Tag: Higher

Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

Harvard had a financial responsibility score of 2.8, well over the passing 1.5 required by the Education Department, in fiscal year 2023.

John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

The Education Department announced Friday that it placed Harvard University on heightened cash monitoring, a designation that allows greater federal oversight of institutional finances and is typically reserved for colleges in dire financial straits.

By all accounts, Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, is not.

“It’s harassment,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “Harvard has the money, yes, but it is adding a headache. It’s adding staff. It’s interfering with students’ ability to access federal financial aid … The government’s making it harder for Harvard to support low-income students, which speaks to exactly what the administration’s goals are here—they’re not to help students, they’re not to improve education, they’re not even to address what they see as concerns at Harvard—they’re just to attack Harvard.”

Institutions placed on heightened cash monitoring are asked to put up a letter of credit that serves as collateral for the Education Department if the institution closes, or to award federal financial aid from their own coffers before being reimbursed by the department, explained Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Harvard has been asked to do both.

According to a Friday news release from the Education Department, Harvard must put up a $36 million irrevocable letter of credit or “provide other financial protection that is acceptable to the Department,” department officials wrote.

“Students will continue to have access to federal funding, but Harvard will be required to cover the initial disbursements as a guardrail to ensure Harvard is spending taxpayer funds responsibly,” officials wrote.

The federal government froze $2.7 billion in federal grants for Harvard after the university rejected its sweeping demands in April. Harvard sued, and a judge ruled earlier this month that the freeze was illegal. The university has reportedly received some of the frozen funds, but the Trump administration says it’s still hoping to cut a deal with Harvard.

The release says three events triggered Harvard’s heightened cash monitoring designation: a determination by the Department of Health and Human Services that Harvard violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly allowing antisemitism on campus, accusations that the university isn’t complying with an ongoing investigation by the Office for Civil Rights, and the $1 billion in bonds Harvard has issued to make up for pulled federal funding. Harvard did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Friday.

“Today’s actions follow Harvard’s own admission that there are material concerns about its financial health. As a result, Harvard must now seek reimbursement after distributing federal student aid and post financial protection so that the Department can ensure taxpayer funds are not at risk,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “While Harvard remains eligible to participate in the federal student aid program for now, these actions are necessary to protect taxpayers.”

The department also pointed to layoffs at Harvard and a hiring freeze instituted in the spring. Several other wealthy colleges have frozen hiring and shed staff this year, in part because of the administration’s actions related to federal funding. A few other universities have either issued bonds or taken out loans to get immediate cash. But so far, the department has made no public mention about putting those colleges on heightened cash monitoring.

As of June 1, 538 colleges and universities were on heightened cash monitoring, federal data showed. About one-third of those colleges are private nonprofits, while about 42 percent are for-profit institutions. Most of the institutions—464 of them—are based in the U.S.

Many on the list are private institutions that have low financial responsibility composite scores, Kelchen said. This test assigns institutions a score between -1.0 and 3.0 based on the institution’s primary reserve ratio, equity ratio and net income ratio. To be considered financially responsible, an institution must score at least a 1.5, which Harvard does.

During fiscal year 2023, the latest for which data is publicly available, Harvard’s financial responsibility composite score was 2.8. Harvard’s estimated primary reserve ratio in fiscal year 2023 was 7.6, meaning that the university could operate for about seven and a half years by spending only its existing assets. By comparison, Hampshire College, another private, nonprofit college placed on heightened cash monitoring with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, had an estimated primary reserve ratio of 0.3, meaning it could continue operations for about four months before running out of expendable assets. Drew University, another institution on heightened cash monitoring and also with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, has a primary reserve ratio of -1.06.

But beyond the financial responsibility score, there are plenty of reasons an institution can end up on heightened cash monitoring. Some institutions, including Hampshire and Arkansas Baptist College, were put on the list due to a late or missing compliance audit. Others have been put on the list while the department reviews their programs, or because their accreditation was revoked. But, “the department can also just specify that an institution is not financially responsible,” Kelchen said.

The political motivation behind the move is clear, Fansmith said.

“To the extent that there is a problem—and to be clear, there are real problems—it’s not Harvard’s ability to pay their bills or meet their obligations. That’s a problem this administration has created,” he said. “They caused a situation, and then they are blaming Harvard for taking reasonable steps to address that situation. It’s also ironic when they send letters to Harvard using terms like ‘enormous’ and ‘massive’ and ‘colossal’ to describe Harvard’s endowment, and now they’re suddenly determining that they’re worried that Harvard is at financial risk … It is absolutely Orwellian.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
ED Wants Grants to Advance “Patriotic Education”

The Trump administration has made another move that historians say is an attempt to sanitize American history, but one the administration argued is necessary to ensure students have respect for the country.

On Wednesday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon outlined a new plan for how her department would promote “patriotic education” by adding it to the list of priorities that can drive decisions for discretionary grants, including those that support programs at colleges and universities.

“It is imperative to promote an education system that teaches future generations honestly about America’s Founding principles, political institutions, and rich history,” McMahon said in a statement about the new proposal. “To truly understand American values, the tireless work it has taken to live up to them, and this country’s exceptional place in world history is the best way to inspire an informed patriotism and love of country.”

According to the proposal, which is open for public comment until Oct. 17, “patriotic education” refers to “a presentation of the history of America grounded in an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of the American founding and foundational principles”; examines “how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history”; and advances the “concept that commitment to America’s aspirations is beneficial and justified.”

McMahon’s other priorities for grant funding include evidence-based literacy, expanding education choice, returning education to the states and advancing AI in education.

With this latest proposal, the department wants to focus “grant funds on programs that promote a patriotic education that cultivates citizen competency and informed patriotism among and communicates the American political tradition to students at all levels.” That could include projects geared toward helping students understand the “founding documents and primary sources of the American political tradition, in a manner consistent with the principles of a patriotic education,” according to the proposal.

‘Narrow Conception of Patriotism’

However, professional historians who have read the proposal told Inside Higher Ed that the department’s patriotic education push is a politically motivated power grab.

“I agree that American history should be presented with accuracy and honesty, based on solid historical evidence, and doing so does inspire people,” said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. “But the department’s priority statement has a narrow conception of patriotism and patriotic education.”

She said that’s especially evident given the Trump administration’s numerous other policy changes aimed at presenting a version of American history that downplays or ignores the darkest parts of the country’s past, such as race-based slavery, the disenfranchisement of women and African Americans, and codified racial segregation.

“That context tells us that the administration is interested in telling an uncomplicated celebration of American greatness,” Weicksel said. “Doing that flattens the past into a set of platitudes that are not rooted in the broader historical context, conflicts, contingencies and change over time that are central to historical thinking.”

In March, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” prohibiting federal funding for exhibits or programs that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.” That prompted a review of all exhibits hosted by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service, both of which have since removed multiple artifacts that don’t support Trump’s patriotic history push, including several that underscore the brutality of slavery.

And as the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding approaches, the government is in the process of planning commemorative civic education initiatives that advance its definition of patriotic history. To make that happen, it’s largely drawing on the input and expertise of conservative scholars and groups.

The Education Department recently awarded $160 million in American history and civics grants for seminars for K–12 educators and students related to the Declaration of Independence anniversary next year. The agency didn’t specify which institutions got the money but previously said it would give priority to colleges and universities with “independent academic units dedicated to civic thought, constitutional studies, American history, leadership, and economic liberty,” which critics describe as conservative centers.

In remarks at an event hosted by the Federalist Society and the Defense of Freedom Institute on Wednesday, McMahon criticized the state of civics education for students, citing a statistic that only 41 percent of young people say they love America.

“That means the balance doesn’t love America,” she said. “Why don’t they love America? Why aren’t they proud to be Americans? It’s because they don’t know America. They don’t know the foundations, they don’t know the real history of our country … It’s really important that we teach respect for our flag, that we teach respect for our country.”

While she did acknowledge that the Education Department can’t directly control curriculum, she noted that the department can use funding to encourage the types of education or programs it wants to see.

The Education Department also announced Wednesday that it’s launching a coalition of 40 groups—including the conservative Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA, Hillsdale College and the American First Policy Institute—to spearhead the America 250 Civics Education Coalition, which is “dedicated to renewing patriotism.” (McMahon chaired the American First Policy Institute before she became secretary.)

“We celebrate Lincoln for his greatness in recalling the nation to the principles of its birth, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the most beautiful political document in history,” Hillsdale president Larry Arnn said in a statement about the coalition. “It is time to repeat his work and the work of Jefferson and the Founders. We will work together to learn those principles, and for the love of them we will have a grand celebration.”

‘Pure Politics’

But Weicksel with AHA said the government’s directives to omit parts of American history in classrooms, museums and other public spaces will undermine the public’s agency. “If citizens don’t have access to a historically accurate understanding of the past, how will they use that past to chart a new path for the future?”

David Blight, a professor of history and Black studies at Yale University, said he interprets the department’s emphasis on patriotic education as “pure politics.”

“It’s the politics of trying to use history to control people, including children, young people, the people who teach it, the people who write curriculum and the state legislatures that will design this stuff,” he said. “The government is trying to be a truth ministry.”

While there have been other movements to control how the country remembers its history—including by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s and the United Daughters of the Confederacy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—Blight said these moves by the Trump administration are more powerful.

“We’ve never had this come right from the White House, with the power of the executive branch and their control over so much money,” he said, urging educators to voice their opposition. “When federal money depends on pure ideology, we’re in very deep trouble, and that’s what they’re saying. That’s not even close to a democratic society.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
How Higher Education Fuels Big Pharma’s Bottom Line
As public outrage grows over the astronomical cost of prescription drugs, a quieter but equally consequential dynamic demands scrutiny: the entanglement of higher education institutions with the pharmaceutical industry. Universities—especially those with medical schools and biomedical research centers—have become indispensable players in Big Pharma’s pipeline. While these partnerships often promise innovation and public benefit, they also raise troubling questions about academic independence, ethical boundaries, and the commodification of publicly funded science.

Medical Education: A Curriculum Under Influence

Medical schools are tasked with training future physicians in evidence-based care. Yet many institutions maintain financial ties with pharmaceutical companies that risk compromising the integrity of their curricula. Faculty members often receive consulting fees, research grants, and honoraria from drug manufacturers. In some cases, industry-sponsored materials and lectures are integrated into coursework, subtly shaping how students understand disease treatment and drug efficacy.

This influence extends beyond the classroom. Continuing medical education (CME), a requirement for practicing physicians, is frequently funded by pharmaceutical companies. Critics argue that this model incentivizes the promotion of branded drugs over generics or non-pharmaceutical interventions, reinforcing prescribing habits that benefit corporate interests more than patient outcomes.

University Research: Innovation or Outsourcing?

Academic research is a cornerstone of pharmaceutical development. Universities conduct early-stage investigations into disease mechanisms, drug targets, and therapeutic compounds—often funded by public grants. Pharmaceutical companies then step in to commercialize promising discoveries, assuming control over clinical trials, regulatory approval, and marketing.

While this division of labor can accelerate drug development, it also shifts the locus of control. Universities may prioritize research that aligns with industry interests, sidelining studies that lack commercial appeal. Moreover, corporate sponsors can exert influence over publication timelines, data interpretation, and intellectual property rights. The result is a research ecosystem where profit potential increasingly dictates scientific inquiry.

Case Studies: The University-Pharma Nexus in Action

Harvard University
Harvard Medical School has faced scrutiny over the financial relationships between its faculty and pharmaceutical companies. A 2009 investigation by The New York Times revealed that more than 1,600 Harvard-affiliated physicians had financial ties to drug and medical device makers. The controversy sparked student protests and led to reforms requiring faculty to disclose industry ties and limiting pharma-funded materials in classrooms.

Harvard’s research enterprise is deeply intertwined with Big Pharma. Its partnership with Novartis in developing personalized cancer treatments—particularly CAR-T cell therapy—illustrates how academic science feeds into high-cost commercial therapies. While the treatment represents a breakthrough, its price tag (often exceeding $400,000 per patient) raises questions about the public’s return on investment.

Yale University
Yale’s collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on PROTACs (proteolysis-targeting chimeras) showcases the university’s role in pioneering new drug technologies. Under the agreement, Yale and GSK formed a joint research team to advance PROTACs from lab concept to clinical candidate. GSK gained rights to use the technology across multiple therapeutic areas, while Yale stood to receive milestone payments and royalties.

Yale’s Center for Clinical Investigation (YCCI) saw an 850% increase in industry-sponsored trials between 2006 and 2019. To address concerns about equity, YCCI launched the Cultural Ambassador Program to diversify trial participation. While this initiative promotes inclusivity, it also serves the interests of pharmaceutical sponsors seeking broader demographic data for regulatory approval.

University of Bristol (UK)
The University of Bristol has maintained a decade-long partnership with GSK, spanning vaccine development, childhood disease research, and oral health. GSK funds PhD studentships and undergraduate placements and collaborates on data integrity initiatives. While the partnership aims to improve global health outcomes, it also serves GSK’s need to secure early-stage innovation and talent.

Temple University
Temple’s Moulder Center for Drug Discovery Research exemplifies the shift toward academic-led drug discovery. Pharmaceutical companies increasingly rely on centers like this to conduct early-stage research, reducing their own financial risk. As patents expire and blockbuster drugs lose exclusivity, pharma firms turn to universities to replenish their pipelines—often with taxpayer-funded science.

ETH Zurich (Switzerland)
ETH Zurich has become a hub for synthetic organic and medicinal chemistry, attracting partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms. Researchers at ETH conduct foundational work that pharma companies later commercialize. This reflects a broader trend: the outsourcing of riskier, cost-intensive research to academic institutions, often without proportional public benefit.

The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers

Beyond research and education, elite university medical centers have long been implicated in systemic inequality and exploitation. As detailed in The Dark Legacy of Elite Medical Centers, these institutions have historically treated marginalized and low-income patients as expendable research subjects. The term “Medical Apartheid,” coined by Harriet Washington, captures the racial and class-based exploitation embedded in American medical history.

The disparities extend to labor conditions as well. Support staff—often immigrants and people of color—face low wages, poor working conditions, and job insecurity, despite being essential to hospital operations. Meanwhile, early-career researchers and postdocs, many from working-class backgrounds, endure long hours and precarious employment while driving the innovation that fuels Big Pharma’s profits.

Even diversity initiatives at these institutions often fall short, focusing on optics rather than structural reform. As the article argues, “The institutional focus on ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ often overlooks the more significant structural issues, such as the affordability of education, the class-based access to healthcare, and the economic barriers that continue to undermine the ability of disadvantaged individuals to receive quality care.”

Technology Transfer and Patents: The Profit Pipeline

Many universities have established technology transfer offices to manage the commercialization of academic discoveries. These offices negotiate licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies, often securing royalties or equity stakes in exchange. While such arrangements can generate substantial revenue—especially for elite institutions—they also entangle universities in the profit-driven logic of the pharmaceutical market.

This entanglement has real-world consequences. Drugs developed with public funding and academic expertise are frequently priced out of reach for many patients. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allows universities to patent federally funded research, was intended to spur innovation. But critics argue it has enabled the privatization of public science, with universities acting as gatekeepers to life-saving treatments.

Ethical Crossroads: Transparency and Reform

The growing influence of Big Pharma in higher education has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability. Some institutions have implemented conflict-of-interest policies, requiring faculty to disclose financial ties and limiting industry-sponsored events. Student-led movements have also emerged, demanding reforms to ensure that education and research serve the public good rather than corporate profit.

Yet systemic change remains elusive. The financial incentives are substantial, and the boundaries between academia and industry continue to blur. Without robust oversight and a recommitment to academic independence, universities risk becoming complicit in a system that prioritizes shareholder value over human health.

Rethinking the Role of Higher Ed and Medicine

Higher education institutions occupy a unique position in society—as centers of knowledge, innovation, and public trust. Their collaboration with Big Pharma is not inherently problematic, but it must be guided by ethical principles and a commitment to transparency. As the cost of healthcare continues to rise, universities must critically examine their role in the pharmaceutical ecosystem and ask whether their pursuit of profit is undermining their mission to serve the public.

The legacy of elite university medical centers is not just about innovation—it’s also about inequality. Until these institutions confront their role in perpetuating racial and class-based disparities, their contributions to public health will remain compromised.

Sources:
- The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health: Pharma and Digital Innovation in China
- Harvard Business School Case Study: Novartis and Personalized Cancer Treatment
- Yale Law School: Pharmaceutical Public-Private Partnerships
- GSK and Yale PROTAC Collaboration Press Release
- Yale Center for Clinical Investigation Case Study
- University of Bristol and GSK Case Study
- Pharmaphorum: Universities and Pharma Companies Need Each Other
- Chemical & Engineering News: The Great Pharmaceutical-Academic Merger
Source link
September 19, 2025
Why Students Participate in Dual Enrollment

Over the past three years, the number of high school students taking college courses has increased more than 20 percent, making them a growing share of all undergraduates, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

Dual enrollment can help high school students get a head start on their college degree. In addition to expediting the amount of time it takes to complete a two- or four-year degree, concurrent-enrollment courses may be cheaper or subsidized for high school students, reducing the costs associated with a college degree.

A recent study by Tyton Partners investigates why students participate in dual enrollment and how the experience shapes their perceptions of college.

Students say: A majority of surveyed students participating in dual enrollment were high school seniors (76 percent); 24 percent were juniors.

Most high schoolers took only one or two college courses (58 percent); just 19 percent were enrolled in four or more. While one-third of students took courses online, two-thirds attended in person at a local college.

The primary motivation for students to engage in dual enrollment was to get ahead on college credits and reduce tuition costs (51 percent). One in five students said they were looking for more advanced coursework.

The data also pointed to dual enrollment’s role as a pipeline to higher education. Three in five students said they strongly agree with the statement “My dual-enrollment experience is preparing me for college,” and a similar share indicated they feel like they belong at their college.

Dual-enrollment students worry about affordability in higher education; one in five said they do not feel they have the resources to pay for college. Research shows that dually enrolled students are more likely to receive grants and scholarships when they attend college, compared to their peers who are not concurrently enrolled.

Over half of dual-enrollment students said the experience made them more motivated to attend college (57 percent), while one-third said their interest in higher education remained unchanged; 6 percent said the experience was a turnoff that made them less interested in college.

One notable trend was that dual-enrollment participants who later enrolled in college full-time were more likely to pursue natural and physical sciences compared to the general undergraduate population. Thirty-seven percent of current college students who had taken college courses while in high school said they were studying natural and physical sciences, compared to 29 percent of their peers without concurrent-enrollment credits. Conversely, non-dual-enrollment students elected humanities and social science majors at higher rates (37 percent) than their dual-enrollment peers (31 percent).

“While this may reflect the interests of students who opt into dual enrollment, it also highlights the potential of dual enrollment pathways to attract and support learners aiming for more technical or science-focused careers,” according to the report.

Looking ahead: More colleges have implemented or expanded dual-enrollment offerings since 2020, in part to reverse flagging enrollment numbers, but also to expand access to higher education. However, equity gaps still persist in terms of who is aware of or participating in concurrent enrollment.

In a survey of academic advisers and administrators, 45 percent of respondents said they expect their institution to increase resources for dual enrollment support over the next three years.

College staff and leaders identified college transition programs (28 percent) and academic planning tailored to future degree pathways (28 percent) as the most impactful supports for dual-enrollment students.

We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

Source link

September 19, 2025
ASU Police Reportedly Assisted DHS With Arrest

yongyuan/iStock/Getty Images

Arizona State University police assisted in arranging the violent arrest of a staff member by Department of Homeland Security officials earlier this week, The Phoenix New Times reported.

The ASU chapter of the National Lawyers Guild alleged in an Instagram post that ASU police officer James Quigley arranged a meeting with a staff member, who was not named, “under the pretense of discussing a ‘concern’ about a social media post.” After a brief meeting, the employee was then arrested by multiple plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, according to the group.

A purported video of the encounter was later posted on X. The video shows several men with badges, one of whom identifies himself as “a special agent with Homeland Security” twisting an individual’s wrist before kneeing him in the back. In the video, the arrested individual, who is the employee in question, according to the post, asks, “What did I do?” as he is arrested.

The employee was later released, according to the newspaper.

In the aftermath of the arrest, the ASU chapter of the National Lawyers Guild called on the university and President Michael Crow to publicly denounce the incident, end all cooperation with ICE and enact policies “to prevent future targeting and harm” to community members.

“ASU must protest the safety and dignity of its staff and students—not partner with agencies that terrorize them,” the organization wrote online.

ASU spokesperson Jerry Gonzalez told Inside Higher Ed that the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security had questioned an employee after receiving an anonymous tip.

“In order to remain informed about a matter involving an ASU employee, an ASU police officer accompanied a DHS investigator to a meeting with the employee at a coffee shop off campus,” Gonzalez wrote.

He confirmed that the employee was later released.

(This article has been updated with a comment from ASU.)

Source link

September 19, 2025
McMahon Calls for Improving Efficiency, Civilizing Discourse

McMahon said the department’s plan to move career and technical education programs to the Labor Department is one way to show that other agencies can run Education Department programs more efficiently.

Connor McLaren for the Ronald Reagan Institute

Washington, D.C.—Education Secretary Linda McMahon made clear at a series of policy summits this week that while she remains committed to one day shuttering her department, there’s still much work left to be done.

“You don’t just shut off the lights and walk out the door if you are trying to return education to the states,” McMahon said at one event Wednesday, adding that offices like Civil Rights and Federal Student Aid can’t simply be eliminated. “Really, what we’re trying to do is to show how we can move different parts of the Department of Education to show that they can be more efficient operating in other agencies.”

Throughout her remarks at both events—the Education Law and Policy Conference hosted by the Federalist Society and the Defense of Freedom Institute on Wednesday and the Reagan Institute Summit on Education on Thursday—the secretary stressed that a key way to test this concept is by moving workforce development programs to the Department of Labor.

“Let’s be sure that we are not moving hastily, but that we are taking the right steps at the right pace for success,” McMahon told the Federalist Society audience. “And if we show that this is an incredibly efficient and effective way to manage these programs, it is my hope that Congress will look at that and approve these moves.”

However, some advocates for students, institutional lobbyists, Democrats in Congress and left-leaning policy analysts have taken issue with the plan to move adult, career and technical education programs to the Labor Department, arguing that it’s illegal and will create more headaches for the providers who rely on the money.

Regardless, the Trump administration is moving forward with its plans. ED signed an interagency agreement with the Department of Labor earlier this spring and has more recently moved many of its staff members to the DOL office. (Funding for the salaries of these employees and the programs they lead, however, will still come from the Education Department budget.)

On Thursday at the Reagan Institute, McMahon noted that the combined staff is working on a new learning and employment report as well as a “skills wallet” that will help show employers what students have learned and students what employers are looking for.

“It’s an exciting time in labor development in that country, but it’s a challenge and a real responsibility for us to not get stuck,” she said.

Aside from career and technical education and some of her other priorities, such as cracking down on alleged campus antisemitism and racial preferencing, much of the conversation both days was centered around the recent shooting of conservative figurehead Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University and how to prevent political violence on campus.

McMahon was quick to describe the Turning Point USA president’s death as a travesty and to charge colleges with the responsibility of promoting more healthy civic discourse. At both events, she cited Kirk himself as a prime example of what such debate looks like, saying that while his approach was at times “aggressive,” he was always “very polite” and “civil.”

“He wasn’t antagonistic, but he was challenging. And there’s a clever art to being able to do that,” she said. “I don’t think that we show our students how to do that enough.”

Thursday, she denounced the faculty, staff and students who appeared to have been apathetic toward or allegedly celebrated Kirk’s death, building upon comments she made in a social media video earlier this week. But just as she suggested condemning certain individuals for crossing an “ethical line,” she added that “if you shut down the speech of one side to allow the freedom of speech for another, you’d have actually compromised the entire principle, and that we cannot have.”

She closed on Thursday by urging educators to foster their students’ compassion.

“We’ve lost a little of our humanity,” she said. “Let’s make sure we grab that back in peace and show it through leadership.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
Education Dept. Opens Up FAFSA Beta Test to All

The full version of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid is scheduled to launch Oct. 1.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | SimoneN/iStock/Getty Images

All students can now access a beta version of the 2026–27 Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the Department of Education announced Wednesday.

The grant application platform won’t officially launch until Oct. 1, the congressionally mandated FAFSA launch deadline, but for the 12 days between now and then, students and families can start their application by participating in the test model.

“We’re using this time to monitor a limited number of FAFSA submissions to ensure our systems are performing as expected,” the department’s Federal Student Aid website explains. “This is a common practice in website and software development.”

The first round of beta testing was opened to a limited number of students in early August. Students who submit their form during the test will only have to submit it once, the department website states.

Source link

September 19, 2025
Creighton Receives $100M Gift for Athletics Facilities

Creighton University has received a $100 million gift from the Heider Family Foundation to launch a nearly $300 million campaign for a sprawling recreational and athletic development on the east side of the Omaha campus.

Creighton’s Fly Together plan will establish or upgrade athletic facilities and outdoor spaces covering 12 blocks and roughly 700,000 square feet. It includes a new student fitness center, a pedestrian walkway connecting the private Jesuit campus to a downtown business district and a new sports performance center for Creighton’s student athletes.

“Fly Together will serve students and student-athletes, but importantly, it will serve the Omaha community itself,” said Scott Heider, a university trustee as well as a trustee of the Heider Family Foundation, which was established by his parents, Charles and Mary.

“We are incredibly grateful to the Heider family and the additional donors who are making this moment possible,” said Creighton president Daniel Hendrickson. “This gift … benefits everyone. It enhances student life, intramurals, premier club sports and intercollegiate athletics. It also strengthens Creighton’s connection to downtown and the broader Omaha community.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
Censorship Is the Authoritarian’s Dream

On Wednesday ABC announced that it had taken Kimmel’s late-night show off the air “indefinitely.”

More professors in the United States have been fired for controversial views in the past week than any other week in all of American history. The violations of academic freedom, free speech and due process on campuses in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination have been extraordinary and indefensible.

The campus firings are too numerous to describe in full, but consider the case of Darren Michael, professor of theater at Austin Peay State University, who was fired because he reposted on social media a 2023 Newsweek headline: “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth It to Keep 2nd Amendment.” Tennessee’s U.S. senator Marsha Blackburn reposted Michael’s view on X, asking the university to take action.

Austin Peay administrators declared, “A faculty member of Austin Peay State University reshared a post on social media that was insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death. Such actions do not align with Austin Peay’s commitment to mutual respect and human dignity. The university deems these actions unacceptable and has terminated the faculty member.”

This is an utterly appalling excuse to punish anyone, and certainly not an adequate reason for a university to terminate a professor without any due process. There is absolutely no rule at Austin Peay banning people from being insensitive or disrespectful, since any rule like that would clearly violate the First Amendment. And the idea that posting a headline quoting Kirk’s views would somehow justify his murder is insane. It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize anyone for favoring or opposing gun control. This critique of Kirk is anything but pro-murder.

The violations of due process involved in these arbitrary firings, with no opportunity for a hearing or a defense, are terrible in themselves. But the justifications for the firings are so insubstantial that they cannot merit any kind of penalty, let alone an immediate dismissal.

It is perfectly legitimate to criticize and even insult both the dead and the living. Any conservative who thinks Charlie Kirk hated free speech so much that he would want his critics purged from campuses is making a far worse insult against Kirk than what any offensive leftist has written or said.

Of course, the suppression of free speech goes far beyond academia.

The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel by ABC on Sept. 17 following FCC chair Brendan Carr’s demands for his removal and threats against broadcast licenses represent an alarming repression of free speech, with the combination of corporate censorship and government suppression.

On his Sept. 15 show, Kimmel said, “We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.” What Kimmel said was, in fact, technically true: Conservatives were doing everything they could to claim that Kirk’s murderer was not one of them. And the murderer was, in fact, a white male college dropout from a Republican family in Utah that taught him to shoot and provided him with guns.

Of course, conservatives are probably correct to call the murderer a leftist with political motives, and if Kimmel was trying to invoke theories that the killer was actually a right-winger, that seems unlikely now based on evidence released after Kimmel’s show aired. But even if Kimmel was trying to make a dubious claim that has now been discredited, that’s protected by the First Amendment and principles of free speech.

The second part of Kimmel’s claim—that conservatives were using Kirk’s murder to “score political points”—was never in doubt and has been proven yet again by his removal from the airwaves.

Kimmel didn’t celebrate any violence or say anything bad about Charlie Kirk. The glorification of Kirk is a cover for an authoritarian agenda to suppress political enemies. Donald Trump immediately celebrated Kimmel’s banishment and called for NBC hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers to also be fired.

This is the slippery slope of censorship: First they come for those who celebrate murder, then they come for anyone who questions the hagiography of the victim, then they go after anyone who quotes the victim’s own words, then they silence anyone who objects to the repression itself. This is why even offensive and stupid comments about Charlie Kirk must not be punished.

But when Vice President JD Vance urges everyone to “call their employer” in response to offensive comments, that’s not critique or argument: That’s cancel culture, pure and simple. That’s government-mandated repression.

The right to free expression must include the right to say horrible and evil things. It protects all of the conservatives (including Donald Trump, his son and Charlie Kirk) who joked about the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi. It protects the Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, who urged mass executions of homeless people.

As David Letterman noted about Kimmel, “You can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian criminal administration in the Oval Office.”

Less than two years ago, before he began issuing government commands to silence the media, Carr posted on X, “Free speech is the counterweight—it is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.”

We are living in the authoritarian’s dream, and it’s a nightmare for free speech and democracy.

Source link

September 19, 2025
7 Tips to Keep You Safe From Online Doxing

Over the past 10 days, dozens of faculty and staff members have had their personal contact information, photos and sometimes addresses broadcast online by anonymous right-wing social media accounts seeking to punish them for comments they allegedly made about the death of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk. This public campaign of online harassment and intimidation, known as doxing, is “off the charts” right now, said Heather Steffen, an adjunct professor of humanities at Georgetown University.

Steffen is also the director of Faculty First Responders, a group created by the American Association of University Professors in 2020 to track and help faculty members targeted by right-wing media. Doxing has been on the rise since protests over the Israel-Hamas war fractured campuses in 2023, but educators are increasingly coming under attack in “ideologically motivated efforts” to silence dissent, according to an August report from the National Association of Attorneys General. “This shift signals the evolution of doxxing from isolated conduct to a more coordinated form of digital persecution,” the report said.

While the attacks are becoming more frequent and sophisticated, higher ed employees can take steps to minimize the risk of doxing, as well as the damage incurred if it does happen.

1. Keep your personal and work accounts separate.

Remove employers’ names from all of your personal social media accounts—if it’s in your bio, take it out, Steffen advised. “You can state in your bio on social media that your views do not represent your employer, and you don’t need to name the employer in order to do that,” she said.

In many cases, work may demand that you list some contact information publicly, but don’t use that information for personal business, said Rob Shavell, CEO and co-founder of DeleteMe, a service that will find and try to wipe members’ personal information from the web. “The data brokers are getting very good at correlating [work and personal] data and putting them into one dossier,” he said. These days, when DeleteMe’s privacy advisers scan the web for members’ information, they return an average of 750 pieces of personally identifying information per person, up from 225 pieces four years ago.

Also, be aware of what devices, accounts and Wi-Fi networks you’re using, and be sure not to use work-provided equipment or resources for anything other than work, Steffen added.

2. Scrub your information from data-broker websites.

Data brokers collect and sell personal information. Companies like DeleteMe and Incogni will remove your personal information from data-broker websites for a fee; DeleteMe charges $129 per member annually. But for anyone who wants to take a do-it-yourself approach, DeleteMe has published free opt-out guides that walk readers through removing their information from the sites, including Experian, TransUnion and CoreLogic. Steffen also suggests following the steps outlined in the Big Ass Data Broker Opt-Out List, a Github project that explains how to scrub your information from data brokers.

3. Use an email mask or alias when possible.

“Masked emails or phone numbers or even credit cards allow you to sign up for things or make calls or buy things without revealing to every counterparty your real personal information,” Shavell said. DeleteMe offers masking, as do companies like Apple and NordPass. These services create a faux address that will then forward emails to your real account. Google also offers free alias phone numbers through Google Voice that will forward calls to your personal phone. In addition to better security, masking also decreases spam and phishing risks.

4. Breathe before you post (and remember the risk of screenshots).

Even if you’re posting to a private account—say, a “close friends” story on your personal Instagram—anything you put online can still be screenshotted and shared widely, Steffen warned. “Anytime you’re posting or reposting something, a good tool can be to pause and think: Would I be comfortable with my employer, my students and my community knowing that I hold this view, and would I be comfortable with them seeing it expressed in this way?” she said.

5. Protect your accounts with complex passwords and two-factor authentication.

It’s boring, but it’s important, said Viktorya Vilk, director for digital safety and free expression at the nonprofit PEN America, which offers digital safety training to colleges and universities and has created a “what to do” resource for people who have been doxed. “If someone hacks into your Facebook or your email, it’s so hard to get that account back. And it’s also incredibly intrusive and unsettling,” she said. “Having a long, secure password and two-factor authentication makes it almost impossible for someone to be able to hack into your account.”

6. In the event you are doxed: Center yourself, and then secure your physical safety.

“People often have a fight, flight or freeze response. It can be incredibly traumatizing and so very difficult to take steps or use your judgment about what to do when you’re being doxed,” Vilk said. “And so, counterintuitively, the very first thing to do is to take a minute and try to center yourself. For some people that’s taking some deep breaths. For other people, it’s just, like, moving around, wiggling around.”

After that, make sure you’re physically safe, she advised. If your address has been shared, consider staying at a hotel or with friends or family until the storm passes. Consider contacting law enforcement to report the threats, file a police report and let them know you’re at increased risk for swatting—a harassment tactic that involves making a false emergency call in order to dispatch law enforcement to a specific location.

7. Once you are physically safe, document the harassment and lock down your accounts.

Set your social accounts to private mode if they’re not already, and take any steps to limit visibility of your posts, Vilk said. “That’s very easy to switch back after the storm dies down,” she added. Be careful communicating with unfamiliar accounts, emails or phone numbers, and document any threats or harassment you receive. Don’t download attachments or click on links from unknown senders, and do a quick search online to find out more about them before responding.

“Take screenshots when you receive them and then report them to the platform where they’re happening. That can be really stressful, so we really recommend that people recruit friends or family or trusted colleagues to help them do that so that they’re not doing it alone,” Vilk said.

Your cellphone number can also be stolen. “If it starts to circulate online, people will call your cellphone company and pretend to be you and try to reroute traffic,” she said. Protect your number by calling the company and placing a PIN on your account.

Source link

September 19, 2025