray and Elizabeth Redden for their patience and keen eyes.

Scott McLemee is Inside Higher Ed’s “Intellectual Affairs” columnist. He was a contributing editor at Lingua Franca magazine and a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining Inside Higher Ed in 2005.

Source link

February 28, 2025
How cuts at U.S. aid agency hinder university research

Peter Goldsmith knows there’s a lot to love about soybeans. Although the crop is perhaps best known in America for its part in the stereotypically bougie soy milk latte, it plays an entirely different role on the global stage. Inexpensive to grow and chock-full of nutrients, it’s considered a potential solution to hunger and malnutrition.

For the past 12 years, Goldsmith has worked toward that end. In 2013, he founded the Soybean Innovation Lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and every day since then, the lab’s scientists have worked to help farmers and businesses solve problems related to soybeans, from how to speed up threshing—the arduous process of separating the bean from the pod—to addressing a lack of available soybean seeds and varieties.

The SIL, which now encompasses a network of 17 laboratories, has completed work across 31 countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. But now, all that work is on hold, and Goldsmith is preparing to shut down the Soybean Innovation Lab in April, thanks to massive cuts to the federal foreign aid funds that support the labs.

A week into the current presidential administration, Goldsmith received notice that the Soybean Innovation Lab, which is headquartered at the University of Illinois, had to pause operations, cease external communications and minimize costs, pending a federal government review.

Goldsmith told his team—about 30 individuals on UIUC’s campus that he described as being like family to one another—that, though they were ordered to stop work, they could continue working on internal projects, like refining their software. But days later, he learned the university could no longer access the lab’s funds in Washington, meaning there was no way to continue paying employees.

After talking with university administrators, he set a date for the Illinois lab to close: April 15, unless the freeze ended after the government review. But no review materialized; on Feb. 26, the SIL received notice its grant had been terminated, along with about 90 percent of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s programs.

“The University of Illinois is a very kind, caring sort of culture; [they] wanted to give employees—because it was completely an act of God, out of the blue—give them time to find jobs,” he said. “I mean, up until [Jan. 27], we were full throttle, we were very successful, phones ringing off the hook.”

The other 16 labs will likely also close, though some are currently scrambling to try to secure other funding.

Federal funding made up 99 percent of the Illinois lab’s funding, according to Goldsmith. In 2022, the lab received a $10 million grant intended to last through 2027.

Dismantling an Agency

The SIL is among the numerous university laboratories impacted by the federal freeze on U.S. Agency for International Development funds—an initial step in what’s become President Donald Trump’s crusade to curtail supposedly wasteful government spending—and the subsequent termination of thousands of grants.

Trump and Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth and a senior aide to the president, have baselessly claimed that USAID is run by left-wing extremists and say they hope to shutter the agency entirely. USAID’s advocates, meanwhile, have countered that the agency instead is responsible for vital, lifesaving work abroad and that the funding freeze is sure to lead to disease, famine and death.

A federal judge, Amir H. Ali, seemed to agree, ruling earlier this month that the funding freeze is doing irreparable harm to humanitarian organizations that have had to cut staff and halt projects, NPR and other outlets reported. On Tuesday, Ali reiterated his order that the administration resume funding USAID, giving them until the end of the day Wednesday to do so.

But the administration appealed the ruling, and the Supreme Court subsequently paused the deadline until the justices can weigh in. Now, officials appear to be moving forward with plans to fire all but a small number of the agency’s employees, directing employees to empty their offices and giving them only 15 minutes each to gather their things.

About $350 million of the agency’s funds were appropriated to universities, according to the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, including $72 million for the Feed the Future Innovation Labs, which are aimed at researching solutions to end hunger and food insecurity worldwide. (The SIL is funded primarily by Feed the Future.)

It’s a small amount compared to the funding universities receive from other agencies, like the National Institutes of Health, also the subject of deep cuts by Trump and Musk. But USAID-funded research is a long-standing and important part of the nation’s foreign policy, as well as a resource for the international community, advocates say. The work also has broad, bipartisan support; in fiscal year 2024, Congress increased funding for the Feed the Future Initiative labs by 16 percent, according to Craig Lindwarm, senior vice president for government affairs at the APLU, even in what he characterized as an extremely challenging budgetary environment.

Potential Long-Term Harms

Universities “have long been a partner with USAID … to help accomplish foreign policy and diplomatic goals of the United States,” said Lindwarm. “This can often but not exclusively come in the form of extending assistance as it relates to our agricultural institutions, and land-grant institutions have a long history of advancing science in agriculture that boosts yields and productivity in the United States and also partner countries, and we’ve found that this is a great benefit not just to our country, but also partner nations. Stable food systems lead to stable regions and greater market access for producers in the United States and furthers diplomatic objectives in establishing stronger connections with partner countries.”

Stopping that research has negatively impacted “critical relationships and productivity,” with the potential for long-term harms, Lindwarm said.

At the SIL, numerous projects have now been canceled, including a planned trip to Africa to beta test a pull-behind combine, a technology that is not commonly used anymore in the U.S.—most combines are now self-propelled rather than pulled by tractor—but that would be useful to farmers in Africa. A U.S. company was slated to license the technology to farmers in Africa, Goldsmith said, but now, “that’s dead. The agribusiness firm, the U.S. firm, won’t be licensing in Africa,” he said. “A good example of market entry just completely shut off.”

He also noted that the lab closures won’t just impact clients abroad and U.S. companies; they will also be detrimental to UIUC, which did not respond to a request for comment.

“In our space, we’re well-known. We’re really relevant. It makes the university extremely relevant,” he said. “We’re not an ivory tower. We’re in the dirt, literally, with our partners, with our clients, making a difference, and [that] makes the university an active contributor to solving real problems.”

Source link

February 28, 2025