Tag: Higher

  • Lessons to Prospective International Students About Policing of Black Men

    Lessons to Prospective International Students About Policing of Black Men

    Last week, I was talking with a young man, Pinot, during my time in another country. He told me that he really wants to visit America, but one thing seriously frightens him: the possibility of police officers stopping, harassing and potentially inflicting violence on him. He asked me if these situations really happen as often as it seems. Pinot is Black. That conversation made me wonder how many talented, Black prospective international students share the same fears and ultimately opt out of applying to U.S. universities.

    Yesterday, I was scrolling one of my social media timelines and saw this CBS News video of police officers in Jacksonville, Fla., terrorizing William McNeil Jr. I felt my blood pressure and anxiety rising as I watched. I had not previously seen it, but maybe Pinot had. It is plausible that others around the world have as well. Videos like these teach young people across the U.S. and abroad a set of heartbreaking, inexcusable truths about crimes committed against Black men in America.

    As was the case in last week’s conversation with Pinot, I would not be able to tell a talented young Black male prospective college applicant from Africa, Jamaica, London, Paris or anyplace else that what he has seen on television or social media are rare, isolated occurrences. I would be lying. Truth is, racial profiling and police brutality happen far too often. As I said to Pinot, “What you see and hear about this is not not true.” There is far too much evidence that it remains pervasive.

    I have often told a personal story to audiences comprised of hundreds (sometimes thousands) in the U.S. that I decided against sharing with Pinot because I did not want to deepen his fears about what could happen to him if he ever visited America. I am recapping the incident here.

    In July 2007, I became an Ivy League professor. I also purchased my first home. I was a 31-year-old Black man with a Ph.D. Three friends and I went out to a nightclub to celebrate my new job at the University of Pennsylvania and my home purchase. Bars and clubs close at 2:00 a.m. in Philadelphia. My friends and I were hanging on a corner saying our goodbyes after the nightclub closed. Several other nearby establishments also had just shut down. Hence, there were lots of people on the other three corners and along the streets.

    A cop drove past my friends and me and said something that we did not hear because it was very crowded and noisy around us. We were doing nothing wrong and therefore had no reason to believe he was talking directly to the four of us. Seconds later, he jumped out of his patrol car, put his hands on his baton and yelled to us, “I said get off the fucking corner!” We were shocked and scared. The situation also hurt and angered us, but we were collectively powerless in the moment. We put our hands up and peacefully walked away. I cried uncontrollably during my drive home.

    I mentioned that I was an Ivy League professor with a Ph.D. My three friends also worked in higher education at the time (and still do). They also are Black men. Each of them has a Ph.D. No one, regardless of educational attainment, socioeconomic status or professional accomplishments, deserves to be treated like we were that night. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that our doctorates and university affiliations afforded us no immunity from police misconduct. To that cop, we were just four harassable Black men standing on a street corner.

    I wanted to tell Pinot that being stopped, undeservingly terrorized and potentially murdered by police officers in America for no reason would be unlikely to happen to him. But I could not. Upon reflection, I wonder how many other young Black men from other countries say “no, thanks” to visiting the U.S. or applying for admission to our universities because of the fears that Pinot articulated to me. If they saw the McNeil video and others like it on social media, YouTube or elsewhere, they would be right to doubt my or anyone else’s insistence that interactions with American law enforcement agents are generally safe for citizens, visitors or international students who are Black.

    By the way, perhaps it is good that Pinot did not ask me how the police officer who smashed McNeil’s car window, punched him in the face, threw him to the ground and attacked him was ultimately held accountable. According to an NPR article published this week, that cop was recently cleared of excessive force charges. Surely I would have lost all credibility with Pinot had I attempted to convince him that he would somehow be absolutely safe from similar acts of police brutality as a Black man in America.

    Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Business and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership. His most recent book is titled Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.

    Source link

  • Rachel Toor and Gordon Gee

    Rachel Toor and Gordon Gee

    A Jewish atheist feminist columnist/professor and a devout Mormon bow tie–clad lawyer/university president walked into a bar.

    Or at least, shared a Zoom screen to talk about higher ed. Hilarity ensued. Especially since both have the sometimes-job-ending though not career-killing trait of talking faster than they think and never, ever being able to resist a sarcastic crack.

    The Columnist didn’t get the memo about being circumspect and careful and spouted off with abandon, often finding herself surprised when people actually pay attention to what she writes and praise her for being “brave” (What are you so afraid of that you don’t feel a similar freedom? she often wonders).

    The President, on the other hand, has had the kind of career where if you asked any civilian to name a college president, they would likely mention him. They might even be able to conjure an image of a bow-tied guy, not of football player size, who nevertheless allowed himself to be carried aloft on the hands of the football fans that crammed the stadiums of the giant institutions he led.

    Lead them he did, until his Achilles’ mouth and inability to refrain from cracking a joke kept getting him fired. And then rehired. Now that he may be done presidenting, he’s working a bunch of gigs to help fix higher ed, something the Columnist is also trying to do (though from the cheap seats).

    This odd couple decided it might be fun to engage in some witty banter serious discussion (via text messages) of important issues facing an industry they both love and to which they have committed their lives.

    Columnist: You became a president my sophomore year of college. When I graduated and started working in academic publishing, I began following your career. I feel like I’ve known you for decades, Gordon.

    President: Wow!! I have been a president your whole professional life.

    Columnist: And you’ve shaped my idea—and many others’—of the American university president. You unapologetically embraced the material rewards but never came off as pretentious, and you did hard things while always seeming to be having fun and taking the work, but not yourself, too seriously.

    President: I view the presidency the same way you view being a faculty member. These are the best jobs in the country, and those who whine and complain about academic life are so out of touch with the gift we have been given. And, Rachel, that is why you and I, though from different planets, have found each other, because we both believe in the cause but do not take ourselves too seriously. The joyful odd couple indeed.

    Columnist: Oy. I think that makes me Oscar. Somewhere there must be a Greatest Hits of Gee Gaffes. What’s your favorite of the many, many dumb things you’ve said?

    President: Probably the most embarrassing and painful moment was when I was meeting with our athletic council at Ohio State and I started talking about Notre Dame joining the Big Ten again.

    Columnist: Right. IHE reported on that.

    President: That was stupid because I have great admiration for Notre Dame and Father Jenkins—the president is a dear man and great friend. Sometimes a sense of humor, which I believe is critical to leadership, can be painful. The good fathers forgave me, which made it even worse. Also, my crack about the Little Sisters of the Poor. Though I did become their single largest donor.  

    Columnist: Ah, money. Your salary has long been a topic of conversation. I’ve never aspired to an administrative post because I think I am paid handsomely for doing the best job in the world: teaching what I love. I don’t resent administrative salaries, because if someone is able to negotiate a good deal for themselves with a board, that’s who I want representing my institution. You made a lot and you were accused of lavish spending. Spill the beans, please.

    President: I was compensated very well—

    Columnist: [cough]

    President: —but in turn I raised billions for the universities I served. So, no excuses other than pride and success. Truthfully, my goal always was to make as much money as my football coach, which I never did in 45 years. One time I received a letter from a fan who berated me for my salary and then railed against me for being so parsimonious as to only pay the football coach $4 million.

    I am at that point in life where I own up to every mistake. But my irritation gets high when the “lavish spending” issue gets thrown around. It is a narrative developed by several newspaper reporters who wanted a story and decided to invent one. For example, they accused me of spending $65,000 on bow ties. I did not spend that money on bow ties but rather on bow-tie cookies that we distributed to students, families, friends and donors over a period of years.

    Columnist: Stale cookies? Nice. Speaking of pride and success, what on earth were you thinking when you took on the presidency of Brown? That move seemed to reek of the kind of arrogance you’ve accused universities of.

    President: I think the goal of many university presidents is to lead an Ivy. And I was no different. Heady stuff. But I had come from an institution of 65,000 students to one of 6,500 and soon felt like an antelope in a telephone booth. It was small and self-centered. It is undoubtedly a great university, but fit is important and I was not a good fit. What I learned was that the smaller the institution, the more politically intense it is for the president.

    Columnist: Now I’m going to have at you, buddy. Let’s talk about the University of Austin, which you’ve been associated with from the beginning. Sure, it’s in some ways an innovative answer to the structural problems in our industry, and it’s also a horrific winding back of the social progress we’ve made toward become a more democratic and egalitarian society. I mean, WTF, Gordon?

    President: In my view, there are two pathways to change the arc of U.S. higher education. The first is from the inside out, which, candidly, is like moving a graveyard. Or the other is to create a new university that can set the standard for change. That is what the University of Austin is attempting to do. By returning to the fundamentals of Western thought and focusing on a robust conversation across the intellectual spectrum, they will gain traction. It is a noble effort.

    Columnist: Gordon, you ignorant slut. Excuse me while I puke.

    President: Well, go ahead and puke. 🤓

    Columnist: We’ll come back to why you think it’s noble 🤮 to return to the times when everyone only read dead white men and were taught by bow-tied white men.

    How about a list of topics you’re now able to speak freely about? I mean, we agree on many things and disagree on others. What else can we discuss and push each other on to think harder?

    President: 1. Need to address the four tyrannies: tenure, departments, colleges and leadership gerontocracy. 2. How do we stop university faculty and others from hiding behind academic freedom and start accepting academic responsibility? 3. Exploding the myth of shared governance and creat[ing] a new model of collective responsibility that creates agility and speed by doing away with internal processes that are calculated to preserve the status quo. 4. How to create a standard of excellence in appointing members of Boards of Governors by moving it out of the political process. 5. How to make certain that the selection process of a new president produces the best candidates rather than individuals who have offended the fewest people the longest period of time.

    Columnist: All that and I can add another 15 or 20 things. Plus, we both hate the ocean, both married people younger and hotter than us (I win because Toby is 14 years my junior), and you were an Eagle Scout—

    President: Why did you marry a younger hot guy?

    Columnist: Because I’m no fool, Gramps. Anyway, and you were an Eagle Scout—

    President: I think only because I’m almost certain my dad paid off the scoutmaster to get it for me.

    Columnist: —and I was a Brownie for about a week (loved the outfit) but got fired because I refused to pledge allegiance to the flag (Vietnam).

    This will be fun. I say our next text exchange is “Majors Are Dumb.” And as we’ve already established, I’m the boss. Let’s talk and text again soon.

    Rachel Toor is a contributing editor at Inside Higher Ed and the co-founder of The Sandbox. She is also a professor of creative writing. E. Gordon Gee has served as a university president for 45 years at five different universities—two of them twice. He retired from the presidency July 15, 2025.

    Source link

  • Catholic Briefly Banned Popular Social Media Site Reddit

    Catholic Briefly Banned Popular Social Media Site Reddit

    About half of 18- to 29-year-olds use Reddit, according to Pew Research.

    Illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed

    Students returning to the Catholic University of America Monday were outraged to discover that the university had blocked campus internet access to the popular social media site Reddit. But by Tuesday afternoon, administrators had reversed the ban, saying it had been automatically restricted by a third-party source that controls access to pornographic sites.

    The site had been available to students at the end of last semester, according to Felipe Avila, a nursing student and a member of the student government. But when students returned from break to the Washington, D.C., campus this week, they found they could no longer access the site. No other social media sites seemed to have been affected, he said, and administrators did not notify students or faculty of the change.

    When Avila discovered Reddit had been restricted, he submitted a ticket to the university’s Technology Services Support office to ask if it was a glitch or if the site had been blocked intentionally.

    “When I checked with our security they said that it was blocked because of certain content on the platform and also because of phishing and malicious links that are on that site,” a staff member responded in an email to Avila.

    The ban wasn’t entirely out of left field: In 2019, Catholic University banned access to the 200 most popular pornography websites after the student government passed a resolution advocating for such a ban. But Reddit isn’t a pornographic site; it’s a social media site with well over 100 million daily active users who can read and post in forums called subreddits dedicated to specific topics. According to Pew Research, 48 percent of individuals aged 18 to 29 surveyed in early 2025 said they use Reddit at least occasionally.

    Reddit is one of just a few social media sites that allow users to post sexually explicit material, although it must be labeled appropriately and explicit images appear blurred until a user opts to reveal them. Other social media platforms that allow such content, such as X, which has allowed users to post sexual content since 2024, remained accessible on Catholic’s campus.

    Restriction Reversal

    After two days without answers from administrators, Avila said, the university reversed the ban, attributing the situation to an automated system that restricts access to a list of pornographic sites, university spokesperson Karna Lozoya said in an emailed statement. That list is compiled by a third-party organization, she said, which recently added Reddit.

    “The site was flagged in accord with a policy established in 2019—at the recommendation of the Student Government Association—to block access to the top pornography sites from the University network. Student leaders at the time noted their concerns about the risks of these sites, including exploitation of individuals, addiction, and security risks,” she said.

    The sites that were previously banned were “almost exclusively dedicated to serving pornography,” Lozoya noted. The university decided to reverse the ban on Reddit because its primary purpose is not to share explicit content.

    “In the interest of allowing access to its legitimate uses, access to Reddit.com has been restored to the campus network,” she wrote. “However, the University is taking this opportunity to remind students of the need for prudence, and to avoid consuming exploitative and degrading content.”

    Avila said the short-lived ban sparked outrage among students, some of whom use the platform as an academic resource. Students can join subreddits dedicated to different academic disciplines, like r/StudentNurse, a community of over 180,000, where nursing students can connect with their peers at institutions worldwide to vent or ask for advice.

    Dominic Coletti, a program officer with the free speech advocacy organization the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, warned that preventing students and faculty from accessing certain sites infringes on freedom of expression and academic freedom.

    “We’re concerned about this censorship for two reasons: First, Catholic promises its students free speech. That should include the ability to communicate anonymously with others at the university and in their community about what’s happening. That includes not-safe-for-work content, to be sure, but it also includes a wide swath of discussions about topics core to the work of a university,” he wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Catholic also promises its faculty academic freedom. That includes the freedom to perform research online and to teach students using online resources. Banning social-media sites like Reddit infringe on faculty members’ ability to perform that research and to use these resources in teaching.”

    “The university did not have to promise its students and faculty members these expressive freedoms,” Coletti added. “Now that it has, it must protect those freedoms.”

    Before the ban was lifted, Avila and another student senator filed a resolution calling on the university to make its standards for web filtering more transparent and asking to be notified in advance of any new bans. Even though Reddit is now accessible again, they’re planning to move forward with the resolution.

    “Reversing the ban fixes the outcome, but not the oversight. We must codify protections for student expression to ensure that academic freedom is guaranteed by policy, not just public pressure,” he wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “We look forward to working with the university to see this implemented.”

    Source link

  • Morris Brown College Fires President

    Morris Brown College Fires President

    Morris Brown College president Kevin James fought to regain the college’s accreditation. Now he’s out of a job without explanation.

    Morris Brown College

    Morris Brown College, a historically Black institution in Georgia, removed its president, effective immediately, after seven years on the job, the Board of Trustees announced Monday.

    In a news release, the board thanked Kevin James for his leadership.

    James “played a meaningful role in guiding the institution through critical seasons of growth, resilience, and transformation,” the release read. The board “wishes him well in his next chapter.”

    The board’s announcement offered no explanation for James’s termination.

    “Morris Brown College remains firmly committed to its students, its mission, and its long-term strategic vision,” Bishop Michael Mitchell, chair of the Board of Trustees, said in a statement. “This transition in leadership will help to ensure continuity as we move forward with the important work of strengthening and advancing the College.”

    Under James’s tenure, the struggling college regained accreditation after nearly 20 years without it, restoring students’ access to federal financial aid. Enrollment also grew from about 20 students to more than 540, James wrote in a Facebook post Monday.  

    He said the Board of Trustees terminated his contract, which is slated to end in 2029, “without providing specific cause or substantive explanation” after a positive annual evaluation and strong performance reviews throughout his presidency.  

    He stressed that the timing is “troubling” for the college, which faces an accreditation-reaffirmation review in just a few weeks.

    “I dedicated myself fully to the restoration and resurgence of Morris Brown College, and I stand firmly behind the progress we achieved together,” James wrote. “While I am deeply disappointed by the Board’s decision, I am grateful for the overwhelming support I have received from alumni, faculty, staff, students, and community partners. Thank you for believing in the vision and the work.”

    The board named trustee Nzinga Shaw as the college’s interim leader.

    Source link

  • Nebraska Chancellor’s Hasty Exit Raises Questions

    Nebraska Chancellor’s Hasty Exit Raises Questions

    Weeks after pushing through deeply unpopular program cuts, University of Nebraska–Lincoln chancellor Rodney Bennett has left his role six months early—with a $1 million golden parachute.

    His exit at Nebraska has prompted faculty concerns about executive spending as questions linger about whether program cuts driven by Bennett were avoidable. NU system officials, however, have defended the cuts as necessary due to a recurring budget deficit and argued that Bennett’s exit package is what was owed to him—a mix of unpaid leave, deferred income, health-care benefits and the remainder of his contract set to expire in June.

    For Bennett, this marks the second time since 2022 that he has left a job early, departing his role as president of the University of Southern Mississippi a year ahead of schedule after nearly a decade at the helm there.

    (A UNL spokesperson said Bennett was not available for an interview with Inside Higher Ed.)

    Now UNL will soon embark on a new chancellor search as tensions simmer over recent events, though NU system President Jeffrey Gold noted a “need for healing” before that process begins.

    Contentious Cuts

    Bennett’s budget-reduction plan was unveiled to much faculty dismay in November.

    While he initially proposed cutting six programs, that was later whittled down to four: statistics, earth and atmospheric sciences, educational administration, and textiles, merchandising and fashion design. Four more programs will be “realigned” into two new schools, under the plan.

    The program eliminations will cut 51 jobs at UNL, most from the faculty ranks.

    Other actions taken include faculty buyouts, which are expected to save $5.5 million; budget reductions at four of UNL’s colleges; and the elimination of some administrative and staff roles.

    Those cuts, already unpopular, sting more now after Bennett officially stepped down Monday with an exit package of $1.1 million—prompting faculty outrage over spending priorities.

    “The university cannot credibly claim that it lacks the resources to sustain academic programs and faculty positions while simultaneously paying over a million dollars to a failed chancellor,” Sarah Zuckerman, president of the UNL chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said in a statement sent to Inside Higher Ed and other media outlets. “This payout exposes the administration’s financial crisis narrative as a matter of priorities, not necessity.”

    But Gold, NU system president since July 2024, notes the exit package will not be funded by taxpayer dollars and said the decision to leave early was “mutually discussed” with Bennett, his family and senior leadership and was made with the “best interests” of the campus in mind.

    “The separation agreement—all components of it—will not be funded either from state appropriations or tuition funds, but rather entirely through other university discretionary resources, meaning privately raised dollars,” Gold told Inside Higher Ed. “It’s always a balance, but an attempt was made, and I think in this instance, successfully, to not use the same dollars that are used to support our faculty and our staff and, most importantly, our students.”

    Many faculty members are also seething about what they see as fuzzy math to justify the cuts.

    An outside analysis, conducted by the AAUP, argued that instructional spending across the system has declined in recent years while administrative pay rises and that the cuts fell disproportionately on the academic side. The analysis also suggested that by increasing its endowment draw by 1.3 percent, bringing it up to 6 percent, UNL would have been able to avoid cuts.

    Gold said that “perhaps the campus has seen that analysis,” but he has not. He largely dismissed the notion of increasing the endowment draw, noting such a move is “at the discretion of the Board of Directors and senior leadership of the [University of Nebraska] Foundation.” Gold also underscored that two of the four program closures were supported by the Academic Planning Committee, a group of faculty, staff, students and administrators—though that fact has done little to assuage the concerns of others who have protested the cuts as needless or flawed.

    Faculty Tensions

    Faculty have also accused Bennett of steamrolling them in the process to determine the cuts. In November, UNL’s Faculty Senate voted no confidence in Bennett and urged Gold to evaluate Bennett’s “continued fitness to serve” as chancellor.

    The no-confidence resolution blasted Bennett for “failures in strategic leadership, fiscal stewardship, governance integrity, external relations, and personnel management.” Those concerns are among many complaints from faculty during Bennett’s tenure.

    Regina Werum, a UNL sociology professor and member of UNL’s AAUP chapter, told Inside Higher Ed by email that Bennett had “no rapport with faculty” and was rarely seen on campus.

    “The Chancellor’s style is best described as disengaged from and more accurately as disdainful of faculty, staff, and students. He keeps himself insulated and largely invisible on campus, making sure to be present for photo ops with superiors and dignitaries,” Werum wrote.

    A former Southern Miss official who worked with Bennett at that campus offered a similar take. Speaking anonymously, the former official said Bennett was a rare sight on campus and tended to offer scripted remarks to faculty. That official also criticized Bennett’s inexperience with teaching and research, noting he stepped into the job with a student affairs background.

    “The problem was he didn’t want you to know that he didn’t know things, and because of that, he wouldn’t ask questions,” the anonymous official said. “It was a conundrum. You would try to help him understand what was going on, but he didn’t want to admit that he didn’t understand it all.”

    Bennett also enacted program cuts at Southern Miss, axing dozens of positions.

    The former official said Bennett’s cabinet encouraged him to consider other options at Southern Miss, but he wasn’t interested in having those conversations and saw cuts as the only route to plug budget holes. The anonymous administrator also said Bennett often ignored faculty advice.

    “When he reorganized the Gulf Coast campus, he put together two large committees, 30 people each, that worked for six months coming up with recommendations,” they said. “And then when he rolled out the plan for the Gulf Coast, there was a lot of stuff in there that none of the committees had ever discussed. People felt like they wasted a lot of time on these committees, and they were designed to give him cover for the changes he was going to make anyway.”

    The former USM official believes it was an enrollment collapse at that campus, known as Southern Miss Gulf Park, that hastened Bennett’s exit from a job he had held since 2013. Bennett initially announced in January 2021 that he planned to step down when his contract ended in June 2023. However, Bennett was officially out by June 2022, with no explanation.

    Months later, a member of the Institutions of Higher Learning Board of Trustees, which oversees Southern Miss and other universities, told local media he was “embarrassed” by the enrollment collapse at the satellite campus, which plunged by more than 50 percent from 2011 to 2022.

    Despite sharp faculty criticism, Gold praised Bennett for his time as chancellor.

    “For the 18 months that I had the privilege of working with Chancellor Bennett, I really enjoyed working with him. I found him to be very thoughtful, easy to work with, a very solid human being with a very strong love of higher education, and particularly public higher education,” Gold said.

    But if Gold felt differently, he wouldn’t be able to say so.

    A nondisparagement agreement in Bennett’s separation agreement prevents certain university and system officials, including Gold and members of the Board of Regents, from making “any negative or disparaging comments or statements” about the now-former Nebraska chancellor.

    Source link

  • Calif. College of Arts to Close, Sell Campus to Vanderbilt

    Calif. College of Arts to Close, Sell Campus to Vanderbilt

    As part of its national expansion, Vanderbilt has purchased the California College of the Arts campus, which is closing.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed

    California College of the Arts will close by the end of the 2026–27 academic year amid enrollment declines that have rendered its business model unsustainable, officials announced.

    But the Wednesday announcement at a press conference at San Francisco’s City Hall came with surprising fanfare. Though CCA is going away, Vanderbilt University is stepping in to purchase its campus, giving the private institution in Tennessee a foothold on the West Coast.

    Following the closure, Vanderbilt will assume ownership of the campus and “establish undergraduate and graduate programming, including art and design programs,” and maintain archival materials from the college, CCA president David C. Howse wrote in an announcement.

    The move comes after recent financial struggles for CCA, which laid off 23 employees in 2024 and closed other vacant positions to address a $20 million budget gap. While the private college raised nearly $45 million recently, those funds were evidently not enough to stave off closure. 

    CCA enrolled 1,308 students in fall 2024, according to recent federal data, down from a recent high of nearly 2,000 students in fall 2016.

    Officials have not made details of the transaction publicly available.

    Vanderbilt’s takeover of the San Francisco campus is the latest national push from the university, which has pursued an ambitious growth plan in recent years. Vanderbilt is currently leasing a campus in New York City and building another in West Palm Beach, Fla., as announced in 2024.

    Vanderbilt chancellor Daniel Diermeier told Inside Higher Ed last fall that the university was exploring a site in San Francisco and noted the booming artificial intelligence scene in the city was part of the appeal for a campus there.

    While at least 16 nonprofit institutions announced closure plans last year, California College of the Arts appears to be the first to do so in 2026, coming less than two weeks into the new year.

    Source link

  • UNC’s App Redesign Drives Student Engagement

    UNC’s App Redesign Drives Student Engagement

    What was once an underused mobile app at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been rebuilt to serve as a central hub for student information and services.

    The app, Hello Heels, was relaunched during first-year orientation last fall after undergoing a redesign following input from students through advisory boards, focus groups and surveys.

    Since the relaunch, the app now draws about 90,000 page views per week from roughly 37,000 users—up from 10,000 page views and 6,000 users before the redesign.

    Elizabeth Poindexter, executive director of communications and special projects in UNC’s Office of Student Affairs, said students rely on the app for “real-time” updates on everything from bus tracking to dining hall offerings.

    “Nothing thrills me more than running to the dining hall to grab my own lunch and seeing a student using the app or talking to their friends about it,” said Poindexter.

    She added that student feedback has allowed the app to become a multifaceted “dynamic space,” featuring modules on career services and health and wellness and an up-to-date events calendar.

    Poindexter also said the redesigned app has proven cost-effective, saving more than $40,000 in new student and family programs by eliminating the need for duplicative services. Instead of costly printed materials, the app provides real-time agenda updates and announcements.

    “The more people hear about that cost savings, the more interested in and engaged with the app they become,” said Poindexter.

    The approach: Poindexter said student input came from a diverse group, including undergraduates and graduate, transfer and international students.

    “We really had a good spread of students who are representative of the student body at large, and they had some incredible recommendations,” said Poindexter, including suggestions to “overhaul” and “refresh” the health and wellness and career services modules.

    She added that other features, such as real-time updates on recreation center occupancy, dining hall hours and integration with academic tools like Canvas, also arose directly from student feedback.

    The app includes an opt-in messaging feature that allows campus offices to send targeted updates to students who choose to receive them. Poindexter said the most popular channels come from the financial well-being center and the mental health and wellness center.

    The financial well-being center sends weekly money tips and appointment reminders, while the mental health and wellness center shares well-being messages during high-stress periods like finals, which she said students respond positively to.

    The app also gathers in-app survey responses. Of roughly 250 respondents, 98 percent said they plan to continue using Hello Heels.

    “That is why it’s been so successful,” Poindexter said. “We have student voices integrated every step of the way.”

    What’s next: Poindexter said part of the redesign involved partnering with UNC’s business school to ensure the app’s long-term sustainability and continued improvement.

    “It’s been really wonderful to see that we can have this universitywide impact and improve the student experience in how we communicate with them,” she said.

    Poindexter recommended that higher education leaders take a close look at their own media, from mobile apps to online newsletters, and use student feedback to make sure those tools are actually engaging and informing their target audience.

    “Our best advocates are our students, and they have really useful insights decision-makers should consider,” she said.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • SHEEO Releases Annual State Priorities Survey

    SHEEO Releases Annual State Priorities Survey

    Affordability has always been a buzzword for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but polling shows that it’s becoming increasingly popular among state higher education agencies as well.

    According to the latest annual State Priorities survey from the State Higher Education Executive Officers, college affordability jumped from the sixth-most-important policy issue among higher ed executives in 2025 to the second most this year.

    SHEEO researchers emphasized that affordability has “consistently [been] among the top priorities” for the roughly 45 state executives surveyed each year; the average score from respondents this year only increased 0.1 points on a 1-to-5 scale. Nonetheless, they agreed that the increase represents a significant and timely change—one that was likely influenced by the political climate in Washington.

    “Affordability is the key overarching issue for policymakers heading into the 2026 midterm election, and state higher education leaders are certainly not immune from pressure to lower costs,” said Tom Harnisch, SHEEO’s vice president for government relations. “So there’s going to be, I foresee, continued legislative efforts to hold the line on tuition, make increased investments in financial aid and address other areas that are related to college costs.”

    The increased focus on affordability has also been reflected in state legislation; 33 states indicated that they had instituted a tuition freeze and/or limit in at least one public higher education sector in the past five years. Another 20 have considered legislation to create or expand statewide promise programs, which provide free or significantly reduced college tuition for eligible students.

    But state systems still have work to do to address public concerns. Roughly 60 percent of all adults say cost is the biggest barrier preventing students from enrolling in or completing a postsecondary degree, according to a report from the left-leaning think tank New America.

    Other key policy issues include economic and workforce development (which held its place at No. 1), higher education’s value proposition (No. 3), and college completion/student success (No. 5), the SHEEO survey shows. A topic that had not previously been included in SHEEO surveys also gained prominence this year: state impacts from federal policy changes, which placed sixth on the list of 25 issues.

    Collectively, Harnisch said, this year’s results, and the relatively consistent results of recent years, reflect a slow but steady transition concerning who is responsible for bearing the cost of college.

    “It just shows the overarching cost shift from states to students, and associated with that cost shift is the need for students to get a job, to help pay for their education and associated student debt,” he explained. “These are all downstream effects of that.”

    SHEEO researchers also noted that while state budgets for higher ed range widely, funding has declined over all since the COVID-19 pandemic and its “record state budget surpluses.” The major funding cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will likely only make higher education budgets tighter, they added.

    “Many states with biannual budgets set them in 2025, so they will not be in budget sessions again until 2027. But those states that do have budgets in 2026 are more likely to face changes, and higher education is often most vulnerable to those changes,” Harnisch said. “So as more states have budget shortfalls, revenue growth is softening and there’s increased competition for limited state funding, states are going to be increasingly challenged on the affordability front.”

    Still, despite looming budget cuts, “unstable federal funding streams and intensifying state and federal political pressures,” SHEEO says there are reasons for optimism.

    Concerns about completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid dropped nine spots to the 18th-most-important issue for higher leaders this year. And despite the looming predictions of a major demographic cliff, which is slated to take effect in 2026, enrollment declines dropped from the seventh-most-important issue in 2025 to 16th most important this year.

    If anything, SHEEO hopes that enrollment will continue to climb as students pursuing eligible short-term education and training programs gain access to Pell Grants for the first time starting on July 1, under a new program called Workforce Pell.

    “[The year] 2026 holds a lot of unknowns as we look to see what state legislators will prioritize and how changes at the federal level will impact states,” Harnisch said in a news release about the report. But as “economic and workforce development continues to be top of mind, and with the implementation of Workforce Pell rolling out later this year, we’re optimistic that states will continue to make advances in addressing workforce needs.”

    Source link

  • The Hidden Tax Students Pay for Your AI Strategy (opinion)

    The Hidden Tax Students Pay for Your AI Strategy (opinion)

    University leaders are thinking a lot about AI. Some institutions are purchasing site licenses, others forming task forces and others are drafting policies focused on academic honesty. Meanwhile, students are quietly bearing a cost that few are tracking: between $1,200 and $1,800 over four years in AI tool subscriptions that fragmented and unenforceable institutional policies have made necessary.

    Here’s what a typical student experience looks like. Freshman fall semester: The composition professor bans ChatGPT even though the university has a site license. The biology lab recommends NotebookLM for research synthesis. The math professor encourages Wolfram|Alpha Pro Premium at $8.25 per month. Spring semester brings a different writing professor, who requires Grammarly Pro at $12 monthly, while the computer science intro professor suggests GitHub Copilot Pro for $10 monthly (though it’s worth noting here—props to GitHub Copilot—that verified students may be eligible for free access to the Pro plan). Meanwhile, the research methods professor advises students to “use AI responsibly” without defining what that means.

    As students progress, the costs compound. Statistics courses need IBM SPSS Statistics with AI features or Jupyter with premium compute, such as through a Google CoLab Pro subscription ($9.99 per month). Marketing classes require Canva Pro for design projects at $15 monthly. Capstone courses recommend Claude Pro at $20 monthly, or premium versions of research tools like Consensus or Elicit running anywhere from $10 to more than $40 per month. Different courses equal different tools, and the subscription stack grows. The money matters—$1,200 to $1,800 is significant for students already stretching every dollar. But the financial burden reveals something more troubling about how policy fragmentation or policy stall is undermining educational equity and mission. The problem runs deeper than institutional inaction.

    Without coordination, universities face two unsatisfying options. Option one: Buy nothing centrally. Students bear the full cost—potentially $4 million to $7 million in aggregate per year for a 15,000-student institution—creating massive equity gaps and graduates unprepared for AI-integrated careers. Option two: Attempt institutional licensing. But this means more than purchasing a single large language model. Writing disciplines might work with ChatGPT or Claude. But other disciplines might need GitHub Copilot, Canva Pro, AI-enhanced modeling platforms, Consensus, Elicit, AI features in SPSS or premium Jupyter compute. There are thousands of AI platforms out there.

    A truly comprehensive strategy for a large university could exceed $2 million annually—with no guarantee of faculty adoption or pedagogical integration. So even with an investment, without consensus or agreement, students might still experience this AI tax. Some institutions have the financial capacity to invest in both comprehensive licensing and faculty development. But most universities facing enrollment pressures and constrained budgets cannot afford coordinated AI strategy at this scale. The result is policy paralysis while students continue paying out of pocket. Some institutions have tried a middle path, purchasing site licenses for tools like ChatGPT Edu or Claude for Education. But without cross-functional coordination, these investments often miss their mark.

    The fundamental barrier is really a structural one. Procurement authority typically resides with the chief information officer, while pedagogical decisions belong to the provost and faculty. The information technology office selects tools based on security, scalability, cost and vendor relationships and reliability. Faculty need tools based on disciplinary fit, learning outcomes and individual professional preparation. These criteria rarely align. If an institution does purchase something, it may sit underutilized while students continue paying for what they actually need or what faculty require or prefer.

    This creates the unintentional equity crisis: Two students in the same capstone course may face dramatically different access. Student A, working 20 hours weekly and Pell Grant eligible, cannot afford premium subscriptions. She uses free versions with severe limitations and usage caps—and when those caps hit midassignment, her work stalls. Student B, with family financial support, maintains premium subscriptions for every required tool with unlimited usage and priority access. Student B’s AI-enhanced work earns higher grades not because of deeper learning, but because of subscription access. Academic advantages compound over time and may continue past college and into the career.

    Universities have created an unintentional AI tax here on students that exacerbates grade inflation, does not ensure learning of content and is costing students. Universities have always operated on a principle of equal access to essential learning resources. AI has become essential to academic work, yet access remains unequal.

    The academic commons is breaking down. The coordination gap is structural—and fixable. Technology teams focus on infrastructure and security. Academic affairs manages curriculum and pedagogy. Student success addresses traditional access barriers. Financial aid handles emergency requests for support case by case. In practice, the CIO and provost rarely will coordinate at the operational level, where these decisions actually get made.

    The employability implications compound the equity concerns. One survey found that 26 percent of hiring managers now consider AI fluency a baseline requirement, with 35 percent actively looking for AI experience on résumés. Students graduating without systematic AI literacy preparation face workforce disadvantages that mirror the educational inequities they experienced, disadvantages that may extend into career outcomes and lifetime earnings.

    The real question isn’t “What should we buy?” Instead, universities need to ask themselves, “What is AI fluency and how do we know if students are getting it?” Then, “How do we make strategic decisions about what gets institutional investment—not just licenses but also faculty buy-in and development—versus what students purchase?” That requires executive-level strategic coordination that bridges IT and academic affairs, something most universities lack.

    The conversations are happening in separate silos when they need to converge. Until they do, universities will continue creating hidden taxes for students while wondering why AI investments aren’t delivering promised educational transformation. Students caught in this gap might not even be aware it is happening and not have the language or platform to name it.

    Higher education’s democratic mission requires equal access to essential learning tools. AI has become essential. Access remains unequal. Costs are passed to the students. The longer institutions delay action, the wider these gaps grow.

    Kenneth Sumner is founder and principal of Beacon Higher Education, which provides AI governance consulting for colleges and universities. He previously served as provost at Manhattan University and has held associate provost and dean roles at Montclair State University. He holds advanced AI strategy and design and innovation certifications from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University School of Business.

    Source link

  • What the Employment Rights Act 2025 means for higher education

    What the Employment Rights Act 2025 means for higher education

    After months of parliamentary back-and-forth, the Bill finally made it onto the statute books just before Christmas. For universities, the implications are wide-ranging, and the clock is ticking on compliance.

    The Act is the centrepiece of the government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay”, promising a shake-up of employment rights, union access, and labour market enforcement. For the sector, where workforce structures and contractual arrangements are particularly complex, these reforms need to be considered carefully. In this article, we have focused on a rundown of five things universities need to know now.

    Unfair dismissal: the bar just got lower and compensation higher. From 2027, staff will only need six months’ service (down from two years) to claim unfair dismissal and the maximum cap on compensation is going. That means universities could face much bigger payouts if things go wrong. Universities should review probation policies, equip managers to proactively manage performance during probation and avoid extended probation periods, where possible, to reduce the legal risk.

    Zero-hours and casual contracts: new rules, new risk. Think visiting lecturers, exam invigilators, and a lot of student-facing roles. The Act introduces rights to request guaranteed hours, proper notice of shifts, and compensation for cancellations. If you rely heavily on a casual workforce, generally or in certain areas, now’s the time to audit those contracts and review use, although these measures won’t be brought into effect until 2027.

    Trade union access: expect more structured dialogue. With effect from 18 February 2026, the Act lowers the threshold for a valid industrial action ballot and shortens the notice period unions must give before taking action (14 to 10 days). It also extends the mandate for action from 6 to 12 months. This means it will be easier and quicker for unions to secure a mandate for strikes or other industrial action. Universities should expect a more agile approach from unions and be ready to respond to potential disruption with robust contingency planning and clear communication. It may be prudent to review recognition agreements, including the dispute resolution procedures, to seek to mitigate any negative impact.

    Sexual harassment: from October 2026, the Act will require universities to take “all” reasonable steps, not just “reasonable steps”, to prevent sexual harassment of staff, with regulations to follow on what this means in practice. At the same time, employers will become liable for harassment of staff by third parties (such as students, visitors, or contractors) across all protected characteristics, unless they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent it.

    Disclosures of sexual harassment will be explicitly protected under whistleblowing law, and most confidentiality clauses (NDAs) that seek to prevent staff from raising or disclosing allegations of discrimination or harassment will be void. For universities, these changes raise the bar for prevention, policy, and training and align closely with the Office for Students’ E6 condition of registration, which already requires robust systems to prevent and respond to harassment and sexual misconduct affecting students.

    “Fire and rehire”: also from October 2026, dismissing and re-engaging staff to force through changes to pay, hours, leave, or benefits will be automatically unfair unless the university can prove it’s facing severe financial trouble. If you’re planning a restructure or harmonising terms from October onwards, you’ll also need to follow the revised statutory Code of Practice and have your business case watertight.

    If I were you

    Universities are already navigating a maze of employment models, from permanent academics, fixed-term researchers to casual student workers. These reforms demand a proactive approach to ensure legal compliance but also to maintain staff morale and institutional reputation.

    If you are a university leader, now is a good time to make it part of your new year’s resolution to audit your casual contracts – zero-hours, fixed-term, and casual roles all need additional scrutiny to ensure they meet new legal minimums. It would also be a good time to review probation and dismissal policies and manager compliance, as the shorter qualifying period and uncapped compensation change the risk calculus.

    Most institutions are in communication with their local unions, but now would be a good time to talk to your unions specifically about the changes, as early engagement can help manage expectations and smooth the path to compliance.

    While many in England may have recently reviewed institutional harassment policies as part of recent regulatory changes from the Office for Students, it is important to review sexual harassment policies and ensure managers know what is changing, how they can ensure compliance and to keep an eye out for new regulations.

    As much of the sector faces significant financial challenges, additional restructuring plans may be in play for the upcoming academic year. If this is the case, it is essential you review your plans in light of additional legislation around contract changes, particularly around “fire and rehire”. This is already somewhat of a legal minefield, but the constraints on employers will be far more stringent from October onwards.

    And, if nothing else, you and your colleagues must keep good records. Documentation is your best defence if challenged.

    Ultimately, the Employment Rights Act 2025 isn’t just another HR update and universities must not treat it as one. Instead, it marks a cultural shift towards greater job security and worker voice. For universities, the challenge is to balance compliance with the need for flexibility to meet the complex needs of an institution in an evolving sector. Get ahead of the curve, and you can turn these changes into an opportunity to strengthen staff engagement and institutional resilience.

    Key dates for your diary

    18 February 2026

    • Simplifying industrial action notices and ballot papers
    • Increasing mandate period and reducing required notice period for industrial acton
    • Protections against dismissal and detriment for taking industrial action

    6 April 2026

    • Whistleblowing protection for sexual harassment disclosures
    • Collective redundancy protective award increase from 90 days gross pay to 180 days
    • (Expected) Repeal of the 50% threshold for industrial action ballots to revert to simple majority voting

    1 October 2026

    • “All reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment and prevent third party harassment
    • Trade union statutory access rights

    1 January 2027

    • Six month qualifying period for unfair dismissal and removal of compensation cap

    During 2027 (exact date to be determined)

    • Zero-hours and casual contract protections (guaranteed hours, notice, compensation)

    Some provisions are subject to further regulations or transitional arrangements. Check the latest government guidance for updates.

    Source link