Tag: Higher

Right-Leaning Faculty Likelier to Be “Hostile” to Jews
A new report from Brandeis University researchers concluded that 7 percent of non-Jewish faculty polled during the spring semester at “very high research activity” universities showed “a pattern of explicitly hostile views toward Jews as a people.”

The “Ideology in the Classroom” report, released last week, says an additional 3 percent of non-Jewish faculty “had a pattern of views about Israel that are generally described as antisemitic” by Jewish organizations and Jewish students. And while 11 percent of non-Jewish faculty who self-identified as extremely liberal were “hostile to Israel”—a view “virtually non-existent among all other political identities, including other liberals”—the faculty “with more conservative political views, including those who were the most critical of DEI, were the most likely to be hostile to Jews.”

Over all, though, the report says 90 percent of non-Jewish faculty were hostile to neither Jews nor Israel.

“The results confirm our earlier research findings that Jewish students are more likely to experience hostility from their peers than from faculty,” the authors wrote. They added that “government efforts to punish universities as a whole for their lack of viewpoint diversity and failure to address antisemitism are not well targeted to address these challenges. For example, STEM faculty, who are less likely to teach about contentious political issues, are the most likely to be profoundly harmed by the government’s cancellation of federal research grants.”

Leonard Saxe, one of the authors and the Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies and Social Policy at Brandeis, told Inside Higher Ed that faculty “don’t appear to express any interest in imposing their own political or ideological views on students.” Saxe said, “Faculty need to be seen as allies” in resolving the problems underlying the conflict between the government and universities regarding antisemitism and diversity more broadly.

“They want the same thing,” Saxe said. “They want to teach students how to understand diverse perspectives, multiple perspectives. They don’t want to make every single issue political.”

Graham Wright, another author and an associate research scientist at Brandeis’s Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, said that to the extent antisemitism is an issue on some campuses, it’s “not necessarily due to the actions of large numbers of faculty, but a smaller group.”

The report found that almost half of Jewish faculty were somewhat or very much concerned about antisemitism on their campuses, and they were “more concerned about antisemitism emanating from the political right than the political left.” This “can be attributed in part to the political makeup of Jewish faculty,” the authors wrote, noting that more than 80 percent of Jewish faculty identified as liberal and about a quarter as extremely liberal.

Using a statistical model, the researchers also sought to predict hostility from non-Jewish faculty based on their holding certain beliefs. They concluded that “faculty who more strongly agreed that Israel was an apartheid state” were likelier to be hostile to both Israel and Jews. And they found no statistically significant difference between academic areas in levels of faculty hostility after controlling for other factors.

The study grouped faculty into these categories of “hostile to Jews,” “hostile to Israel” or hostile to neither based on their pattern of agreeing or disagreeing with seven statements.

The statements were:
- “Jews in America have too much power,”
- “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind,”
- “Jewish people talk about the Holocaust just to further their political agenda,”
- “Jews should be held accountable for Israel’s actions,”
- “Israel does not have the right to exist,”
- “I wouldn’t want to collaborate with a scholar who supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state,” and
- “All Israeli civilians should be considered legitimate targets for Hamas.”
The report says “virtually no non-Jewish faculty expressed agreement” with that last claim.

The researchers also wrote that “more than three-quarters of the faculty in our sample reported that, over the past academic year, the Israel-Palestine conflict never came up in class discussions, and less than 10 percent reported actively teaching about it.” Saxe said there’s not much evidence that a faculty member’s negative attitudes toward a group “seep into” their classroom.

The researchers surveyed 2,335 faculty across 146 R-1 Carnegie classification universities from Feb. 3 to May 5. About 11 percent of the sample was Jewish. The online survey also polled faculty on other current political issues, such as immigration.

“More than two-thirds of faculty identified as liberal, while one-third identified as moderate or conservative,” the report says, but “there was overwhelming agreement among faculty that climate change is a crisis requiring immediate action and that President Trump is a threat to democracy.”

The report also says that “half of liberal faculty members and 70 percent of extremely liberal faculty members expressed serious concerns about being targeted by the federal government for their political views.”

But Saxe said that “as a faculty member on campuses most of my life, I believe we’re not going to address the current issues unless faculty themselves get more engaged—and that it’s recognized by policymakers that we need faculty if we’re going to solve these issues.”
Source link
July 30, 2025
Post-Test Worksheet Encourages College Student Metacognition

Many of today’s college students have experienced disruptions to their education due to the COVID-19 pandemic, negatively affecting their personal well-being as well as their academic preparation. Encouraging students to embrace effective and meaningful study habits can be one way to improve their college readiness and confidence in learning.

One professor at Western Iowa Tech Community College designed a mandatory post-test reflection and correction for students and saw dramatic improvement in their performance on the second exam. The assignment encourages students to strengthen their study habits and hold themselves accountable for making meaningful changes.

What’s the research: Students say their biggest challenges when studying are time management (47 percent) and distractions from technology or other people (both 38 percent), as well as a lack of sufficient time (34 percent), according to a 2024 survey from Kahoot. Forty-one percent of respondents indicated they experience anxiety while studying, compared to 34 percent who said they feel confident.

Test corrections, also called exam wrappers by teaching and learning centers, are activities delivered before or after an assessment to help students consider how they study and ways they could improve their practices before the next exam.

Past research on exam wrappers has found that implementing the strategy can improve course and exam grades, as well as students’ level of metacognition and changes to study habits.

For years, Frank O’Neill, a sports medicine instructor at Western Iowa Tech, has offered students the opportunity to complete an optional correction worksheet after each exam. Typically, the students who take him up on the opportunity are the ones already excelling in the course, he said—not those who could benefit from additional support.

“My primary goal is to turn a D student into a C student,” O’Neill said.

This summer, O’Neill decided to run an experiment and see if making the test analysis and correction worksheet mandatory would have any impact on students’ grades.

The assignment: After students take an exam, O’Neill’s assignment asks them a series of reflection questions on their study habits as well as a post-test commitment to improving their test-taking abilities.

Some of the questions are designed to help O’Neill understand which study strategies students employ and how they correlate to their grades.

For example, he’s learned that a student who’s less confident entering into the assessment more often receives a higher score than their confident peers, which O’Neill believes is because students who have studied longer have spent more time wrestling with the material and consider it to be difficult, compared to their peers who skim notes and think they’ve learned content.

Other questions prompt students to consider their test-taking abilities and the errors they make frequently. Sometimes students indicate that they got a question wrong because they changed their answer from the correct response to an incorrect one, O’Neill said, which allows him to encourage more confident responses.

“Your brain is smart; your gut is smarter than your brain,” O’Neill said. “You gotta go with that gut.”

Students can also provide feedback to the professor on how to improve the course. Sometimes O’Neill gains insights from test performance and frequently missed questions to understand how to make content clearer in the future.

The assignment requires students to correct every incorrect response on the test, which O’Neill says serves as a study technique as well, because exams are cumulative, so students will need to know the right answer later. It also fosters a growth mindset among learners, helping them reframe their learning and consider how to fail forward and see assessment as progress toward their goals, O’Neill said.

The impact: O’Neill is teaching two sections of microbiology this summer with 20 students enrolled in each section.

After the first exam, O’Neill assigned all students in one section to complete the exam wrapper, which would add five points to their grade. The other section could complete the optional wrapper but without points attached.

By the second test, the difference between classes was clear; the optional correction section showed little to no difference in grades between exams one and two. In the mandatory correction section, the average exam grade rose nine percentage points.

Since he first offered the assignment, O’Neill hasn’t received any negative feedback from students about having to complete the exam wrapper, which he attributes in part to his commitment to avoid giving students “busywork,” instead explaining the purpose behind each assignment. He’s also seen self-reported levels of test anxiety decrease over the course of the semester among students who use the wrapper and fewer students failing or dropping the class, signaling the personal benefits of the worksheet.

O’Neill now plans to assign the post-test reflection to all the courses he’s teaching this fall, for about 200 students in total. He’s also exploring opportunities to digitize at least portions of the assignment in the college’s learning management system, Canvas.

Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.

Source link

July 30, 2025
Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

Federal officials are accusing Duke University’s law journal and medical school of racial discrimination.

Duke University file photo

The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services are investigating Duke University and the Duke Law Journal for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race and national origin, the agencies announced Monday.

The New York Times reported Tuesday night that the Trump administration froze $108 million in federal grants and contracts at Duke’s medical school and health system.

On Monday, ED and HHS sent a letter detailing their concerns about potentially discriminatory practices at Duke Health and threatening the medical school’s federal funding.

“These practices allegedly include illegal and wrongful racial preferences and discriminatory activity in recruitment, student admissions, scholarships and financial aid, mentoring and enrichment programs, hiring, promotion, and more,” the letter states, though officials didn’t offer specifics.

The departments want Duke to “review all policies and practices at Duke Health for the illegal use of race preferences, take immediate action to reform all of those that unlawfully take account of race or ethnicity to bestow benefits or advantages, and provide clear and verifiable assurances to the government that Duke’s new policies will be implemented faithfully going forward—including by making all necessary organizational, leadership, and personnel changes to ensure the necessary reforms will be durable.”

Additionally, the agencies want Duke to convene a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” that can negotiate with the federal government on behalf of university leaders and “avoid invasive federal engagement,” according to the letter. This request appears to be a new ask for the Trump administration as officials work to expand their scrutiny of higher education, based on what’s publicly known about investigations at other colleges.

“We hope this arrangement will enable the parties to move quickly toward a mutually agreeable resolution of outstanding concerns and complaints,” officials wrote in the letter. “If the alleged offending policies, practices, and programs are found to exist and remain unrectified after six months, or if at any time the Merit and Civil Rights Committee and federal government reach an impasse, the federal government will commence enforcement proceedings as appropriate.”

Duke has 10 days to respond to the request to form the committee.

Meanwhile, the Duke Law Journal investigation, led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, centers on allegations that the journal uses factors such as race or national origin to select editors. The department opened a similar investigation into the Harvard Law Review.

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, reported last month that the Duke Law Journal prepared a special application packet for affinity groups that noted applicants could get a three- to five-point bump if they have “meaningfully advanced the interests of communities with diverse perspectives and experiences either at school or in their community.”

Source link

July 30, 2025
UCLA Settles Lawsuit With Jewish Students for $6.45M

The University of California, Los Angeles, agreed to pay $6.45 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Jewish students, the Los Angeles Times reported. The agreement, which would be in effect for 15 years, now awaits approval from the judge overseeing the case.

The lawsuit, brought by three Jewish students and a medical school professor in June 2024, alleged UCLA enabled pro-Palestinian activists to cut off Jewish students’ access to parts of campus, violating their civil rights.

Violence broke out in and around an encampment established at UCLA in spring 2024 when pro-Israel counterprotesters attacked it with fireworks and other projectiles. Hours of chaos ensued between protesters and counterprotesters before campus police intervened. UCLA’s former chancellor Gene D. Block, named in the lawsuit alongside other UCLA officials, was among the higher ed leaders called before Congress for campus antisemitism hearings.

As part of the settlement agreement, each plaintiff will receive $50,000. Another $320,000 will go toward a campus initiative to combat antisemitism. About $2.3 million will be donated to eight different Jewish community and advocacy groups, including Hillel at UCLA, the Academic Engagement Network, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federation Los Angeles Campus Impact Network and the Film Collaborative Inc., to produce a film related to the Holocaust.

UCLA also agreed that it is “prohibited from knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students, faculty, and/or staff from ordinarily available portions of UCLA’s programs, activities, and/or campus areas,” which includes “exclusion … based on religious beliefs concerning the Jewish state of Israel.”

Source link

July 30, 2025
Federal Actions Loom Large at NACUBO Conference

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Just outside of Washington, D.C., across the Potomac River, Capitol Hill cast a shadow over the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, where concerns over federal funding and policy changes were palpable among attendees.

At panels and in side conversations during the three-day meeting, held at the sprawling Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, attendees swapped strategies, drilled into pressing issues and commiserated over pressures on the sector wrought by both the political environment and a business model that is strained in many places. Representatives of a diverse mix of institutions from across the nation attended, but common challenges emerged: They worry about the impact of looming federal policy changes, which they expect to add pressure to institutions already grappling with financial challenges related to enrollment declines, high tuition discount rates and other issues.

Here’s a recap of themes and moments that emerged from the conference.

‘Fear, Anxiety and Contempt’

At a packed panel covering recent activity out of Washington, NACUBO vice president for policy and research Liz Clark noted the strains business officers are feeling amid a “tumultuous year” marked by a flurry of federal actions, including the passage of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, pushed by President Donald Trump, which included various provisions for higher education.

The legislation, signed earlier this month, caps some student loans while eliminating the Grad PLUS program, limits repayment options and requires programs to pass an earnings test for attendees to access federal student loans, among other provisions, including changes to the endowment tax. Passed on a partisan line with Republicans under pressure to deliver Trump’s signature legislation, Clark noted it is just one action—albeit a significant one—that has reshaped higher education this year.

Clark added that 2025 has “brought a lot of fear, anxiety and contempt” as colleges navigate restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion programs; cancellation of federal grants and contracts; and various state laws that have “created a challenging environment” for the sector.

“I feel like we have, this year, been dealing with everything, everywhere, all at once,” Clark said.

Clark noted that despite the concerns she highlighted, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which she abbreviated “Bubba,” and other policies that were proposed could have hit higher education much harder. One example she offered was the endowment tax, which in the final bill fell far short of what House Republicans initially proposed.

But in another panel on tax reform, Clark suggested that the endowment tax could still be revised in ways that resemble earlier proposals and would have affected more universities and at higher rates.

“Don’t forget that ideas never die in Washington,” Clark warned.

Legal Perspectives

A panel of higher education lawyers also weighed in on current challenges for the sector.

Kate Hudson, deputy vice president and counsel for government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities, warned at the start that the session would not have “a whole lot of good news.” Given the rapid pace of changes from the federal government, she also offered a caveat: “Anything I say today could be out of date in 72 hours.”

Hudson noted that campus attorneys are dealing with multiple actions from the federal government, such as federal funding freezes and far-reaching executive orders, as the Trump administration seeks to reshape everything from academic research to college admissions.

“I don’t think it is too dramatic to say that this is a wholesale renegotiation by force of the government-academia partnership,” Hudson said. “I don’t think that’s an overstatement.”

Jen Gartner, deputy general counsel at the University of Maryland, argued that the relationship between the federal government and research institutions shifted from “extremely collaborative and collegial” to a suddenly “adversarial approach” that has left universities flummoxed. That strain has particularly been felt around grants, which she said have often been terminated for unclear reasons. She also said the federal government has provided unclear information on such cancellations, sometimes providing contradictory statements in the same termination notice.

And as higher education attorneys have sought answers, she said, they’ve reviewed few.

“It’s not just that universities don’t know what to do—agencies don’t know what to do, either, and [staff are] not picking up the phone or responding to emails if they’re even still there,” Gartner said.

Related to research, Hudson also warned that Trump administration’s scrutiny of international students, which includes now vetting their social media posts for evidence of hostility toward the U.S. government and culture, also has the potential to harm the sector.

“It’s not an overestimation to say that threats … to legal immigration, to your campuses, do present an existential threat to the academic research enterprise itself at a time when [research and development] budgets and graduates from STEM degrees in our competitors, such as China, are off the charts and reaching new heights,” she said. “International students will go elsewhere.”

Hudson added that the AAU has not historically focused on immigration law, but that has suddenly shifted amid the threats to international students and faculty.

A Hard Year Ahead?

Inside Higher Ed also hosted a panel at this year’s conference to discuss the results of the 15th annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, released last week. That survey, conducted in partnership with Hanover Research, found college business officers confident in the long-term outlook but worried about their financial situation in the near future.

Most respondents believe their institutions will be in worse financial shape next year. Only 43 percent expressed the belief that their institution would be in better shape next year. But Rick Mills, president and CEO of United Educators, was skeptical about the sentiment that financial situations will improve by next year given the various challenges discussed at the conference.

“At one level, I take heart in the optimism,” Mills remarked. “I think it’s what keeps all of us going, and what gets you to work in the morning, and perhaps, in the end, helps us solve the problem. On the other hand, it strikes me as slightly fantastical thinking in the current environment.”

Source link

July 30, 2025
More Campuses Earn “Green Light” Free Speech Ratings From FIRE

The number of colleges and universities with written policies that do not seriously threaten student expression are on the rise this year, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 19th annual “Spotlight on Speech Codes” report, published Tuesday.

Since 2006, FIRE has grouped hundreds of public and private higher education institutions into three overall categories based on their campus speech policies: green, yellow and red lights. This year, 73 of the 490 (14.9 percent) colleges and universities surveyed received a green light ranking—meaning their policies don’t threaten free expression—compared to 63 last year. It’s the highest share since 2012, when just 3.6 percent of institutions earned green-light ratings.

For the first time in 19 years, the number of green-light colleges outnumbered those in the red-light category (14.7 percent), reserved for institutions with policies that “clearly and substantially restrict free speech,” according to the report. Last year, 20 percent of institutions received a red-light rating.

Although political and institutional responses to campus protests related to the Israel-Hamas war reignited debate over free expression last year, the report attributed the decrease in red-light ratings to colleges and universities revising their policies related to harassment, hate speech and bias-reporting systems. Specifically, the report said that while bias-reporting systems have become popular over the past decade, they “have invited students to report protected speech simply because it offends them,” turned academic institutions into “referees of political and academic speech,” and created a “chilling effect on campus expression.”

Lawsuits, free speech advocacy—from students, alumni and groups like FIRE—and lawmaker scrutiny have all spurred changes in recent years.

“Over a dozen institutions have either substantially revised or eliminated entirely their bias reporting systems,” the report said. “Others have significantly reduced the prominence of their bias reporting teams, either by reducing the number of places on their website the team is mentioned or by requiring students enter their credentials to access the policy information.”

FIRE rated the majority of institutions—337, or 68.8 percent—as yellow, meaning they “maintain policies that impose vague regulations on expression.” And eight colleges—including Baylor University, Brigham Young University and Hillsdale College—received a warning rating for “clearly and consistently stat[ing] that they hold a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech.”

Over all, private colleges have more restrictive policies than public colleges. Just 10.6 percent of public colleges earned red lights compared to 28 percent of private colleges—and only 7.1 percent of private colleges earned a green-light rating, compared to 17 percent of public ones.

Source link

July 30, 2025
Preparing Grad Students to Defend Academic Freedom (opinion)

Defending academic freedom is an all-hands-on-deck emergency. From the current administration’s scrutiny of (and executive orders related to) higher education, to state legislative overreach and on-campus bad actors, threats to academic freedom are myriad and dire.

As leader of a program focused on free expression and academic freedom, I see faculty and campus leaders who are flummoxed about how to respond: Where to begin? What can be done to make a difference in defending academic freedom?

I have an answer, at least if you’re graduate faculty, a dean or director of graduate studies, or a provost: Make a plan to prepare graduate students—tomorrow’s professors—to defend academic freedom.

Graduate students often feel too pressed to focus on anything other than their coursework or dissertation and so are unlikely to study academic freedom on their own, even if they know where to find solid information. It is incumbent on faculty to put academic freedom in front of graduate students as a serious and approachable topic. If their professors and directors of graduate study do not teach them about academic freedom, they will be ill prepared to confront academic freedom issues when they arise, as they surely will, especially in today’s climate.

An example: When I met with advanced graduate students at an R-1 university, one student recounted an experience as a junior team member reviewing submissions for a journal. He reported that another team member argued for rejecting a manuscript because its findings could be used to advance a public policy position favored by some politicians that this colleague opposed. The student was rightly troubled about political factors being weighed along with methodology and scholarship but reported he didn’t have the knowledge or confidence to respond effectively. Bottom line: His graduate school preparation had incompletely prepared him to understand and act on academic freedom principles.

Here is a summer action plan for graduate faculty, deans and provosts to ensure we don’t leave the next generation of scholars uncertain about academic freedom principles and how they apply in teaching, scholarship and extracurricular settings.

Add an academic freedom session to orientation. Orientation for matriculating graduate students is a can’t-miss chance to begin education about academic freedom.

Patrick Kain, associate professor of philosophy at Purdue University, provides a primer on graduate students’ academic freedom rights and responsibilities during his department’s graduate student orientation. His session covers the First Amendment, state law and campus policies. He provides written guidance about what to do, especially in their roles as teaching assistants (“pay attention to the effects of your expression on others”); what not to do (“don’t compel speech”); and what they should expect (“students’ experiences and sensitivity to others’ expression will vary”).

Reflecting on his experiences leading these orientation sessions, Kain said, “Graduate students, especially those joining us from quite different cultures and institutions, really appreciate a clear explanation of the ground rules of academic freedom and free expression on campus.” He added, “It puts them at ease to be able to imagine how they can pursue their own work with integrity in these trying times, and what they can expect from others when disagreements arise.”

However, orientation cannot be a “one and done” for a topic as complex as academic freedom. Additional steps to take this summer include:

Revisit the professional development seminar. Most graduate students take a professional development seminar before preliminary exams. When I took that seminar three decades ago, academic freedom wasn’t a topic—and my inquiries suggest academic freedom hasn’t been added to many professional development seminars since. This must change. In addition to sessions on writing a publishable article and giving a job talk, include sessions on the history and norms of academic freedom and free inquiry. Assign foundational academic freedom documents, such as the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement on the Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure and the 1967 Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, alongside a text offering an overview of academic freedom principles, such as Henry Reichman’s Understanding Academic Freedom (Johns Hopkins Press, 2025).

Schedule an academic freedom workshop. Graduate students at all stages—and your faculty colleagues, too!—can benefit from stand-alone workshops. Include tabletop exercises that allow students to appreciate nuances of academic freedom principles. For example, tabletop exercises let students test possible responses to a peer who is putting a thumb on the scale against publishing a manuscript submission on nonacademic grounds, to department colleagues who are exerting pressure on them to sign a joint statement with which they disagree or to administrators bowing inappropriately to donor wishes or political pressures. The reports of the Council of Independent Colleges’ Academic Leaders Task Force on Campus Free Expression include ready-for-use tabletop exercises.

Bolster classroom training for teaching assistants. Professors with teaching assistants can provide an insider’s look into their process for designing a course and planning class meetings, with a focus on how they build trust and incorporate divergent viewpoints, and their approach to teaching potentially controversial topics. In weekly TA meetings, professors and TAs can debrief about what worked to foster robust discussion and what didn’t. Centers for teaching and learning can equip graduate students with strategies that build their confidence for leading discussions, including strategies to uphold free expression and inclusive values when a student speaks in ways that others think is objectionable or violates inclusion norms. The University of Michigan’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching offers programs tailored to graduate students and postdocs, including a teaching orientation program.

Look for opportunities to provide mentorship. An academic career isn’t only about teaching and scholarship but also entails serving on department and university committees, providing—and being subject to—peer review, and planning conferences. Academic freedom questions come up with regularity during these activities. Graduate faculty serve as mentors and should be alert to opportunities to discuss these questions. One idea: Take a “ripped from the headlines” controversy about journal retractions, viral faculty social media posts or how universities are responding to Trump administration pressures and plan a brown-bag lunch discussion with graduate students.

Take the next step in rethinking graduate student preparation. While the steps above can be taken this summer, with a longer planning horizon, it is possible to rethink graduate preparation for a changed higher education landscape. Morgan State University, a public HBCU in Maryland, offers Morgan’s Structured Teaching Assistant Program (MSTAP), an award-winning course series to prepare graduate students as teachers. Mark Garrison, who as dean of the School of Graduate Studies led the development of MSTAP, explained, “In our required coursework for teaching assistants, we are intensely focused on establishing ground rules for TAs” around how to guide “student engagement that is accepting and encouraging without the intrusion of the TA’s personal views.”

Garrison added, “This makes free expression a component of instruction that must be cherished and nourished. We cannot assume that the novice instructor will come to this view naturally, and we do our best to embrace a reflective teaching model.”

Academic freedom is under threat. As Mary Clark, provost and executive vice chancellor at the University of Denver, observed, “Graduate students are developing identities as scholars, learning what academic freedom means in their research and in the classroom—and how their scholarly identity intersects with their extracurricular speech as citizens and community members. It is critical that we support them in developing these understandings.” This summer is the time to plan to do exactly that.

Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill is senior director of the Civic Learning and Free Expression Projects at the Council of Independent Colleges.

Source link

July 30, 2025
Higher education leadership requires multiple versions of yourself

To lead in higher education feels much like inhabiting a shifting identify.

One moment you are a strategist expected to speak in spreadsheets and scenario plans. The next, you are a listener, empathetic, calm, human, supporting a student in distress. You leave that conversation only to enter a room full of staff in which morale is flatlining and you are now a motivational figure, expected to energise and inspire. Finish all these, and it’s not even 10am! Before the day is over, you are potentially answering questions from university leaders who want metrics, mitigations and certainty.

If it feels like you’re performing multiple, sometimes conflicting roles across a single day, it is really because you are. And the deeper truth is that it is not a flaw – it is simply the job.

Increasingly, leadership in universities demands what feels like a professionally sanctioned form of adaptive multiplicity. I use the phrase carefully to name a reality that many senior leaders know intimately but rarely articulate. The constant emotional and intellectual switching, the need to adjust tone, style, even the way you put your values in practice depending on the room you are in, creates a kind of managed fragmentation. Over time, this potentially leaves many leaders with a nagging internal question: who am I really in this job, and how many versions of me are left?

Flex and strain

This phenomenon has intensified as the sector has grown more complex, even in the short period of time of the last 15 years since I joined academia.

Universities are now sites of competing expectations. Students see themselves as clients, citizens and many times co-creators of their learning – most of the time, all at once – and they rightfully expect to be treated accordingly. Staff expect authentic leadership that values their autonomy, but also want decisive action when systems stumble. Senior teams expect accountability, agility and strategic execution, while external bodies, in their usual “supportive approach”, demand ever increasing levels of compliance, assurance and visible grip.

Each of these communities needs something different from their leaders. They do not all speak the same language, and thus leaders become translators, switchboards and even shape-shifters. It is not performance in the sense of fakery but it is code-switching as a leadership survival strategy.

But even though this capacity to flex and adapt is a strength and should be firmly encouraged, it is also a source of strain. You learn to adapt so well, so naturally, that you risk forgetting what it feels to be still. You begin to filter your words so frequently that spontaneous speech starts to feel dangerous. You work hard to be authentic in different spaces but wonder whether your authenticity looks different depending on who is watching. And while you may pride yourself on being emotionally intelligent, you notice that your own emotional reserves deplete faster than they can replenish.

This kind of labour (emotional, relational, cognitive) is almost entirely invisible in institutional language. It doesn’t appear on strategic plans or in KPIs and metrics. It is not listed in job descriptions or annual reviews. How could it even be? It is not something that can be easily defined.

But, somehow, it is the glue that holds teams, cultures and people together. When a leader gets the tone wrong in a difficult moment, it can take weeks to rebuild trust. When they get it right, there is often no visible outcome because good leadership so often manifests as the evident absence of crisis. This is a key leadership paradox: when you do this work well, very few notice. When you falter, everyone does.

Shifting registers

The multiple selves of leadership are, in many ways, shaped by the multiple identities of the university itself. Higher education is a place of intellectual freedom, but also of bureaucratic machinery. It is a workplace, a community, a brand and a battleground for values. In this context, leaders are asked to be both deeply human and relentlessly strategic. You must lead with your heart while justifying decisions with data. You must be decisive without being authoritarian, empathetic without appearing weak and consistent without being rigid. All leaders will tell you it is a delicate calibration and no two days are the same.

The benefits of this kind of psychological pluralism are real though. Leaders who are able to shift between registers can build bridges between otherwise disconnected parts of the institution. They are more likely to hear what’s not being said and they are better equipped to hold space for complexity, to manage contradictions without defaulting to simplistic solutions. In short, they are able to lead courses, curriculum areas, departments, schools, faculties, campuses or universities that are themselves fractured, plural and dynamic. But none of this is possible without deep self-awareness. Without a strong internal compass, an anchoring sense of purpose and principle, adaptive leadership risks becoming reactive or hollow.

In my own leadership journey, across multiple roles, I have come to both respect and rely on this kind of multiplicity. It has certainly challenged me; it can be uncomfortable and exhausting to change shape so often. But it has also been one of the most professionally rewarding experiences of my life. I have learned more about people, influence, systems and purpose than I could have ever imagined. The act of switching roles deepened my empathy, sharpened my judgement and forced me to become a more deliberate values-led leader. The very difficulty of the work is in many ways what makes it so meaningful.

What leadership in higher education increasingly requires is not just charisma, but presence. The ability to think carefully before acting, to sit with ambiguity rather than force resolution, and to adapt without losing coherence are not signs of weakness but more a mark of maturity. These are not qualities that always show up in leadership frameworks but they are often what hold institutions together when pressure mounts. In a sector where trust is easily lost and change rarely pauses, the capacity to lead with both flexibility and integrity has become more essential than ever.

Don’t panic

For anyone stepping into, or considering, a formal leadership role in higher education (at whatever level!) I would suggest this: know that the title does not prepare you for the internal work.

You will be stretched in ways no leadership framework fully captures. You will need to hold contradiction, manage ambiguity and shift gears constantly. And this will be not just between meetings and conversations, but sometimes within the same sentence. It is demanding, to put it lightly, often invisible work and it can be lonely.

But it is also deeply rewarding, transformative and full of purpose. Especially if you approach your leadership role with humility, clarity of values and a willingness to learn, unlearn, and then adapt some more. And while I believe everyone in HE is already a leader, whether they hold a title or not, those who accept formal leadership positions, regardless of the level, carry a particular responsibility – not to have all answers but to cultivate the space in which people can thrive. It is not about becoming someone else but about learning how to show up differently without ever losing who you are, what values define you.

There is also a deeper cultural discomfort at play. History, and most frameworks, tend to favour the idea of singular leadership identity. But in a sector where the demands are multiple and shifting, I feel consistency is rarely a strength. True leadership authenticity in our sector lies not in being the same person in every room, but in being consistent in your values even as you adapt your delivery. It means having a clear sense of what matters, educationally, ethically, institutionally, and allowing that to shape the different selves you need to inhabit.

And this is not about abandoning coherence – it is about redefining it. Leadership in HE is not a single performance, repeated daily; it is a catalogue of performances. Those who do well – again, regardless of the level which they are at – understand that they will be read differently by different audiences, and that this is not only inevitable but highly necessary. The most successful leaders are those who can integrate their different selves into a single, strategic identify, not fixed, but rooted in the same core values that act as a driving force.

So if you, as a leader in higher education, sometimes feel like you are playing a cast of characters like Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor, do not panic. You are not alone, and you are not doing it wrong. You are doing what the job requires. You are developing a professionally disciplined multiplicity.

Not a flaw, but a capacity. Not a weakness but a way through huge complexity. It is this ability to hold multiple selves in tension, without losing sight of the core values uniting them, that defines successful leadership in HE today. And that, just maybe, is the most authentic thing of all.

Source link

July 29, 2025
Higher Education and the US Line of Inequality

Over the past century, the United States has undergone enormous changes in how wealth and income are distributed. From the opulence of the Roaring Twenties to the postwar rise of the middle class, from the tech booms of the 1990s to the pandemic economy of the 2020s, the line of inequality has rarely been flat—and never fair.

To track these shifts, economists use the Gini Index, a number between 0 and 1 (or 0 and 100 in percentage terms), where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 represents perfect inequality. The U.S. Gini Index has changed dramatically over time, reflecting wars, economic crises, policy decisions, and structural changes in education, taxes, and immigration.

In the 1920s, the United States experienced a high level of income inequality. The economy was booming for the wealthy, but the benefits of that growth were concentrated at the top. This period, often referred to as the first Gilded Age, was marked by weak labor protections, minimal taxation on the rich, and limited social safety nets. At the same time, immigration was heavily restricted, which limited labor competition but also reinforced the racial and ethnic hierarchies that shaped income and opportunity.

The Great Depression and World War II marked a dramatic shift. As the economy collapsed in the 1930s, public pressure mounted for systemic reform. New Deal policies expanded labor rights, created Social Security, and introduced public works programs. These efforts, along with wartime wage controls and steep taxes on the wealthy, helped reduce inequality. The federal income tax reached top rates over 90 percent. Education expanded as the GI Bill sent millions of returning veterans—mostly white men—to college and into homeownership. However, the benefits of this postwar expansion were unequally distributed, with Black Americans and other minorities largely excluded through redlining, school segregation, and discriminatory lending.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the U.S. experienced what some call the Great Compression. Income gaps between rich and poor narrowed. Manufacturing jobs were abundant, union membership was high, and wages grew alongside productivity. Federal and state investments in education opened doors for many, although property taxes, which fund most local public schools, reinforced disparities between wealthier suburbs and poorer cities or rural communities. Immigration remained limited during these decades, and federal tax policy remained progressive. The Gini Index stayed relatively stable, reflecting broad-based growth and a more equal distribution of income.

The 1980s brought a reversal. The Reagan administration cut top income tax rates dramatically, weakened labor unions, and deregulated many industries. The economy became more financialized, and capital gains were increasingly favored over wages. Globalization and the offshoring of manufacturing jobs weakened the bargaining power of American workers. At the same time, immigration increased, often filling low-wage and precarious jobs in agriculture, construction, and service industries. While immigration boosted overall economic output, it also contributed to greater income stratification within certain sectors.

The Gini Index rose steadily through the 1980s and 1990s. The tech boom created vast wealth for a small segment of the population, while wages for most workers stagnated. Public universities saw declining state support, leading to tuition hikes and the explosion of student loan debt. Property taxes continued to shape educational inequality, with affluent districts able to fund advanced programs and facilities while lower-income schools struggled. Tax policy changes in the 2000s, including further reductions in capital gains and estate taxes, widened the gap between those who earn their income from investments and those who rely on wages.

The 2008 financial crisis deepened existing divides. While wealthy households recovered quickly due to stock market gains and low interest rates, working-class families faced job losses, home foreclosures, and long-term economic insecurity. Federal stimulus programs helped avert total collapse, but they did little to reverse decades of rising inequality. By the 2010s, the U.S. Gini Index was among the highest in the developed world.

In the early 2020s, the COVID-19 pandemic once again exposed the structural weaknesses in the American economy. Emergency relief programs and expanded unemployment benefits briefly reduced poverty in 2020, but these were temporary fixes. Billionaires saw massive increases in wealth, while millions of essential workers faced health risks, layoffs, and housing instability. Public schools and universities adapted to online learning, but the digital divide left many students behind. Property taxes remained the primary source of school funding, preserving long-standing inequalities in education. Immigrants continued to perform essential but undervalued labor, often without access to healthcare or legal protections.

Federal tax policy remains tilted toward the wealthy. Income from stocks and real estate is taxed at lower rates than income from work. Loopholes and deductions allow corporations and the ultra-rich to minimize their tax bills. At the same time, working families face regressive payroll taxes and growing out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, education, and housing.

Higher education, once seen as a pathway to mobility, increasingly reflects the same patterns of inequality seen in the broader economy. Elite universities with billion-dollar endowments serve a small, privileged student population. Public colleges and community colleges—where most students from working-class and minority backgrounds enroll—operate on tight budgets and often rely on underpaid adjunct faculty. Rising tuition, administrative bloat, and student debt have turned education into both a product and a burden.

The Gini Index provides a simple way to measure inequality, but it does not capture all of the structural forces behind it. To understand why inequality remains so persistent, we must look at the systems that shape opportunity from birth: local property taxes, unequal schools, debt-financed higher education, regressive tax codes, and immigration policies that create a stratified labor market.

The line of inequality in the United States is not just a chart—it’s a reflection of who holds power, who gets access, and who pays the price. Changing that line will require more than numbers. It will take bold public action, political courage, and a serious rethinking of how we fund education, how we tax wealth, and how we value labor in an age of digital capitalism.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to trace the contours of inequality—across classrooms, campuses, and communities—because understanding the line is the first step to redrawing it.

Sources

Piketty, Thomas, Saez, Emmanuel, and Zucman, Gabriel. Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2018.

Congressional Budget Office. The Distribution of Household Income, 2019. Published November 2022.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58528

U.S. Census Bureau. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2022.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html

Economic Policy Institute. State of Working America: Wages.

https://www.epi.org/data/#?subject=wages

Goldin, Claudia and Katz, Lawrence F. The Race Between Education and Technology. Harvard University Press, 2008.

Chetty, Raj et al. The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940. Science, 2017.

Desmond, Matthew. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. Crown Publishing, 2016.

Kuznets, Simon. Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, 1955.

Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel. The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

OECD. Income Inequality (Gini Coefficient).

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cma

Urban Institute. The Unequal Distribution of State and Local Revenues.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98725/the-unequal-distribution-of-state-and-local-revenues_1.pdf

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.

https://itep.org/whopays/

Migration Policy Institute. Immigrant Workers: Vital to the U.S. COVID-19 Response, Disproportionately Vulnerable.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigrant-workers-us-covid-19-response

National Bureau of Economic Research. Education and Inequality Across the American States.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31455

Source link

July 29, 2025
In Defense of Gladwell and “Revenge of the Tipping Point”

Revenge of the Tipping Point: Overstories, Superspreaders, and the Rise of Social Engineering by Malcolm Gladwell

Published in October 2024

Praising a Malcolm Gladwell book may not be the No. 1 way to seem helplessly uncool with your academic colleagues, but it is close. Share with any random social scientist—my people—that you are reading Gladwell, and you are likely to hear a long lecture detailing the flaws and shortcomings of Gladwell’s writing.

Ignore the skeptics. Reading a Gladwell book is like listening to a well-crafted song: You can enjoy the experience without agreeing with the lyrics.

Gladwell’s most recent book is Revenge of the Tipping Point. As with all Gladwell books, the audiobook experience will be your best reading bet. Gladwell is a fantastic writer. His narration style is conversational, intimate and energizing. Revenge of the Tipping Point is an all-new book, taking as its starting place the 2000 Tipping Point publication that launched Gladwell into the nonfiction stratosphere. Like the original, Revenge of the Tipping Point seeks to uncover the hidden forces that drive social trends. The book uses stories and a mix of academic research and data to explain phenomena as diverse as the COVID epidemic, the spread of opiate addiction and the rapid cultural and legal embrace of gay marriage.

For critics of Gladwell (likely a large proportion of Inside Higher Ed readers), Revenge of the Tipping Point will generate a familiar set of objections. We academics will complain that Gladwell cherry-picks data to support a narrative and fails to include information that may complicate the story. Gladwell’s approach is to structure his stories about social phenomena like a murder mystery, with Gladwell playing the role of Sherlock Holmes. Piecing together the clues, Gladwell reveals the guilty culprit (the policy or cultural phenomenon) responsible for the crime (the trend or social outcome in question). As academics, we know that various variables, forces, structures and random causes drive most social trends. Gladwell’s books are satisfying precisely because he is a master of filtering out complexity. You feel smarter after reading Gladwell, even if you aren’t.

Knowing all this going into reading Gladwell, including Revenge of the Tipping Point, can help ensure that reading his books is enjoyable and productive. For those of us in higher education, Gladwell has a good deal to say about how universities (well, elite universities) work. I found his explanation as to why highly selective schools field a multitude of sports teams across every conceivable athletic endeavor—from squash to Nordic skiing to equestrian to rugby—reason enough to invest time in Gladwell’s latest book.

We should not confuse Gladwell’s critiques of elite higher education with the ongoing attacks many universities are navigating from the executive branch. One hopes, however, that Gladwell might be rethinking his history of drawing stark moral absolutes when condemning elite institutions while largely ignoring societal positives and complexity. I suspect that the Ivy League is easier to attack when it is cast as Goliath, as opposed to the defender of academic freedom and bulwark against government overreach that recent events have so clearly revealed our universities to be.

What are you reading?

Source link

July 29, 2025