Tag: Higher

  • Let’s Talk About Proxies and Admission (opinion)

    Let’s Talk About Proxies and Admission (opinion)

    The Trump administration has stepped up government scrutiny of college admission. Settlements reached with Brown and Columbia Universities each included a requirement that they pursue “merit-based” admission policies. On Aug. 7, President Trump issued a memorandum requiring colleges and universities to submit data to IPEDS (the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) demonstrating that they are not considering race in admission decisions. The Department of Education has since published in the Federal Register details about the planned data collection, with the public having 60 days to comment. And Attorney General Pam Bondi has entered into the fray by publishing a memo outlining what constitutes unlawful discrimination.

    I will leave it to others to rail against the unprecedented federal attack on higher education and the incursion into admission policies at individual institutions. I would prefer to examine some of the issues and underlying assumptions suggested by these documents.

    The Aug. 7 Presidential Memorandum

    Trump’s memorandum calls for increased transparency to expose practices that are “unlawful” and to rid society of “shameful, dangerous racial hierarchies.” For some reason, it doesn’t say that all racial hierarchies are shameful and dangerous. Is that an oversight or a meaningful omission? The memorandum also asserts without explanation that race-based admission policies threaten national security.

    The call to get rid of “shameful, dangerous racial hierarchies” is ironic. It is easy to imagine previous administrations using the same phrase to defend the very race-based admission policies that the executive order now seeks to abolish. “Shameful” and “dangerous” are in the eye of the beholder, and may not be color-blind.

    What is not clear is how the administration intends to collect and analyze the data, given its efforts to gut the Department of Education. As Inside Higher Ed has reported, the National Center for Education Statistics had been decimated, with a staff of more than 100 reduced to a skeleton crew of three employees.

    The Bondi Memo

    Attorney General Bondi’s July 29 memorandum offered guidance to federal agencies about practices that may constitute illegal discrimination at colleges and other entities receiving federal funds. A lot of it is rehashed, targeting popular straw men/persons like DEI programs and transgender athletes (and bathrooms).

    What is interesting is Bondi’s take on what she calls “unlawful proxy discrimination,” defined as the use of “facially neutral criteria” that function as “proxies” for race or other protected characteristics. Per the memo, examples in higher education may include things like requiring diversity statements in hiring or essay questions asking applicants to reflect on their unique identity or to write about obstacles they have overcome.

    On a surface level, Bondi is right that those can become back doors to identify an individual’s race. At the same time, knowing the obstacles an individual has overcome is essential to understanding his or her unique story, and race would seem to be one of the factors that can heavily influence that story.

    Where Bondi goes off the rails is in maintaining that what she calls “geographic targeting” may constitute a potentially unlawful proxy. She is suggesting that recruitment or outreach in schools and communities with high levels of racial minorities may be illegal. That is preposterous. Trying to expand access to education through outreach is in no way comparable to reverse engineering an admission process to arrive at a desired class composition.

    Taken to its logical extreme, Bondi’s guidance would prevent colleges from recruiting not only at inner-city schools with a large percentage of Black students, but also at suburban schools with a large percentage of affluent white students. Both could be examples of what she calls “geographic targeting.” For that matter, colleges might be in violation for asking for an applicant’s address, because ZIP code information can be used as a proxy for determining race and socioeconomic status.

    New Data Collection Requirements

    As for data collection for IPEDS, the administration has proposed a new “Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement,” or ACTS. ACTS will require targeted colleges and universities to report data in the following categories, disaggregated by race and sex:

    • Admissions test score quintile
    • GPA quintile
    • Family income range
    • Pell Grant eligibility
    • Parental education

    It will also ask for information to be broken down for early decision, early action and regular admission as well as institutional need-based and merit aid. What’s missing? Legacy status and athletic recruits, both categories that benefit white applicants. At some of the Ivies, between 10-20 percent of the undergraduates are athletes, many in “country club” sports where most of the competitors are wealthy and white, and the proportion of athletes is even higher at the highly selective liberal arts colleges that make up the New England Small College Athletic Conference. Discovery in SFFA v. Harvard revealed that recruited athletes had an 86 percent admit rate. You don’t have to have had an uncle who taught at MIT to know that is substantially higher than the overall admit rate.

    ACTS will apparently apply only to “all four-year institutions who utilize selective college admissions,” which the administration maintains “have an elevated risk of noncompliance with the civil rights laws.” That may at first glance seem to be singling out elite, “name” colleges, and that’s probably the intent, but it also reflects a recognition that the vast majority of institutions couldn’t practice race-based admission even if they wanted to because they are too busy filling the class to worry about crafting the class.

    The focus on selective institutions will both make it easy to score political points and hard to derive meaning from the data. Selectivity, especially at the 5-10 percent level, makes it impossible to know why any individual is or isn’t admitted. Admission deans at the highly-selective (or rejective) universities report that they could fill several additional freshman classes from among those applicants who have been waitlisted or denied.

    Merit-Based Admission

    The real target of the push for “merit-based” admission may be holistic review. A holistic admission process allows colleges to take into consideration nuances in an individual’s background and life experiences. It can also be frustrating for applicants, since different individuals are admitted for different reasons. The government may be pushing consciously or unconsciously for a more formulaic selection process.

    But would that be any better? Even if you focus only on grades and test scores, should you put more weight on a three-hour test or on four years of high school? How do you compare applicants from schools with different grading scales and levels of academic rigor? Should a test score obtained after thousands of dollars in test prep count the same as an identical score without coaching?

    How do we distinguish between merit and privilege? Those who have strong test scores may be more likely to believe that test scores are a measure of merit, and yet test scores are strongly correlated with family income. Those who are born into wealth and privilege may come to believe that their good fortune is a proxy for merit, buying into a perverse and self-serving interpretation of John Calvin’s doctrine of the elect. They may see themselves as deserving rather than lucky.

    Proxies in Admission

    We need a larger discussion about proxies in college admission. Advanced Placement courses are a proxy for a rigorous curriculum. GPA is a proxy for academic accomplishment, and yet means little without understanding context. Similarly, SAT scores are often seen as a proxy for ability, despite the fact that the College Board long ago abandoned the pretense that the SAT measures “aptitude.” The U.S. News & World Report college rankings have always relied on proxies, such as alumni giving as a proxy for alumni satisfaction when it may be more a measure of the effectiveness of the development office. Selectivity is a proxy for academic quality—feeding into the belief that the harder a place is to get in, the better it must be. Are proxies for race any more problematic than these other proxies?

    The larger question here is what should the selective college admission process be a proxy for. Should we seek to reward students for past performance? Predict who will earn the best grades in college? Identify those students who will benefit the most from the college experience? Or predict who will make the greatest contribution to society after college?

    I’m waiting for an executive order or memo or even a discussion among college admission professionals about what the selective admission process should represent and what proxies will support those goals.

    Jim Jump recently retired after 33 years as the academic dean and director of college counseling at St. Christopher’s School in Richmond, Va. He previously served as an admissions officer, philosophy instructor and women’s basketball coach at the college level and is a past president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. He is the 2024 recipient of NACAC’s John B. Muir Excellence in Media Award.

    Source link

  • Trump Administration’s Higher Education Policies Drive Sharp Decline in College Graduate Support

    Trump Administration’s Higher Education Policies Drive Sharp Decline in College Graduate Support

    The Trump administration’s aggressive stance toward higher education institutions is contributing to a precipitous drop in support among college-educated voters, with new polling data revealing the president’s approval rating among graduates has fallen to historic lows.

    President Donald J. TrumpAccording to Gallup polling, Trump’s approval rating among college graduates plummeted from 34% in June to just 28% by August, with disapproval climbing to 70%. This represents a concerning trend for Republicans as they look toward the 2026 midterm elections, particularly given the growing influence of college-educated voters in key suburban swing districts.

    The administration’s education policies have taken aim at what Trump characterizes as liberal bias and antisemitism on college campuses. Harvard University has faced the most severe federal intervention, with the White House canceling approximately $100 million in federal contracts and freezing $3.2 billion in research funding. The administration has also moved to block international student enrollment and threatened to revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status while demanding sweeping reforms to admissions processes and curricular oversight.

    Similar measures have been enacted against Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University over issues ranging from pro-Palestinian campus activism to policies regarding transgender athletes in women’s sports. Harvard officials have characterized these interventions as an unprecedented assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

    The crackdown has generated significant campus unrest and drawn comparisons to Cold War-era loyalty investigations, raising questions about the federal government’s appropriate role in higher education governance.

    The polling data reflects broader dissatisfaction with the administration’s educational approach. Only 26% of college graduates approve of Trump’s handling of education policy, while 71% disapprove. A separate AP-NORC survey from May found that 56% of Americans nationwide disapprove of the president’s higher education agenda.

    However, the policies resonate strongly within Trump’s Republican base, with roughly 80% of Republicans approving his higher education approach—a higher approval rate than his economic policies garner. About 60% of Republicans express significant concern about perceived liberal bias on college campuses, aligning with the administration’s framing of universities as ideologically compromised institutions.

    The Republican coalition shows some internal division on enforcement mechanisms, with approximately half supporting federal funding cuts for non-compliant institutions while a quarter oppose such measures and another quarter remain undecided.

    While political controversies dominate headlines, economic concerns remain the primary driver of public opinion on higher education. Sixty percent of Americans express deep concern about college costs, a bipartisan worry that transcends ideological divisions around campus politics.

    Current data from the College Board and Bankrate show average annual costs of $29,910 for in-state public university students, $49,080 for out-of-state students, and approximately $61,990 for private nonprofit institutions when including room, board, and additional expenses. Financial aid reduces these figures to average net prices of $20,800 at public universities and $36,150 at private colleges.

    These costs reflect decades of sustained increases. EducationData.org reports that public in-state college costs have risen from $2,489 in 1963 to $89,556 in 2022-23 (adjusted for inflation). Over the past decade alone, in-state public tuition has increased by nearly 58%, while out-of-state and private tuition have risen by 30% and 27% respectively.

    The economic pressures extend beyond college costs to post-graduation employment prospects. While overall unemployment among adults with bachelor’s degrees remains low at 2.3%, recent graduates face significant challenges. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that only 69.6% of bachelor’s degree recipients aged 20-29 were employed in late 2024, with unemployment among 23-27-year-olds reaching nearly 6%—substantially above the 4.2% national average.

    These employment difficulties contribute to broader economic anxiety, with 39% of college graduates describing national economic conditions as “poor” and 64% reporting job search struggles.

    The confluence of political and economic pressures creates a challenging landscape for Republicans heading into the 2026 midterms. College-educated voters represent a growing and increasingly decisive demographic, particularly in suburban areas that often determine control of swing seats.

     

    Source link

  • Enhancing higher education governance will require agility and accountability

    Enhancing higher education governance will require agility and accountability

    Today Advance HE is publishing Shaping the future of HE governance, the findings of our “big conversation” on higher education governance.

    The report draws from wide-ranging engagement with governors, chairs, institutional leaders, board secretaries and others, conducted in partnership with the Committee of University Chairs (CUC), Association of Heads of University Administration (AHUA), Universities UK, GuildHE and Independent HE. The research examined the effectiveness of current governance arrangements, considered good practice from other sectors and identified what needs to improve or change.

    The big conversation explored the diversity of provider types, missions and individual contexts across UK higher education. Diversity and differences exist in governance arrangements, and this is appropriate to reflect the diversity of missions and scales which need differing governance arrangements.

    The findings from this research will feed into the CUC’s current review of higher education governance, of which I’m a steering group member. I will also share the findings with the Office for Students and Department for Education – both are showing a growing interest in how higher education institutions are governed.

    Here are some of the factors that should be priorities when considering governance reform.

    A question of culture

    At the heart of good governance is culture – and this should be central to efforts to enhance governance. The research found that culture is the biggest factor in determining the difference between a highly effective and a less effective board.

    This can be hard to measure, takes time to get right, and is a constant work in progress. This includes the culture of getting the right balance of challenge and support – and where the right level of information is supplied to governors, but equally where governors themselves have a sufficient degree of expertise and curiosity to ask the right questions and know when to probe and challenge.

    The right culture requires a sophisticated relationship between executive and board and specifically the head of institution, the chair and the secretary to the board. An open relationship, with no surprises, and a healthy tension of constructive challenge. Clear schemes of delegated authority, clarifying the difference between accountability and responsibility, can help to support this.

    As the context and issues change, higher education governance also needs to adapt to meet new challenges.

    Just because governance arrangements were suitable and effective in the past shouldn’t lead to the conclusion that no change is needed. There are examples of excellent practice in the sector. There are also weaknesses which should be the focus for improvement. It is necessary for institutions to regularly review, evolve and improve their governance arrangements.

    Agility and accountability

    To meet current challenges, agility is needed to support effective transformation and change. How can governing bodies be supported to get the right balance between the speed of decision-making and ensuring good governance oversight? Is the size and composition of the governing body helping or hindering effective decision-making?

    Consideration should be given to what can be done to maximise the time that governing bodies spend on discussion of strategy, strategic issues and oversight of major risk – and minimise time spent on processing bureaucracy. This may require ruthlessness about focussing on matters which are strategic, a regulatory or statutory requirement or of material significance (financially, reputationally, or otherwise). If an item does not meet these three tests, there should be challenge as to why it is taking up board time.

    The quality of strategic decision making can be enhanced by ensuring that the board contributes to formative thinking, giving governors the opportunity to challenge and scrutinise effectively, ensuring time to properly examine information to allow for evidence-based decisions in the context of the strategy.

    Are there examples – perhaps from other sectors – that can better enable governing bodies to support change, effectively balancing the need to manage risk with the desire to be agile, innovative and entrepreneurial?

    Institutions should also consider how they can better communicate their governance story – openly and creatively – to staff, students, partners and the public. There’s an opportunity to demonstrating how institutions are governed in the public interest. This can include more proactive and transparent approaches to showing adherence to codes and compliance to regulations.

    A developing story

    Given the risks (financial, international) and changes (digital, regulatory) facing the sector it has never been more important to support governors appropriately – and this should include proactively identifying and supporting development opportunities.

    This could include both HE-specific regulatory issues and learning about good governance best practice from other sectors. Beyond initial governor induction, institutions should support continuous professional development for non-executive board members throughout terms of service and ensure structured training opportunities for governance support professionals.

    The insights from our big conversation will provide a foundation and stimulus for meaningful change and continuous improvement in HE sector governance. The priorities identified will shape how Advance HE evolves its approach to governance support, board effectiveness reviews and development programmes.

    Source link

  • 2025 Top Tools for Learning Votes – Teaching in Higher Ed

    2025 Top Tools for Learning Votes – Teaching in Higher Ed

    Drat. I missed getting to officially contribute to the votes for this year’s Top 100 Tools for Learning, collected and analyzed by Jane Hart. I’m still going to write mine up, as I do like to reflect on the tools I’m relying on for my own and others’ learning, but I’ll need to wait until 2026 to get back into the mix of having my votes reflected in the grand total.

    I used to be more regular with my votes, but did miss a few along the way. Here are my past Top 100 Tools for Learning: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2024. I avoid looking at the prior year’s lists until I have identified my votes for current year.

    This year, given that I missed the deadline for submitting my top ten list, I’m using a longer format than normal and structuring this reflection on Harold Jarche’s personal knowledge (PKM) framework, since so much of my learning is centered on it:

    Seek > Sense > Share

    Throughout all of my days, I’m plugged into intentional ways of seeking knowledge, wisdom, and sources of curiosity. In a way, sense-making is a part of my way of being, especially on those days when I allow myself to slow down enough for the deeper insights. Finally, I’m someone who delights in fueling my curiosity and imagination even further by sharing what I’m learning and inviting others to do the same.

    Curious to learn more about personal knowledge mastery? My absolute favorite source for more than a decade now is Harold Jarche, who defines PKM as:

    Personal knowledge mastery (PKM) is a set of processes, individually constructed, to help each of us make sense of our world and work more effectively. PKM keeps us afloat in a sea of information — guided by professional communities and buoyed by social networks. – Harold Jarche

    Those who want to dig even deeper should consider joining Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery cohort, starting in October 2025. Me: Going to look at my schedule and seeing if I’ve got the time to dive in at that time this year. Good stuff.

    Seek

    Seeking is finding things out and keeping up to date. Building a network of colleagues is helpful in this regard. It not only allows us to “pull” information, but also have it “pushed” to us by trusted sources. Good curators are valued members of knowledge networks. – Harold Jarche

    Overcast

    Not a day goes by that I don’t use Overcast, my preferred podcast catcher. On my iPhone, it is always my most used app on any given week.

    Get ready to celebrate International Podcast Day on September 30. I’ve already got an episode queued up featuring Dominic Conroy & Warren Kidd to commemorate the event. Get your ears on and subscribe to Teaching in Higher Ed, if you haven’t already, using your favorite podcast app (search for Teaching in Higher Ed and hit subscribe/follow), YouTube, or Spotify.

    While my backlog of episodes yet to be listened to is ridiculously long, Overcast’s playlists feature means I can tailor my audio consumption according to genre (news, technology, teaching, etc.), to my incoming priority/preferred podcasts, or to the queue list I have saved for the good stuff I want to get to when I have long drives or alone time.

    Unread

    While Overcast is for the spoken word, Unread is primarily for written pieces. Powered by real simple syndication (RSS), Unread presents me headlines of unread stories across all sorts of categories, which I can tap (on my iPad) to read, or scroll past to automatically mark as read. I use Unread in conjunction with Inoreader, which is a robust RSS aggregator that can either be used as an RSS reader, as well, or can be used in conjunction with an RSS reader, such as Unread. – From my 2024 Top 10 blog post (note: I only copied this text over after identifying what tools would be on this year’s list, as in I didn’t “cheat”).

    One of the things I love about Unread is that I an perform the entire reading process with two thumbs (insert that joke/about “who has two thumbs and can…” and then add “operate Unread” at the end of it). I can browse the different folders/collections I have set up to skim headlines. When I want to read one of the stories associated with a given headline, I can go into it and read with just a tap. To get back out to the headlines, again, I just swipe right.

    One big update that Unread 4.5 gave us is support for reading paywalled articles within the app. As of me writing this, I haven’t had a chance to experiment with that feature, but am excited to do so over this long, holiday weekend in the U.S. Anything I can do to reduce friction in my PKM system helps me be able to expand my possibilities for deeper learning.

    YouTube

    Once I found out that I could subscribe to new YouTube videos on my RSS reader, Inoreader, it changed how often I watch YouTube videos. That, plus subscribing to YouTube Premium, which means we get ad-free viewing as a family, makes me spending a lot more time with YouTube. I even have my own YouTube channel, which I occasionally post videos on. – From 2024 Top ten post

    YouTube Premium continues to be a way of life for our entire family. If you watch a lot of YouTube and don’t have a means for watching ad-free, I can’t recommend it highly enough.

    This past year, we added a Teaching in Higher Ed YouTube Channel. Each time an audio podcast episode gets posted on our hosting platform, Blubrry, it automatically gets shared on the channel. They used to not allow audio-only podcasts on the platform but made changes their rules such that now it is encouraged. In addition to listening to Teaching in Higher Ed, or watching an episode with Dr. Stephenie Cawthon accompanied by two ASL interpreters, you can also see other videos I’ve made this past year, such as:

    Kindle App

    I primarily read digitally and find the Kindle iPad app to be the easiest route for reading. I read more, in total, when I am disciplined about using the Kindle hardware, but wind up grabbing my iPad most nights. – 2024 Top 10 Post

    Audible

    New on the list for this year is Audible. I was attempting for a few months to better balance my daily news reading with sources that would give me a longer-term view of the world. As I write these words, I feel like I’m back to failing at this, but it was a good pursuit there for a while. Part of this attempt at balancing was made possible through listening to audio books in addition to podcast episodes.

    Sometimes audio is better because it allows us to get more reading into our days. Other times, audio does something that the written word could never do. In the list below of some favorite audio boos from this past year, I’ll indicate with (best via audio book) at the end of the line if the audio book was particularly geared toward the audio medium.

    Sense

    Sensing is how we personalize information and use it. Sensing includes reflection and putting into practice what we have learned. Often it requires experimentation, as we learn best by doing. – Harold Jarche

    StoryGraph

    I decided to move off of Amazon’s Goodreads for my reading tracking this year and have been loving StoryGraph so far. I just wish more people were there to be friends with and share reading ideas. What I mostly use StoryGraph for is setting an annual reading goal and tracking my progress toward that. I also have quite a large queue of books I would like to read someday.

    I understand that some people have a hard time finding something to read. This is not my problem. Trust me. I’ve got the what to possibly read thing down pat. But for those who are looking for suggestions, StoryGraph has that feature nailed, too. If anyone is on StoryGraph and wants to connect, my StoryGraph username is Bonni208 (as it is across most social networks that I’m on). Those curious about why the number 208 is significant to me, check out Teaching in Higher Ed Episode 208, where Dave helps me tell the 208 origin story.

    Obsidian

    Dave has been using Obsidian for years now and long-heralded the way that these types of note apps don’t lock you in, long-term. Using plain text (Markdown) documents that are stored where you want to keep them (not locked within the note service/subscription/app) means that Obsidian gets used as a way of viewing and adding to your plain text documents. That’s an oversimplification and one that meant I took longer than others to get to the party that is Obsidian.

    One thing to know about Obsidian is that there is a learning curve. I would suggest not trying to go your own way on it, but instead to invest in some tools to help with your onboarding. I have three recommendations:

    • The MacSparky Obsidian Field Guide – This course takes you through how to get started with Obsidian and set up systems to use this note-taking powerhouse to fuel your capacity for learning and teaching.
    • Obsidian Starter Vault from Mike Schmitz – It can be hard starting from an entirely blank slate in Obsidian, so this starter vault can give you some content to work from and some tips for how to: “get more out of your notes and ideas effortlessly.”
    • LifeHQ from Mike Schmitz – If you want to go even further with a system built by someone else, you can check out this extensive, customizable vault. I purchased it and over time have found ways to combine how Mike uses Obsidian to something that works better for me, most notably to incorporate my own custom version of Johnny Decimal (which I call Bonni Decimal; Let’s just say it has some emojis in the mix, in addition to the decimals/numbers, which I find quite satisfying) and doesn’t attempt to incorporate task management the way Mike has, instead relying on my beloved OmniFocus Pro.

    ChatGPT

    Ok. Here goes. I use artificial intelligence, despite knowing that there are plenty of ethical reasons that people may choose not to use AI. I encourage anyone thinking about shaming me or others who use it to read Maha Bali’s post suggesting that we not jump straight to that binary way of thinking about peoples’ use of these technologies. I don’t use it without continually refining my knowledge of what it is and isn’t capable of… but I do find that to be effective in my job, I am required to use it. Additionally, to enable us to cost-effectively offer transcripts for our podcasts and otherwise make our materials more accessible, AI is a must there, too.

    I list ChatGPT here, since that is my most frequently-used AI tool, as it relates to learning. I pay for the $20/month paid service and occasionally find myself needing to use the separate pay-as-you-go API key for nichè use-cases. I asked ChatGPT to use what it knows about me to list off the ways that I use it in my learning (seeking, sensing, and sharing), and here is an edited version of it’s bulleted output:

    • Seeking: exploring big questions about teaching, learning, and AI; summarizing complex articles or reports.
    • Sensing: refining my “messy”/“chicken scratch” notes into themes, comparing frameworks, and generating questions that deepen reflection and conversation (with colleagues, students, or even my own family).
    • Sharing: drafting polished communications – everything from faculty emails and strategic planning documents to podcast show notes and library fundraising blurbs.
    • Iterating: co-creating interactive materials (like Twine games, PollEverywhere prompts, or Canva copy) where I can ask ChatGPT to generate multiple versions until it “clicks.”
    • Blending Personal + Professional Contexts: whether it’s planning a weekly meal prep strategy, crafting conference questions, or designing playful activities for faculty, ChatGPT helps me weave learning into both my work and life.

    It didn’t mention this, but I have been closely following Mike Caulfield‘s experimentation and research on what it can do using argumentation theory to come alongside us in our fact checking with his Deep Background GPT. There’s so much more I could say here, but I’ll save it for future posts.

    Readwise

    It is so easy to highlight sections of what I’m reading on the Kindle app and have those highlights sync over to a service called Readwise. The service “makes it easy to revisit and learn from your ebook and article highlights. – 2024 Top 10 post

    I saw a video the other night which made mention of the ability to sync Readwise highlights with Obsidian (note taking tool) and that got me excited about that possibility. For now, I’ll be disciplined about placing that idea on my someday/maybe list and not going down the rabbit hole at this exact moment. Another thing on my someday/maybe list to look into more is Lance Eaton’s AI Practice: Building My Quote Collection.

    Share

    Sharing includes exchanging resources, ideas, and experiences with our networks as well as collaborating with our colleagues. – Harold Jarche

    Raindrop

    Much of my digital life revolves around digital bookmarking. I could have easily placed Raindrop in with sense making, as on an almost hourly basis, I find myself saving links and placing them in all the various collections (which are like folders) I have on Raindrop and applying tags. Whether I’m reading on my web browser, or via my smartphone or tablet, I can easily save bookmarks and have them accessible to me anytime in the future.

    Just the other day, I was talking with a friend who is doing a lot of reflection and reading about loneliness and I asked if he had ever watched Andrea Dorfman’s How To Be Alone. He hadn’t and it was such a delight to be able to resurface that masterpiece and share it with him. I had an insight while watching it this time that since I have been spending more time working in our library lately that it seems like it may be the one place students feel more comfortable being alone than in other spots.

    Another fun discovery, found within the deep crevasses of Raindrop was The Gap, by Ira Glass. “Your taste is good enough that you can tell that what you’re making is kind of a disappointment to you… Most everybody I know who does interesting, creative work, went through this phase for a few years…” Ira normalizes this gap of knowing what you’re doing could be better and being able to “fight your way through the gap.”

    While most of my saved bookmarks (tags and collections) are private, I did decide recently to make an RSS feed and page with my saved links within an AI collection from Raindrop. This means that each time I save something related to AI on Raindrop, that anyone subscribed to that feed will have it show up in their RSS aggregator. Additionally, anyone who visits the page will see everything I’ve saved about AI within Raindrop. Candidly, as public as I am with the podcast and many other things, sharing this feed makes me a bit nervous, as I wouldn’t want people to think that I’m necessarily endorsing everything I’m saving. I’m pretty sure people would know that but given how polarizing the topic of AI can be, I still feel a bit nervous about this aspect of my sharing.

    Your Turn

    Would you like to submit a vote with your Top Tools for Learning? Unfortunately, you’re in the same boat as me and will need to wait until 2026. In the meantime, watch out for the 2025 Top Tools for Learning results to be posted by Monday, September 1, 2025.

    Source link

  • How Higher Ed Marketers Can Reach the Modern Learner with Video

    How Higher Ed Marketers Can Reach the Modern Learner with Video

    Video Content Creation: Paid & Organic Strategies That Work 

    We’ve all seen the data: attention spans are shorter, competition for screen time is fierce and the Modern Learner expects a different kind of engagement. They crave content that’s authentic, dynamic and personal – and they’re scrolling past anything that feels like a generic ad.

    EducationDynamics’ latest Engaging the Modern Learner Report confirms this: while platform preferences vary by age and learning style, the one constant is a demand for immersive, visually rich short-form video content. Most students engage daily across multiple platforms, drawn to experiences that are as dynamic as they are informative.

    So, how do you cut through the noise and prove ROI in the digital environment that demands both innovation and efficiency? The answer is leveraging video marketing as a central pillar of your brand and reputation strategy to drive enrollment.

    Explore how to create a strategic video marketing strategy that not only captures attention but also nurtures students from first impression to enrollment.

    Why Video Marketing Works in Higher Education

    Video is a fundamental part of how people consume information and make decisions. In 2024, the average user watched a staggering 17 hours of online video content per week and that number continues to climb. For higher education, this means meeting prospective students where they are—on platforms like TikTok, Instagram and YouTube.

    These platforms are the new frontier for student recruitment, especially with the explosion of short-form video. With nearly 80% of U.S. consumers preferring to watch on their smartphones, the vertical format, quick entertainment and algorithmic reach of platforms like TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts make them ideal for grabbing attention in seconds.

    Marketers are taking notice of video’s power. Data shows:

    • 74% of video marketers say videos drive the most engagement on social media. 
    • Short-form video delivers the highest ROI compared to other marketing trends. 
    • It is expected to receive the most investment in 2025, especially in education, retail and tech industries. 

    Short-form video is one of the strongest tools in your marketing mix, capable of cutting through the noise and sparking genuine engagement. In a world where students spend 17 hours a week consuming video, grabbing even five seconds of their attention is a meaningful opportunity. The key is making that moment count.

    According to our own analysis in the latest Landscape of Higher Education Report, 35% of education website visits start with organic search—proof that discoverability multiplies the value of your video. When short-form content is connected to both organic and paid strategies, it doesn’t just capture attention; it guides students from first impression to enrollment decision.

    The Benefits of Video – Paid & Organic 

    Paid Video Content 

    Video ads stand out in crowded feeds. Unlike static images or carousel posts, video grabs attention through movement, sound and storytelling. With tools like Meta Ads Manager and TikTok Ads, brands can now target hyper-specific audiences with tailored messaging – delivered via immersive, full-screen video experiences.  

    Benefits: 

    • Higher click through rates than static ads 
    • Ability to tell stories, show product use, or highlight real people 
    • Increase brand recall by using audio, visuals and emotions together 
    • Great for retargeting campaigns, especially when optimized with engaging hooks and calls to action 

    Organic Video Content 

    Organic video content emphasizes authenticity and community. It’s less about polish and more about relatability — behind-the-scenes moments, student stories or candid campus life. These video marketing strategies build trust and long-term engagement, making them powerful tools for enrollment marketing and student recruitment.

    Why it works: 

    • Improves SEO by increasing time-on-page 
    • Boosts algorithmic reach on platforms like Instagram and TikTok 
    • Drives repeat engagement and builds emotional connection 

    Best Practices for Paid vs. Organic Video 

    • Keep it short. People are scrolling fast; we want to make an impact quickly. Every second is geared towards driving action. 
    • Brand quickly. Use your colors fonts and logo in the first few seconds. Viewers should recognize your brand immediately – even with the sound off. 
    • Include a CTA. Every ad should include a direct action: “Apply Now,” “Learn More,” or “Sign Up Today” 

    Building a Video Marketing Strategy that Impacts the Entire Funnel

    Video content marketing is one of the few tools that can guide a prospective student from first impression to enrollment decision. To maximize impact, institutions need a funnel built around higher education marketing strategies that meet students where they are.

    Awareness: Sparking Interest

    At this stage, students are just starting to explore their options and your goal is to spark interest.

    • Goal: Reach new audiences and build familiarity. 
    • Content: Short, shareable videos that grab attention quickly. 
    • Example: A trending audio track paired with clips of dorms, campus events and happy students. For a public university, this might be a 15-second TikTok showing the vibrant campus energy on a game day.

    Consideration: Standing Out from the Competition

     Now they’re weighing their choices and you want to stand out.

    • Goal: Educate and differentiate from competitors. 
    • Content: Program highlights, student success stories and value callouts. 
    • Example: A 30-second clip of a recent grad from your nursing program talking about how your clinical partnerships helped them land a job in a top hospital.
    • Pro Tip: EducationDynamics’ Engaging the Modern Learner Report shows that videos on TikTok and LinkedIn have a particularly strong influence on students’ school selection. Strategically placing content on these platforms ensures it reaches students at the moments that matter most.

    Lead Generation: Driving Action

    This is the moment to be clear and actionable.

    • Goal: Drive action. 
    • Content: Deadline reminders, application steps and clear, direct messaging. 
    • Example: A concise video ad titled “3 Days Left to Apply: Here’s How,” featuring a direct link to the application portal.

    The key is sequencing: sharing the right type of video at the right time, on the platforms where your audience is most active. When done well, a video funnel doesn’t just catch attention. It builds trust, nurtures interest and guides students toward taking the next step.

    Video Platform Tips & Attention Spans 

    Not all platforms reward video the same way and audience behavior changes depending on where they’re watching. To maximize results, adapt your video marketing strategy to each channel by tailoring both length and style. Here’s how to optimize:

    • Long-form videos perform well on LinkedIn. 
    • Reels and TikToks should stay under 30 seconds. 
    • On Facebook, the average attention span is 2 seconds – hook viewers immediately. 
    • Use captions for accessibility and to reach viewers watching without sound. 
    • Popular aspect ratios are 9:16 or 1:1. 
    • Use trending audio when relevant. 
    • Use engaging thumbnails and headlines. 

    A Word on Memes (for Organic) 

    Yes, memes. They might seem casual, but in the right context they can be powerful tools for connecting with students. Today’s learners are fluent in meme culture and meeting them where they are can make your brand feel more approachable and relatable.

    Memes are effective because: 

    • They feel familiar and fun 
    • They increase watch time and engagement 
    • They let you communicate messages (like deadlines or events) in unexpected ways. 

    When thoughtfully woven into your video marketing strategy, memes can add personality and make your institution feel more approachable — a subtle yet powerful way to support student recruitment. The key is staying on-brand and avoiding content that could be misinterpreted.

    Tools for Video Creation 

    • CapCut – Templates for quick, customizable videos. 
    • Canva – User-friendly, versatile, intuitive editing. 
    • Adobe Express – More advanced creative control. 

    If your university provides B-roll, use it—it instantly adds authenticity and grounds your content in your campus story. And before you hit publish, double-check each platform’s “safe zones” so headlines, calls-to-action and visuals land exactly where viewers can see them. Small details like this can be the difference between a video that blends in and one that captures attention.

    Performance Metrics to Track 

    Whether running paid or organic campaigns, success in video content marketing depends on tracking the right metrics:

    • Views – How many people are watching. 
    • Engagement – Clicks, likes and comments. 
    • Watch Time – Are they sticking around? 
    • Shares – A powerful driver of awareness.

    Investing in your video strategy is an investment in your future students. Modern Learners expect content that is dynamic, engaging and tailored to how they explore, evaluate and make decisions about education. Short-form videos and authentic storytelling aren’t optional anymore. They are essential for capturing attention and building meaningful connections.

    At EducationDynamics, our marketing and creative teams specialize in higher education marketing strategies that integrate video content marketing across channels to boost visibility, engagement and enrollment outcomes. Whether you’re looking for a higher education marketing agency to manage a comprehensive video marketing strategy or simply seeking inspiration from the latest video marketing examples, we help institutions connect the right message to the right student at the right time.

    Source link

  • Chancellors Playing Footsie With Authoritarianism

    Chancellors Playing Footsie With Authoritarianism

    It is hard not to feel at least occasionally helpless these days trying to operate between the twinned pincers of a Trump administration steamrolling our democracy and an AI industry pursuing its goal of automating all means and matter of human expression.

    It seems like, combined, they can take away just about anything: our grants, our international students, our jobs, our freedom.

    Things get worse when those of us toiling away as laborers see those in positions of leadership at the institutions that should be bollards blocking the path of antihuman, antifreedom movements instead lying down so as to be more easily run over.

    (Looking at you, Columbia University.)

    Arguments about how we should consider some measure of accommodation (to fascism, to AI) abound, and some are even reasonable-sounding. These are powerful forces with their hands around the throat of our futures. Certainly no one can be blamed for doing what it takes to nudge those hands back a few millimeters so you can get enough air to breathe.

    Those with the power to do so can seemingly take just about anything they want, except for one thing: your dignity.

    Your dignity must be given away by an act of free will. Maybe I was naïve to think that more people would be protective of their dignity in these times, but I see so many instances of the opposite that I’m frequently stunned by the eagerness with which people are willing to hurl their dignity into the abyss for some perceived benefit.

    The worst examples are found in the members of Donald Trump’s cabinet, who are occasionally tasked with a public performance of sycophantic fealty to their dear leader. It is amazing to see accomplished people treat the president of the United States like a toddler in need of a level of affirmation that would make Stuart Smalley blush. I think I understand the motives of these people: They are wielding power at a level that allows them to literally remake society or even the world.

    If it is your life’s goal to shield chemical companies from the financial responsibility of cleaning up the “forever chemicals” that cause cancer and miscarriages—which The New York Times reports is the apparent mission of some monster named Steven Cook—maybe it’s worth it to slather Trump in praise.

    But the decision to jettison one’s dignity made by the New York Times writer who looked at these displays and decided they are an example of leadership via reality television host rather than aspiring authoritarian is tougher for me to figure. While the article correctly identifies some of the lies conveyed during the spectacle, the overall tone is more of a “can you believe he’s getting away with this shit?” approach, rather than a “shouldn’t we be concerned he’s getting away with this shit?” approach, which would be far more accurate to the occasion.

    I can believe he’s getting away with it when the paper of record continually covers Trump like a novel spectacle practicing unusual politics rather than an authoritarian.

    I don’t know how one maintains their dignity when writing a story about Trump deploying the United States military in the nation’s capital that gives any credence to a “crackdown on crime” given that this is transparently BS, and yet the Times reflexively characterizes what is happening as a “crackdown” (see here, here and here), rather than, I don’t know, an “occupation.”

    In other jettisoning of dignity for strategic gain news, I have been, to a degree, sympathetic to the pre–Trump II stance of Vanderbilt chancellor Daniel Diermeier and WashU chancellor Andrew D. Martin’s views of higher ed reform anchored in institutional neutrality.

    I disagreed with that view as a matter of principle and policy approach, but this is a debate over principles.

    Now that we find ourselves in the midst of the overt Trump II attempts to destroy the independence of higher education institutions, I found their answers to a series of questions from The Chronicle’s Megan Zahneis about an apparent dispute between them and Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber about higher ed’s stance in relationship to Trump astounding as a performance of willed ignorance.

    This debate is taking place at a time when, obviously, the Trump administration has taken aim at higher ed. Are either of you concerned about this debate weakening the sector’s sense of autonomy?

    Martin: I would say the fact there is a public debate about the future of American higher education has no relationship whatsoever to what actions that the administration is taking.

    So you don’t see debate between leaders as detracting from that autonomy?

    Diermeier: I’m not 100 percent sure what we do about that. We have a point of view. We’ve had the point of view for a long time. We’re going to continue to argue for a point of view, because we think it’s essential. Now, if people disagree with that, I think that’s their decision. That’s the nature of civil discourse. We think that it’s important to get this right. We don’t think that the alternative, to hide under the desk, is appropriate.

    These answers would make Hogan’s Heroes’ Sergeant Schultz proud: “I know nothing! I see nothing.”

    Earlier in the interview, both chancellors make it clear that they are seeing a benefit to their institutions in the current climate, potentially enrolling more students who have been turned off by the turbulence being visited on their elite university brethren of the Northeast.

    They have apparently decided that they now have an advantage in the competitive market of higher education by their willingness to wink at an authoritarian push.

    Speaking of their fellow institutional leaders, Diermeier says there that there has been “no despising or disrespect or hatred among the sets of colleagues we’ve been engaged with,” and while I’m not a colleague of these gentlemen, let me publicly register my strong disrespect for their performative cluelessness in the interview.

    Let me also suggest I can’t imagine someone who respects themselves following that path, and I’m grateful to the institutional leaders like Christopher Eisgruber who are willing to express reality.

    I don’t know what the future holds. It’s possible that WashU and Vanderbilt are positioning themselves as the favored elite institutions of the authoritarian regime, ready to hoover up that federal cash that Trump is threatening to withhold from the schools that will not bend to his will.

    I’m genuinely curious if that scenario is worth one’s dignity.

    Source link

  • Later Wake-Up Call for Inside Higher Ed’s Daily News Update

    Later Wake-Up Call for Inside Higher Ed’s Daily News Update

    Loyal Inside Higher Ed readers who wake up to our daily newsletter will soon have an easier time finding each day’s edition in their crowded inboxes. 

    Starting Tuesday, Sept. 2, the Daily News Update will arrive between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. Eastern, several hours later than the current 3:15 a.m. This may upset the morning routines of the handful of souls on the East Coast who rise before the sun, but for most readers, we hope this change means our newsletter is there at the top of your inbox when you log in, ready to inform your day.  

    Thank you for waking up with Inside Higher Ed. 

    Source link

  • On Being a Black Anthropologist (opinion)

    On Being a Black Anthropologist (opinion)

    The one week my Yale graduate Anthropology 101 class spent studying Zora Neale Hurston’s Mules and Men felt like a glass of cool water on a hot summer day. Learning about her scholarship and her refusal to accept the way her white colleagues recentered whiteness through their research on nonwhite people reminded me of the anthropologists who first led me to the discipline.

    But the fact that Hurston was the sole Black woman anthropologist whose work we studied suggested that she was the only Black woman anthropologist whose work was worthy of the ivory tower. As if she was the only Black person committed to using the tools of anthropology to create knowledge about the people relegated to the Global South in ways that are mutually beneficial to the researcher and their interlocutors. Hurston’s singular inclusion in my graduate training paired with the general exclusion of Black and brown scholars aimed to pacify the problematics of anthropology without upending the infrastructure of a discipline that is in crisis.

    As my graduate school years continued, I grew increasingly disillusioned by the idea of a career in academia. Even though I had come to terms with a definition and practice of anthropology that felt useful, identifying as an anthropologist myself felt wrong. How could I proudly claim affinity to a discipline that knowingly promulgated the othering of Black and brown people around the world and within the discipline itself? The answer would come through my research on Black Capitalists, and through my own experience beyond grad school as a Black entrepreneur and Wall Street professional.

    My experience as a Ghanaian American on Wall Street at Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase exposed me to the ways in which Black people use the tools of capitalism to create new outcomes centered on collective thriving. They led me to my definition of what it means to be a Black Capitalist: a Black person who is a strategic participant in capitalism with the intention to benefit from the political economy in order to create social good. What they were doing was complicated, contradictory and, for many, oxymoronic.

    To many, to be a Black Capitalist is to be in an identity crisis. Black studies scholars I’ve spoken to have gone so far as to say, “Black Capitalists don’t exist!” or “It’s impossible for any good to come from capitalism!” I’m usually taken aback by such rebuttals. Because if the Black people I spent hours talking to who identified themselves as Black Capitalists don’t actually exist in real life, are they fictions of my imagination? And is my own experience invalid? Black Capitalists are as real as the version of capitalism we experience today that aims to entrap us all. Black Capitalists are merely trying to get free and help others do the same while facets of society attempt to place limits on how they can narrate, and ultimately live, their own lives.

    Surely, one’s ability to disavow capitalism depends on what continent they are on, or come from. For the Black Capitalists I’ve spoken to who are from Africa, for example, it’s neither a matter of loving capitalism nor wanting to dismantle it. Living in and through capitalism is the reality of trying to build a life in countries that imperialist capitalist forces have already destroyed and continue to exploit. If they are to live their later years comfortably in their homeland, leaving it in the meantime is a requirement. And hustling in the Western world to achieve this dream is so often the method. So for them, much like it was for my mother, who emigrated to America from Ghana with the haunting knowledge that her family was counting on her and that “failure was not an option,” the question becomes: For our own collective thriving, how do we game a system that was founded on us as its pawns?

    So how are Black Capitalists using the tools of capitalism to create new outcomes that allow them to secure the bag and the people they care for? Their methods are as diverse as Black people themselves. But the common denominator between all of their practices is a focus on communal uplift.

    Some are strategizing throughout key industries within corporate America to develop sustainable initiatives that subversively promote diversity, equity and inclusion—especially in the wake of its demise. Some are leveraging grassroots approaches to build community-forward real estate clubs that make the dream of homeownership and passive income possible through the resources—money, credit, knowledge and social connections—that are shared among members.

    Others are teaching aspiring entrepreneurs in their community the fundamentals of effective entrepreneurship and shepherding them through the process of collectively buying successful small businesses formerly owned by white entrepreneurs. Some are using the skills they developed during their tenures on Wall Street to create investment firms on the African continent to help grow pan-African businesses focused on health care, technology and agriculture that generate value for the African consumer. Some of the companies these Black Capitalists are building are worth millions of dollars—even billions. Irrespective of the spaces Black Capitalists occupy, their impact in Black communities globally is invaluable in the fight to close the racial wealth gap that has Black people lagging behind across key wealth indicators including homeownership, small business ownership and financial health.

    But their existence is unnerving to both Black and white people alike, for very different reasons. For many Black people, the very idea of a Black Capitalist makes their toes curl, because when you’ve been on the wrong side of capitalism for so long—as its most valued commodity but never its greatest beneficiary—it’s hard to believe that another relationship to capitalism, or a more equitable version of it on our journey to collective liberation, is even possible.

    And for white people invested in upholding the racial hierarchy that shapes social, political and economic life, they worry and wonder what they are set to lose when Black people are organized and move as one unified body in an economic system that nurtures individualism. Both perspectives reveal the underlying truth that money and our obsession with it is a culture of its own. And this revelation presents a growing problem society has created but has yet to solve: What do we do when money becomes the dominant culture in a society wherein most people don’t have enough of it to live?

    In the face of paralyzing social anxiety about the expansiveness of Black life, anthropology’s superpower lies in its ability to use evidence from the human experience to upend our social scripts and create space for us to dream up new ways of being that are both scalable and sustainable. I realized that being a Black Capitalist and being a Black anthropologist were both seen as oxymorons. I now gravitate toward the spirit of Zora Neale Hurston and other exceptional Black anthropologists. I learned that I can be a different kind of anthropologist who uses the tools of anthropology, like ethnography, oral histories and participant observation, to tell new stories about Black life that are restorative, hopeful and reflective of the power Black people carry.

    But even so, my existence as a Black anthropologist is unnerving to “scholars” who benefit from and are invested in perpetuating the harms of traditional anthropology. To raise the standard of knowledge production to ensure it is created in community with those who play a role in developing it threatens the validity of how scholars have traditionally conducted research and the scholarship that is held in high esteem. It’s damning enough that anthropology is like a snake eating its tail. My presence is the proverbial pain in the discipline’s side—a reminder of the work that is needed to transform the discipline, and realize what anthropology can be, but has yet to become.

    Source link

  • DHS Moves to Restrict How Long Foreign Students Can Stay

    DHS Moves to Restrict How Long Foreign Students Can Stay

    This latest plan is one of several ways the Trump administration is targeting international students.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | aapsky/iStock/Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    After months of speculation, the Department of Homeland Security publicly released its plans to limit how long international students can stay in the United States—a proposal that advocates say will only add to uncertainty and chaos that this group is already facing.

    Currently, students can stay in the country as long as they are enrolled at a college or university. But the proposed rule released Wednesday would allow students to stay for the duration of their program, but no longer than four years. That isn’t enough time for students to complete a doctoral program, and it’s less time than the average student takes to complete a bachelor’s degree. Students who want to stay longer would have to seek authorization to extend their visa.

    The first Trump administration tried to make this change, which would roll back at 1991 rule known as duration of status. However, the Biden administration withdrew the proposal. Officials said in a news release that setting a fixed time for students on visas to stay would curb what they call abuses and allow the government to better oversee these individuals. Additionally, officials alleged that the current policy incentivizes international students to “become ‘forever’ students,” who are “perpetually enrolled in higher education courses to remain in the U.S.”

    DHS will take public comments on the proposal until Sept. 29. Before the agency can finalize the rule, it will have to review and respond to those comments.

    Advocates for international students have been sounding the alarm about this plan since DHS first sought approval in June to make the proposal, and those warnings continued this week now that the plan is public. Changing the rule, they say, would be another hurdle for international students who want to come to the United States. These others include vetting students’ social media profiles and more scrutiny on current visa holders. Since President Trump took office, the State Department has revoked 6,000 student visas.

    More than one million students from other countries enrolled in at a U.S. college or university in 2024, making up about 6 percent of the total student population. Experts predict the number of international students to drop off significantly this academic year.

    Fanta Aw, executive director of NAFSA, the association of international educators, said in a statement that the DHS proposal is a “bad idea” and “a dangerous overreach by government into academia.”

    “These changes will only serve to force aspiring students and scholars into a sea of administrative delays at best, and at worst, into unlawful presence status—leaving them vulnerable to punitive actions through no fault of their own,” Aw added.

    Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, described the proposal in a statement as “another unnecessary and counterproductive action aimed against international students and scholars.”

    “This proposed rule sends a message to talented individuals from around the world that their contributions are not valued in the United States,” she said. “This is not only detrimental to international students—it also weakens the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to attract top talent, diminishing our global competitiveness. International students, scholars, and exchange visitors contribute economically, intellectually, and culturally to American society. They drive innovation, create jobs, and advance groundbreaking research.”

    Source link

  • Debating Gaslighting

    Debating Gaslighting

    My column about gaslighting has drawn some criticism that I want to address. Noam Schimmel argues in his letter that “gaslighting” is a correct term to use when people face “hostile claims that their reported experiences are fabricated, exaggerated or made with malicious intent.” But we must always have debates about whether general claims of bigotry are exaggerated or understated, and we shouldn’t presume malicious intent from anyone.

    Schimmel claims that “it is inimical to the respect and fulfillment of civil rights and human rights to focus on debating whether terms such as ‘gaslighting’ or ‘institutional discrimination’ are appropriate to describe real and widespread experiences of exclusion and abuse.” Actually, it’s never inimical to human rights to discuss the extent of forms of discrimination or to debate how we should describe bigotry. Free speech is essential to human rights, and that includes allowing people to deny that human rights are being violated, even if they are wrong.

    In fact, gaslighting and institutional discrimination are radically different concepts. The latter describes an institutional failure to prevent discrimination by a legal standard, but gaslighting describes a kind of conspiracy theory that suggests everyone who questions these demands for censorship is plotting against recognition of an obvious truth about antisemitism.

    Another letter in response to my column comes from William Mills IV, which I will post here in its entirety:

    Gaslighting About Gaslighting

    Yes, gaslighting is real even if it doesn’t involve turning down gas lights to drive someone crazy.

    By William T. Mills IV, Ph.D.

    In his opinion column on Wednesday, author John Wilson derides the author of an email he received accusing him of gaslighting when he referred to antisemitism at Harvard as a “myth.” In his rebuttal to a private email, Mr. Wilson says that he is not gaslighting because he is not literally turning down gas lights to drive his wife crazy, as the husband in the 1944 film Gaslight did. Interestingly, Mr. Wilson defends of his use of the word “myth” to describe antisemitism at Harvard, even though he is not literally referring to antisemitism at Harvard as, for example, a historic tale about a creator sending birds to retrieve mud from the bottom of a primordial ocean to form the earth. Of course, the use of the word “myth” does not denote the literal origin of the word but rather the meaning we all understand today.

    So yes, in fact, claiming that antisemitism at Harvard is a “myth” is gaslighting readers, as it tells them a lie and denies that they are being told one. There is no other reason I can conceive of, at least not a charitable one, to tell people who watched antisemitism—that Harvard admitted to—with their own eyes that antisemitism is a “myth,” than to drive them insane.

    Mr. Wilson says that “universities are not guilty of antisemitic discrimination if they allow free expression of hateful ideas.” And herein lies the problem. Yes, of course, free expression does not equal antisemitism. But having a stated policy against “bullying, harassment, intimidation” and not enforcing that policy when death is openly called for against Jewish students is antisemitism in its truest form. Protecting everyone except Jewish students from “bullying, harassment, intimidation” is the definition of antisemitic discrimination. The entire country watched this fact be highlighted by Rep. Elise Stefanik in her takedown of Harvard president Claudine Gay, but I suppose we are also expected to believe that the thing we watched with our own eyes wasn’t really happening. But it did happen, and Mrs. Gay [sic] is no longer the president because of it.

    In his conclusion, Mr. Wilson laments the negative impact that using the term “gaslight” will have on intellectual discussion. But in reality, nothing could do more harm to “intellectual discussion” than telling people lies, then telling them they are not being lied to, and then telling them that they are not being lied to about not being lied to. The way to protect “intellectual discussion” is not to bar the use of the word “gaslight,” but rather to stop lying. Antisemitism is present at Harvard. Antisemitism is allowed by the administration at Harvard. Antisemitism at Harvard is not a myth.

    William T. Mills IV, Ph.D.

    Assistant Professor of Biology

    Mount St. Mary’s University

    The existence of antisemitism and other forms of bigoted beliefs is deplorable, but it is not evidence of antisemitic discrimination by a college if a college allows hateful beliefs on campus.

    Mills may believe that Harvard is “protecting everyone except Jewish students,” but I see no evidence to support that claim, and a great deal of evidence that contradicts it.

    One reason why we must have free speech in the fight against antisemitism and other isms is that it’s dangerous to allow presumptions of bigotry to dictate repression. Mills claims that “when death is openly called for against Jewish students is antisemitism in its truest form” which I think is true when it happens, but not necessarily true whenever the phrase “from the river to the sea” is uttered. Mills claims that my defense of free speech is gaslighting him, which is precisely my problem with the term.

    Just like Mills and Schimmel, I think my critics are getting the facts wrong and have a false view of the world. I think they are in error, but unlike them, I don’t think they’re gaslighting me. I don’t think they’re intentionally telling lies or downplaying discrimination they know is real against other groups. I like they’re simply making mistakes, in their facts and values, concerning an issue they care about deeply. We can debate ideas and have strongly worded arguments without presuming that the people on the other side are bigoted and evil.

    When people claim that denying bigotry or failing to silence bigotry is itself a form of bigotry, then we run the risk of creating a growing cycle of censorship—first the alleged bigots are to be punished, then anyone who defends the bigots and then any college that fails to silence the bigots. And that’s precisely the crisis of censorship we face in America today, where accusations of bigotry happening on campuses without proof of systematic discrimination are being used to punish colleges and seek suppression of free speech.

    John K. Wilson was a 2019–20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Routledge, 2008), and his forthcoming book The Attack on Academia. He can be reached at [email protected], or letters to the editor can be sent to [email protected].

    Source link