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.
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.
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.”
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].
Amy Wax was suspended and had her pay cut for the 2025–26 academic year after repeatedly making disparaging remarks.
Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
A Pennsylvania district judge dismissed a lawsuit Thursday against the University of Pennsylvania filed by Amy Wax, a tenured law professor who was suspended for the 2025–26 academic year on half pay as part of a punishment for years of flagrantly racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic remarks.
University of Pennsylvania
In the suit filed in January, Wax claimed that the university discriminated against her by punishing her—a white Jewish woman—for speech about Black students but not punishing pro-Palestinian faculty members for speech that allegedly endorsed violence against Jews.
“As much as Wax would like otherwise, this case is not a First Amendment case. It is a discrimination case brought under federal antidiscrimination laws,” senior U.S. district judge Timothy Savage wrote in a 16-page opinion. “We conclude Wax has failed to allege facts that show that her race was a factor in the disciplinary process and there is no cause of action under federal anti-discrimination statutes based on the content of her speech.”
Savage also refuted Wax’s argument that the court should view “her comments disparaging Black students as a statement on behalf of a protected class.”
“Nothing in the disciplinary process or her comments leads to the conclusion that she was penalized for associating with a protected class. Her comments were not advocacy for protected classes,” he wrote. “They were negative and directed at protected classes. Criticizing minorities does not equate to advocacy for them or for white people. Her claim that criticism of minorities was a form of advocating for them is implausible.”
Wax was sanctioned in September 2024 after a years-long disciplinary battle over a laundry list of offensive statements she made during her tenure at the law school, including that “gay couples are not fit to raise children,” “Mexican men are more likely to assault women” and that it is “rational to be afraid of Black men in elevators.” Wax has worked at the law school since 2001.
In addition to a one-year suspension on half pay, the school eliminated her summer pay in perpetuity, publicly reprimanded her and took away her named chair. In 2018, she was removed from teaching required courses after commenting on the “academic performance and grade distributions of the Black students in her required first-year courses,” according to former dean of the law school Theodore W. Ruger.
Funds from the sale of the campus will pay off a portion of MCNY’s $67.4 million outstanding debt.
Cash-strapped Metropolitan College of New York is planning to sell its Manhattan campus to the City University of New York for $40 million, a regulatory filing first reported by Bloomberg shows.
The two institutions signed a letter of intent on Monday, according to the regulatory filing, which notes that proceeds will be used to pay off a portion of MCNY’s $67.4 million outstanding debt.
MCNY agreed to sell the site last year as part of a forbearance agreement with bondholders.
Metropolitan College of New York has struggled to keep up with debt in recent years and failed to maintain the agreed-upon ratio of liquid assets, according to a regulatory filing from July. The small college enrolled fewer than 500 students, according to the latest state data, and posted a deficit of more than $7 million in fiscal year 2023, publicly available financial data shows.
CUNY is purchasing 101,542 square feet across three floors in the shared building, which officials told Bloomberg they intend to use as a temporary site for the Hunter-Bellevue School of Nursing amid ongoing construction projects. The sale will require approval from bondholders as well as Metropolitan College’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
Students learn just as much from who we are as educators as they do from what we teach. While content is important, the way faculty members carry themselves, how they communicate, lead, and treat others, can leave an even deeper impact on students’ personal and professional growth. This article explains that educators who use servant leadership principles create trust, empathy, and ethical development in students, ultimately supporting both academic success and long-term character building of students.
Throughout this article, I will explain why servant leadership is especially relevant in higher education today. While using a student-centered philosophy is very beneficial, adopting a servant leadership approach offers an extension of that philosophy. This is not just about teaching content effectively. It is about modeling values like integrity, empathy, and thoughtful decision making in ways students can absorb and carry with them beyond the classroom. In this paper, I will provide research and real-world examples. I will present practical strategies faculty members where they know their students are walking away a better individual, professionally and personally. I will also discuss how faculty members themselves benefit from adopting a servant leadership model, finding stronger connections with students and a deeper sense of purpose in their work.
Modeling Values in the Classroom
One of the clearest ways servant leadership shows up in higher education is through the modeling of values that students can see and experience in everyday interactions. As Rabin and Smith say, “students learn as much from who we are as what we teach” (p. 2, 2013). This speaks to the purpose of servant leadership in higher education. In the context of the classroom, faculty who embody servant leadership not only communicate course content but also demonstrate values such as compassion and care through their actions.
This leadership approach directly supports student-centered teaching by emphasizing the importance of understanding students’ backgrounds, life circumstances, and unique learning needs. In the research article, Rabin and Smith explain that “to care for students, a teacher needs to know her students well enough to understand their unique motivations and needs” (p. 4). This describes a strong part of servant leadership, placing the needs of others before one’s own and creating relationships built on trust and mutual respect.
When higher education faculty take on the role of servant leaders, they transform learning environments. They challenge the authority-driven classroom stereotype and replace it with a relational one, where students are empowered, respected, and mentored not only academically, but as people. These professors serve as living examples of the kind of leaders we hope our students become.
How Faculty Benefit from Servant Leadership
While much attention is given to how servant leadership benefits students, its impact on faculty is equally as important. Faculty are the heart of teaching and service in higher education, and adopting a servant leadership mindset can enhance the purpose they find in their work.
Stronger relationships and classroom dynamics. Faculty who adopts servant leadership approaches often develop more meaningful relationships with students, which fosters better classroom engagement and cooperation. As Rabin and Smith explain, “teachers who practice an ethic of care consider developing relationships to be artfully complex and at the same time critical to a learning environment” (p. 8, 2013). When professors create spaces where trust and respect are mutual, the classroom becomes a place of safety and comfortability, benefiting both teaching and learning.
Personal fulfillment and emotional connection. The emotional toll of teaching is often overlooked, but faculty who embrace servant leadership experience a deeper sense of purpose in their work. Faculty gain more than content delivery; they gain the joy of watching students thrive and knowing their role made a difference.
Increased satisfaction and retention. Research shows that workplace satisfaction among educators increases when they feel seen and supported. Rabin and Smith talked about that a reflection of heart is critical for both effective teaching and faculty well-being (2013). When institutions encourage servant leadership, they cultivate a better faculty morale, higher job satisfaction, and stronger loyalty to the institution.
Practical Ways Faculty Can Begin Tomorrow
The foundation of servant leadership is intention. Faculty can begin modeling servant leadership in simple ways that foster stronger connections with students, healthier learning environments, and personal fulfillment. Below are three realistic strategies faculty can begin using tomorrow:
1. Practice Intentional Listening
Great teachers listen more than they talk, creating space for students to feel seen and heard. In the classroom, this might look like pausing before responding to student comments, asking follow-up questions that show curiosity, or creating reflection activities that allow the quieter voices to contribute. Being fully present communicates respect and care. Students are more likely to engage, ask questions, and trust the instructor when they feel heard. Faculty often gain feedback into student needs, boosting classroom culture and reducing conflict.
2. Respond with Empathy and Flexibility
Rather than assuming conflict or disrespect, servant leaders seek to understand the reasoning behind student behavior. For example, if a student misses a deadline, a professor might ask about circumstances before being close minded. This also could be seen as staying real with your students, making sure they know you make mistakes as well. Implementing this will make students feel respected and supported. Faculty reduce unnecessary conflict and model emotional intelligence, an essential skill for students to learn.
3. Empower Students with Real Responsibilities
Servant leadership isn’t about doing everything for others, it’s about helping others grow. Faculty can give students meaningful tasks like leading part of a class discussion, mentoring peers, or giving feedback about the course. Offering students that autonomy in the course will result in better trust and relationships. Students will build confidence and ownership over their learning.
Servant leadership in higher education is more than a philosophy, it’s a daily practice that transforms both student outcomes and faculty experiences. When educators lead with care, humility, and a commitment to student growth, they foster an environment where students thrive academically, emotionally, and ethically. By integrating servant leadership principles such as intentional listening, empathetic responses, and student empowerment, professors can cultivate vibrant, respectful, and collaborative learning environments. In doing so, they don’t just teach content, they develop whole people.
Carlee Norris was born and raised in Kansas and has always had a deep love for learning. Her appreciation for strong faculty leadership has shaped her perspective on education and student development. While earning her MBA at Kansas State University, Carlee authored an article exploring how students feel most empowered and how servant leadership can be used to effectively guide and support them. She is passionate about creating spaces where students feel encouraged, understood, and equipped to thrive.
Students learn just as much from who we are as educators as they do from what we teach. While content is important, the way faculty members carry themselves, how they communicate, lead, and treat others, can leave an even deeper impact on students’ personal and professional growth. This article explains that educators who use servant leadership principles create trust, empathy, and ethical development in students, ultimately supporting both academic success and long-term character building of students.
Throughout this article, I will explain why servant leadership is especially relevant in higher education today. While using a student-centered philosophy is very beneficial, adopting a servant leadership approach offers an extension of that philosophy. This is not just about teaching content effectively. It is about modeling values like integrity, empathy, and thoughtful decision making in ways students can absorb and carry with them beyond the classroom. In this paper, I will provide research and real-world examples. I will present practical strategies faculty members where they know their students are walking away a better individual, professionally and personally. I will also discuss how faculty members themselves benefit from adopting a servant leadership model, finding stronger connections with students and a deeper sense of purpose in their work.
Modeling Values in the Classroom
One of the clearest ways servant leadership shows up in higher education is through the modeling of values that students can see and experience in everyday interactions. As Rabin and Smith say, “students learn as much from who we are as what we teach” (p. 2, 2013). This speaks to the purpose of servant leadership in higher education. In the context of the classroom, faculty who embody servant leadership not only communicate course content but also demonstrate values such as compassion and care through their actions.
This leadership approach directly supports student-centered teaching by emphasizing the importance of understanding students’ backgrounds, life circumstances, and unique learning needs. In the research article, Rabin and Smith explain that “to care for students, a teacher needs to know her students well enough to understand their unique motivations and needs” (p. 4). This describes a strong part of servant leadership, placing the needs of others before one’s own and creating relationships built on trust and mutual respect.
When higher education faculty take on the role of servant leaders, they transform learning environments. They challenge the authority-driven classroom stereotype and replace it with a relational one, where students are empowered, respected, and mentored not only academically, but as people. These professors serve as living examples of the kind of leaders we hope our students become.
How Faculty Benefit from Servant Leadership
While much attention is given to how servant leadership benefits students, its impact on faculty is equally as important. Faculty are the heart of teaching and service in higher education, and adopting a servant leadership mindset can enhance the purpose they find in their work.
Stronger relationships and classroom dynamics. Faculty who adopts servant leadership approaches often develop more meaningful relationships with students, which fosters better classroom engagement and cooperation. As Rabin and Smith explain, “teachers who practice an ethic of care consider developing relationships to be artfully complex and at the same time critical to a learning environment” (p. 8, 2013). When professors create spaces where trust and respect are mutual, the classroom becomes a place of safety and comfortability, benefiting both teaching and learning.
Personal fulfillment and emotional connection. The emotional toll of teaching is often overlooked, but faculty who embrace servant leadership experience a deeper sense of purpose in their work. Faculty gain more than content delivery; they gain the joy of watching students thrive and knowing their role made a difference.
Increased satisfaction and retention. Research shows that workplace satisfaction among educators increases when they feel seen and supported. Rabin and Smith talked about that a reflection of heart is critical for both effective teaching and faculty well-being (2013). When institutions encourage servant leadership, they cultivate a better faculty morale, higher job satisfaction, and stronger loyalty to the institution.
Practical Ways Faculty Can Begin Tomorrow
The foundation of servant leadership is intention. Faculty can begin modeling servant leadership in simple ways that foster stronger connections with students, healthier learning environments, and personal fulfillment. Below are three realistic strategies faculty can begin using tomorrow:
1. Practice Intentional Listening
Great teachers listen more than they talk, creating space for students to feel seen and heard. In the classroom, this might look like pausing before responding to student comments, asking follow-up questions that show curiosity, or creating reflection activities that allow the quieter voices to contribute. Being fully present communicates respect and care. Students are more likely to engage, ask questions, and trust the instructor when they feel heard. Faculty often gain feedback into student needs, boosting classroom culture and reducing conflict.
2. Respond with Empathy and Flexibility
Rather than assuming conflict or disrespect, servant leaders seek to understand the reasoning behind student behavior. For example, if a student misses a deadline, a professor might ask about circumstances before being close minded. This also could be seen as staying real with your students, making sure they know you make mistakes as well. Implementing this will make students feel respected and supported. Faculty reduce unnecessary conflict and model emotional intelligence, an essential skill for students to learn.
3. Empower Students with Real Responsibilities
Servant leadership isn’t about doing everything for others, it’s about helping others grow. Faculty can give students meaningful tasks like leading part of a class discussion, mentoring peers, or giving feedback about the course. Offering students that autonomy in the course will result in better trust and relationships. Students will build confidence and ownership over their learning.
Servant leadership in higher education is more than a philosophy, it’s a daily practice that transforms both student outcomes and faculty experiences. When educators lead with care, humility, and a commitment to student growth, they foster an environment where students thrive academically, emotionally, and ethically. By integrating servant leadership principles such as intentional listening, empathetic responses, and student empowerment, professors can cultivate vibrant, respectful, and collaborative learning environments. In doing so, they don’t just teach content, they develop whole people.
Carlee Norris was born and raised in Kansas and has always had a deep love for learning. Her appreciation for strong faculty leadership has shaped her perspective on education and student development. While earning her MBA at Kansas State University, Carlee authored an article exploring how students feel most empowered and how servant leadership can be used to effectively guide and support them. She is passionate about creating spaces where students feel encouraged, understood, and equipped to thrive.
A recent Lumina–Gallup poll offers a rare piece of good news: public confidence in higher education has ticked up from a recent low of 36% to 43%. While the rebound is modest, it breaks a years-long narrative of decline, and it’s worth asking: What is driving renewed trust?
Drs. Julie Posselt and Adrianna Kezar Respondents pointed to three factors: quality of education, opportunities for graduates, and innovation. In other words, the public is telling us that when we deliver tangible value—educational excellence, new opportunities, and forward-looking ideas—trust grows.
The teams in our centers work with community colleges, school districts, nonprofits, businesses, government agencies, state higher education systems, and national associations. Though we love theory work as much as the next professors, we know theory’s greatest power is realized when tested and applied in the real world, in partnership with the communities we serve.
Take the USC College Advising Corps. Through partnerships with public high schools across Los Angeles County, we place nearly 40 trained college advisers per year, most of them recent college graduates from across Southern California, into underresourced high schools. The result has been to support 10,000 high school seniors annually, with more than 88,000 first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students helped since the program began more than a decade ago. This is the kind of scale, innovation, and equity-driven practice that the public recognizes and values.
Our work to date and going forward will be defined as much by our approach. We partner with communities, connecting research directly to policy and practice to innovate on the systems that shape student access and success, from high school through graduate education and into the workforce. This work often means capacity building, institutional improvement, and student-centered design—not in theory alone, but in practice, in partnership, and at scale.
Look around and you’ll find many more examples of people and organizations who inspire not just through individual excellence but also by deepening wells of mutual support and mutual investment. There are longstanding national examples such as Campus Compact, which brought together college presidents across the country to sign a declaration and create an organization focused on civic engagement; they have sponsored collaborative responses to crises and offer faculty development. That kind of solidarity is not typical, but to our minds it is increasingly valuable.
Benjamin Franklin warned at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”His words are as relevant to higher education today as it was to the Continental Congress. Our sector’s future depends on resisting the pull toward isolation and polarization, and instead modeling connection, mutual support, and shared purpose.
In a year certain to bring challenges, higher education must lead not from the top of the ivory tower, but from within networks of trust we build with the communities around us—of professionals and publics. For us, merging our centers is just one example of the belief that we are stronger together—intellectually, financially, and in service of the public good. We welcome connecting with you through your stories and examples of the same.
____________
Drs. Julie Posselt and Adrianna Kezar are Co-Directors of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at University of Southern California.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
This year has already brought big challenges to the higher education sector, from major shifts in federal policy to massive cuts in government research funding.
As college leaders gear up for the 2025-26 academic year, they’re staring down even more change ahead.
The U.S. Department of Education is undertaking massive regulatory changes, the Trump administration is ramping up investigations into colleges, and Republican lawmakers are continuing their crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion.
Below, we’re rounding up six trends we’re keeping tabs on.
Trump and Republicans usher in a new era of financial retrenchment
Last year, colleges slashed spending on staff, faculty, programs and more in response to difficult enrollment realities and rising costs. The budget pressures have only intensified for many in the higher education world since President Donald Trump took office in January.
The Trump administration has targeted about $3.3 billion in grant funding for termination at public and private universities nationwide — about $206 per student — according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress.
In addition to contractions in research spending, institutions are juggling myriad changes to federal policy by Trump and congressional Republicans that could have significant effects on institutional budget planning. This includes a more fraught environment for international students, cuts to federal student lending and a higher endowment tax, to name just a few.
The Trump administration’s legal and financial warfare against Harvard University has grabbed an outsized share of headlines, and arguably for good reason. Harvard is the richest and oldest college in the U.S. If the administration succeeds in a multi-agency, omnidirectional attack on the institution, where does that leave the rest of the nation’s colleges?
Facing this question, some institutions have already made deals with the Trump administration as they attempt to maintain their federal funding and stay out of legal battles. Others are reported or confirmed to be in negotiations with the federal government. And many colleges are facing a difficult balancing act between mission and compliance.
In its attacks on colleges, the Trump administration has introduced novel and aggressive readings of civil rights laws and U.S. Supreme Court cases, as well as threatened vast sums of funding for colleges it considers out of compliance with federal statute.
For instance, the Education Department deemed the University of Pennsylvania in violation of civil rights law for prior policies allowing transgender women to play on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. Penn became one of the first colleges to strike a deal with the administration rather than risk the sort of multi-agency attack — complete with prolonged litigation — being deployed against Harvard.
Meanwhile, federal agencies suspended nearly $600 million in funding from the University of California, Los Angeles over allegations that it violated civil rights law because it didn’t do enough to respond to a pro-Palestinian protest encampment on its campus in spring 2024. Police cleared the encampment at the university’s request after less than a week.
Among other legal risks under Trump, policies meant to support transgender students or diversity programs can now potentially prompt prosecution of a college under the False Claims Act, a federal law dealing with fraud in government contracting. That’s according to a May message from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche introducing the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative that specifically listed colleges as potential False Claims Act targets.
New regulations coming down the pike
The Education Department has its work cut out for it over the next year. That’s because the agency must craft regulations to carry out the higher education-related provisions of the sweeping domestic policy bill passed by Republican lawmakers this summer.
They include phasing out Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate and professional students to borrow up to the cost of their college attendance. The legislation also caps lifetime borrowing limits at $100,000 for most graduate students and $200,000 for those pursuing professional degrees, and it will consolidate a handful of repayment plans into just two options. And it opens up Pell Grants to programs as short as eight weeks.
Colleges will also face new regulations.
Under the legislation, their programs will lose federal student loan eligibility if they can’t prove their students get an earnings boost. For undergraduate programs, that means showing that at least half their graduates earn more than workers with only a high school diploma in their state.
The Education Department is devising the new regulations through a process called negotiated rulemaking. Under this process, the agency convenes representatives who will be impacted by the regulations — such as colleges, student loan borrowers and state officials — to hash out policy details.
If they agree on language, the Education Department is largely bound to adopt their rules as written for its regulatory proposal. If they don’t, however, the agency is free to come up with its own regulations.
The Education Department kicked off the process earlier this month and will hold meetings with negotiated rulemaking committees through January.
A shifting landscape for federal research funding
Legal battles over threatened federal research funding are likely to heat up in the months ahead.
Under the Trump administration, at least four major federal agencies have announced plans to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs — which support expenses like laboratory and facilities maintenance — at 15% for colleges. Many major research universities have negotiated rates hovering around 50% to 60%, meaning these policies threaten vast sums of their federal research funding.
So far, courts have blocked or paused each of the caps. The Trump administration has appealed three of the rulings, and one case is still playing out in federal district court.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently dealt a major blow to research universities by pausing a lower court order that would have restored $783 million in cut funding from the National Institutes of Health under the agency’s anti-DEI policy. While the high court preserved the ruling against the anti-DEI directives, it said the plaintiffs would have to pursue their claims to restore the cut grant funding in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which hears monetary claims against the federal government.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who has led a coalition of states suing over the NIH cuts, indicated in a statement that the fight was not over.
“Even if accountability is delayed, we won’t stop fighting to protect this funding, our residents, and our rule of law,” Campbell said.
The battle over in-state tuition for undocumented students
At least 25 states and Washington, D.C., started the year with policies allowing eligible undocumented students to pay in-state rates at some or all of their public colleges. But since Trump began his second term, Republicans and his administration have prioritized reducing undocumented students’ access to higher education.
Florida first spurred the shift during a January special legislative session, repealing a law that made certain undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition rates at its public colleges.
Then, following an executive order from Trump, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas in June over its decades-old law — the first of its kind in the country — making undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition if they meet certain residency criteria and other requirements.
Despite the attack on the state statute, officials within Texas’ attorney general’s office quickly sided with the DOJ and filed a joint motion with the Trump administration to end the policy. A federal judge overseeing the case struck down the law only hours after the DOJ first filed its lawsuit.
Texas’ cooperation gave the Trump administration an early win and an example to cite as precedent as it moved on to target less amenable states.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has since filed lawsuits in rapid succession against Minnesota, Oklahoma and Kentucky over their in-state tuition policies for undocumented students. Like Texas, Oklahoma leaders partnered with the DOJ and filed a joint motion to end its policy. The request has not yet been approved by a federal judge.
Bondi argued in multiple, nearly identical statements that in-state tuition rates for undocumented students illegally provide benefits not offered to all U.S. citizens. One higher education attorney has argued that the Texas policy has the same requirements for participation for U.S. citizens and undocumented residents.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and other groups have sought to intervene in the state’s case and asked a federal court to set aside the order declaring Texas’ in-state tuition policy unconstitutional. The same federal judge that struck down the law ruled against them earlier this month, though the groups have already appealed.
Enforcement of new DEI restrictions
For years, conservatives have led coordinated efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education. The campaign only grew following Trump’s return to office and his administration’s push to crack down on diversity initiatives.
To comply with new federal directives and state laws, colleges have sprinted to cut programs, cancel events, restructure student services and reassign or lay off DEI-focused employees. In Ohio and Kentucky — two of the most recent states to enact DEI bans at public colleges — some higher education leaders read the writing on the wall and began cutting DEI work prior to the new laws’ passage.
Colleges are now being increasingly singled out for alleged violations of DEI bans. One method is through secretly recorded and heavily edited videos of employees. The videos, shared online and via conservative media outlets, appear to depict college officials talking about how to avoid DEI restrictions.
The dean of students at the University of North Carolina Asheville is “no longer employed” there after one such recording went viral, according to a university official. And in the same state, Western Carolina University announced it would close its Office of Intercultural Affairs, following a widely-shared video of a former employee who suggested DEI work be embedded across campus.
Two of Iowa’s three public universities — the University of Iowa and Iowa State University — are under state scrutiny after similar videos surfaced of their staff. The state attorney general is investigating the incidents at the University of Iowa at the behest of Iowa’s governor.
Two University of Iowa employees have been put on leave, with the Republican chair of the Legislature’s House higher education committee calling for them to be fired. Iowa State University told local media outlets that a video showing one of its administrators discussing DEI work appeared to be filmed a year prior to its release and featured a former employee who had not worked there since 2024.
GOP lawmakers from conservative-led states have also been calling on the Trump administration to investigate colleges over their DEI efforts.
In Texas, a Republican state representative requested the Trump administration to investigate Texas A&M University over allegations the institution “engaged in DEI courses and discriminatory ‘targeted recruiting’ practices.”
Two states over, a congressional representative from Tennessee similarly called for a federal investigation into Belmont University, alleging the private Christian college’s restructuring of its DEI office was “an intentional effort to deceive federal authorities and continue promoting discriminatory programming under a new name.”
Some colleges — particularly public ones in conservative states — are cracking down on behavior that could draw lawmaker attention.
Tarrant County College, in Texas, fired two administrators over the inclusion of DEI content in a mandatory training video, according to The Collegian, the institution’s student newspaper.
The community college also disciplined two employees over DEI-related offensives — one for conducting a workshop on “Microaggressions & Mental Health” and the other for gifting women co-workers a bouquet of flowers with a “Happy International Women’s Day” card.
