I’ll be taking a few weeks off to edit/format my website, work on projects with a deadline, prioritize life, and wish my two adult military children could come home to visit. I may drop in on you-all as you enjoy holidays, but mostly I’ll be regenerating.
I wish you a wonderful season, safe and filled with family.
Here’s the sign-up link if the image above doesn’t work:
https://forms.aweber.com/form/07/1910174607.htm
“The content presented in this blog are the result of creative imagination and not intended for use, reproduction, or incorporation into any artificial intelligence training or machine learning systems without prior written consent from the author.”
Jacqui Murray has been teaching K-18 technology for 30 years. She is the editor/author of over a hundred tech ed resources including a K-12 technology curriculum, K-8 keyboard curriculum, K-8 Digital Citizenship curriculum. She is an adjunct professor in tech ed, Master Teacher, freelance journalist on tech ed topics, and author of the tech thrillers, To Hunt a Sub and Twenty-four Days. You can find her resources at Structured Learning.
We’re approaching the end of a year that was at various times frightening, difficult and downright ridiculous. We hope that, despite the struggles higher education faced this year, you can still find something to be thankful for this holiday season, whether it’s generous donors making big differences for small campuses, colleges striving to improve cost transparency, or institutions supporting their communities through tough times.
If not, maybe you can take some inspiration from the videos below.
Here are Inside Higher Ed’s favorite holiday greetings, from the wacky to the artsy to the classy, showcasing the talents and holiday spirit of students, staff and faculty across the country.
This slapstick sketch depicts Quinnipiac’s mascot, Boomer the Bobcat, messily preparing to welcome community members to his abode for Christmas dinner. Despite mishaps like spilling a bowl of assorted vegetables all over the floor and whisking what looks like mashed potatoes so feverishly they go flying, Boomer ends up putting out a beautiful spread—roast turkey, green beans, deviled eggs and more—for his delighted guests.
The ULM Chamber Singers bring us a stirring adaptation of the 12 Days of Christmas entitled, no surprise, the 12 Days of Finals. Among the listed gifts is “ten paddlers paddling,” referring to the campus’s unique access to Bayou DeSiard, where students can borrow a kayak for free and paddle around to their heart’s delight.
Salt Lake Community College brings us another musical video, this time in the form of a tribute to Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. President Greg Peterson takes on the titular role, singing: “We’ve made the most of this beautiful year, full of big hopes and holiday cheer. It’s education for you—it’s SLCC.edu. Will you join us next year?” Fuzzy video filters take the viewer back to old-school PBS, making the homage all the more nostalgic.
This video highlights an annual tradition in an animation business development course at UT Dallas. The students are asked to design a holiday card and their peers then vote on the 10 best cards in the class. The winners’ cards are then printed and sold to fundraise for the school’s Student Emergency Fund. “I’m glad that our class is helping people have the reassurance that they need that they’re safe on campus and that somebody’s looking out for them if something does happen,” one of this year’s participants said.
College holiday greetings love to get a little bit meta. In this greeting, Gonzaga president Katia Passerini realizes she has forgotten to write a poem for this year’s holiday video. Luckily, student Alexis Sandoval just so happens to have a Christmas poem prepared, saving the day. Different members from the campus community, from a security leader to the university chaplain, recite the poem, bidding viewers to “rejoice in faith, carry peace and love into a happy New Year.”
In this feel-good sketch, President Pamela Haney tries to bake a sweet treat for the college’s leadership team, but is missing a few key ingredients, including kindness and dedication. Luckily, teams from across the campus come to the rescue, bringing Haney everything she needs to finish making the cake. As one administrator says, “it’s amazing what we can do when we all work together.”
This year, the women’s liberal arts college celebrated 150 years since it welcomed its first class in 1875. As part of that celebration, the holiday video this year compiled archival footage and images submitted by alumni of winters on campus over the past century-and-a-half. The video, which features students sledding, ice skating, skiing and playing in the snow, is set over a song composed for the Class of 1948’s junior class show, which bemoans leaving Wellesley’s campus behind.
“My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music is everyone’s favorite non-Christmas Christmas song. Why has it entered the holiday songs zeitgeist? Who can say for sure, but I think we’re all glad it has. This particular rendition by CCP students and faculty sets the classic tune against a hip-hop beat and features a sick guitar solo.
Uh-oh—President Peter Mohler is supposed to be helping write Christmas cards, but he’s nowhere to be found! This cheeky sketch shows that he’s shirking his responsibilities to do much cooler and more fun things, like play video games with students or shoot hoops with Big Al, the institution’s elephant mascot. Luckily, when his colleagues finally find him, he’s already finished the holiday cards. Crisis averted!
“What’s one Tulane memory you hope never melts away?” this video asks a gaggle of sweater-clad Tulane students. More than one note a once-in-a-lifetime Gulf Coast blizzard that shocked and delighted Tulane students this past January, with one saying it was “like a dream.” Others mention friends, sports championships and exploring the city of New Orleans.
Last year, the Satanic Temple of New Hampshire put up a Baphomet statue (a part-human, part-goat satanic deity) in front of the State House in Concord. People vandalized it and knocked off its head. Concord vowed to review its policies after its mayor described the statue as “deliberately provocative and disturbing.” That raised major constitutional concerns.
FIRE wrote to Concord, arguing that the government could not discriminate against disfavored displays. In a victory for free speech, Concord kept the statue and arrested the perpetrators. This year, despite questions from public officials, Baphomet is back up in front of the State House.
New Hampshire’s backing of the Satanic Temple’s right to display its religious symbol illustrates a core First Amendment principle: When the government invites private holiday displays, the First Amendment bars viewpoint discrimination.
When the government — such as a town council or a public school — puts up holiday displays, it’s subject to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. When the government opens up a public place to private groups or individuals to display their own religious symbols, it is subject to the Free Speech Clause.
If the government allows private groups or individuals to display their own symbols, the question is then one of forum. Public forum doctrine is a First Amendment framework that determines the level of constitutional protection afforded to speech on government property. Some forum types allow for more restrictions, but viewpoint discrimination is always constitutionally forbidden.
The Supreme Court identifies three types of public forums: traditional, limited, and designated. Traditional public forums are those historically used for public assembly, such as streets and parks, where regulatory ability is most limited. In these spaces, restrictions based on the content (not just viewpoint) of speech are almost always unconstitutional.
Designated public forums arise when the government intentionally opens public properties for expression. Once the government opens up a designated public forum, the same rules that apply to traditional public forums apply as long as the government keeps the forum open.
Finally, limited public forums are places the government opens for expression by limited groups or specific topics. The government can be slightly more restrictive here, with the ability to impose restrictions that are viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum. For example, a city council might establish a public comment period at its meetings but require that comments be related to city business.
Courts have reached different conclusions on whether government properties (other than parks, sidewalks, or other traditional forums) opened up for holiday displays constitute limited or designated public forums depending on the circumstances. Regardless, even when the government can set subject matter limits, it can’t discriminate by viewpoint within those categories. The Supreme Court has long barred censorship merely “because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association (1983).
Last year in Gallatin, Tennessee, a library allowed 20 different organizations to decorate Christmas trees to display on its premises. The mayor directed the library to remove one of the trees with a gay pride message, citing a policy against “political” decorations. That type of policy is constitutionally suspect in a limited public forum like the library tree exhibition and the tree should not have been removed.
Just as constitutionally suspect are government attempts to limit religious displays in public forums for fear of endorsing religion. In Shurtleff v. Boston (2022), Boston allowed different groups to fly flags of their choice over Boston’s city hall. Some included foreign countries’ flags or the pride flag. When the city denied a request to fly a “Christian flag,” the Supreme Court treated that as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Put simply, religion is a viewpoint too. Boston could not approve a pride flag and deny a Christian one.
Less than a month after FIRE filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Germantown, Tennessee, the city has dismissed charges against a resident for keeping skeletons in her yard after Halloween.
Attempts to classify certain messages as offensive, disturbing, or otherwise not in the holiday spirit count as viewpoint discrimination. In other words, under the First Amendment, if the government allows people to publicly celebrate Christmas, it cannot dictate how they do so just because officials dislike a particular perspective.
That begs the question: what can the government do once it opens up a forum for holiday displays?
The government can usually impose what are known as “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech in public forums. In the holiday display context, this could mean limiting the size, height, and distance between displays — all without regard to the display’s content. In other words, cities can reasonably regulate logistics as long as they don’t police viewpoints.
Some rules masquerade as viewpoint neutral time, place, and manner restrictions, but are actually viewpoint discriminatory. Look no further than the New Hampshire Baphomet statue, where the mayor argued that the display was too provocative. On the surface, it might seem that the mayor advocated for a neutral “provocation” principle where any display that causes a reaction could be taken down. But that’s not a neutral principle at all — it means enabling a heckler’s veto over unpopular speech. Restricting speech because members of the public, rather than government officials, dislike its viewpoint is still viewpoint discrimination.
Perhaps the most common problem with holiday display policies are rules that feign neutrality by requiring “good taste” or “respect.” But what’s respectful to one religious group might be offensive to another. These rules invite subjective message policing by the government, which does not and should not have a dog in the fight when it comes to the tone of expression.
In the end, the government can choose whether to open up non-traditional public forums for public holiday displays or not. If it doesn’t, there is no free-floating constitutional right to put up a Satanic display or a Christmas tree as one pleases. For example, the government has not opened up court rooms for holiday displays, so one could not just walk up to the bench and place a giant menorah on it. But when the government solicits holiday decorations, it can’t discriminate between a menorah, a Christmas tree, or even a Satanic statue.
In Eduwonk today, new WonkyFolk, some VA news, 2025 holiday books. This is probably the last post of the year. There was some noise about a possible big announcement from the administration before Christmas but sounds less likely. So thank you for reading, see you in early January.
Jed and I did a holiday–themed WonkyFolk, but he’s a grinch. Seriously. He showed up with an Elf on the Shelf. We covered a lot of ground, 2025 reactions, tech and cell phones, Rod Paige, and why education conversations are so stunted.
You can listen or read here, and see the notes, or wherever you get podcasts.
Or watch here:
New Dominion?
On Tuesday Virginia’s non-partisan legislative analysis body, JLARC, released its look at the new school accountability system. Important to policymaking in VA. Not going to belabor that here, it’s the holidays. But, some quick reax here and here.
Holiday books.
Which brings us to….it’s that time of year again. Here are some books I read in 2024 that stuck with me — useful, provocative, or just enjoyable. No themes except worth your time and good for a gift. Not too late to shop for Christmas. Past years here for more ideas.
First, on education:
The Future of Tutoring — Liz Cohen
Cohen takes what was, at least until Trump stormed back on the scene and AI exploded, the biggest intervention/fad/issue in education and actually explains what works, what doesn’t, and why. If you want to cut through the hype, the vendor fog, and evolving definitions of what “high-dosage” means, then this book is the best tutor around. Sorry. Liz is a policy person, but the book feels like a school book.
No Adult Left Behind — Vlad Kogan
Kogan is one of the sharpest analysts of how schools really operate in terms of education politics (spoiler, adult interests often trump what might help kids as you might have inferred from the title). He’s an academic but he writes in English. And with a clarity you don’t often see in the space. Probably the most straight ahead book on education politics since Joe Williams. (Deep cut). Kogan breaks down the incentives that shape school governance, politics, and decision-making.
Leveled Reading, Leveled Lives — Timothy Shanahan
Reading is power. There is a reason that throughout history when someone wanted to control others they went after literacy. Down the street from where I live is the grave of a guy who was hunted by Confederates for years, and ultimately murdered, for teaching Black Americans to read up to and during the Civil War. It’s a sober reminder of why this matters. But as is our way in this sector, we’ve created Republican and Democratic ways to teach reading. We’ve ignored decades of research. We even argue sometimes about how important it is. As a result, we’ve sentenced millions of Americans to diminished lives. The Science of Reading is the latest, encouraging, effort to get that right. Shanahan lays out why the complaints about reading, and what kids are reading in schools are not a side show but must be a central education issue.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.
More general books:
Did you like Pappyland? This is not Pappyland. It’s a deep dive on the murder of Emmett Till from the same writer. The Barn includes a lot of new information and specifics that even if you’re familiar with this atrocity beyond the broad contours will probably be new to you. We wasted a lot of time and energy on flaky DEI books over the past decade, read a book like this instead.
John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs — Ian Leslie
My wife and I decided to see Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney in the same calendar year this year. We succeeded. I’m not an obsessive Beatles fan, but their genius and influence is undeniable. Leslie looks at Lennon and McCartney not as icons but as human beings in relationship with each other. It’s hard to think of a new angle on the Beatles, but he finds one: The songs they wrote to each other, that’s the conversation. So read this one for two reasons. First, it’s lovely. You might even find the room getting dusty at points. Second, anyone who has worked in close professional partnerships will learn from and reflect on the tale. A bonus? You learn the intimate history of some of the greatest songs in the songbook.
I think two of the best books on 80s youth culture were Cameron Crowe’s Fast Times and Patricia Hersch’s A Tribe Apart. Here, Crowe tells his life story. Is this an unsparing take on things. Of course not, that was never Crowe’s thing. He partied with the bands. He wasn’t merciless. But it’s brain candy, a fun-well written read, with great stories, and some insights. This is for the music or movie lover in your life.
American Vikings — Martyn Whitlock
OK, for a guy who says I’m not a Viking guy I do recommend Viking books from time to time. A few years ago it was the fantastic The Long Ships. And I will say that seeing actual Viking ruins in Iceland fascinated me. This year for the beach I read American Vikings, a look at the evidence of Viking exploration in North America and how they show up today. The history of Vikings in North America turns out to be more interesting — and more contested and more present — than you might think on first glance.
Why Nothing Works — Marc Dunkelman
The past few weeks have seen an upsurge in Dunkelman discourse. It’s an important book and argument. I suggested this book along with two others earlier this year as valuable markers of where we are and how we got here. Whether you agree in whole, part, or not at all, this is an important book and contribution to the discourse about how we go forward.
That Book Is Dangerous — Adam Szetela
Book banning is one of those issues that most people aren’t really against. They’re against banning of stuff they like, less concerned with stuff they don’t. Today’s conservatives are for free speech except around issues of race, gender, and so forth. Today’s left is against book banning and censorship except around some issues of gender, race, and so forth. Because it’s about power not first principles. Szetela looks at this in the context of publishing. It’s an echo of Diane Ravitch’s 2003 Language Police.
Helen Lewis is a fantastic writer on almost any topic. Here she looks at “genius” through a historical ens (you get a Beatles cameo here, too). What really makes what we think of as genius possible? And why can’t we accept what Lewis calls its, “random, unpredictable nature?”
I Wish Someone Had Told Me… — Dana Perino.
I’m not a huge fan of self-help books, though I did recommend Mark Manson’s Subtle Art a few years ago. This one, though, might be good for a young person in your life. It’s pretty straightforward, you could read it on an airplane. It’s a lot of people’s take on how to be successful in work and life around some key issues as well as her experience. Given the randomness of social capital it’s not a bad primer for young people moving into professional life.
The 5 Types of Wealth — Sahil Bloom
OK, maybe I do read more self-help books than I think? This book isn’t about how money won’t make you happy – it’s about how it’s not the only thing that will and it’s not enough. Another quick read, and another good one for young people.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.
GERMANTOWN, Tenn., April 29, 2025 — After a federal lawsuit, the town of Germantown, Tennessee, has sent to the graveyard an ordinance that was used to fine a resident for using giant skeletons in a Christmas lawn display.
Alexis Luttrell received a citation and court summons from the Memphis suburb in January for keeping up decorative skeletons after Halloween and repurposing them for Election Day and Christmas. In February, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the citation thrown out and Germantown’s unconstitutional holiday ordinance overturned on First Amendment grounds. FIRE also committed to defending Alexis against the charges in municipal court.
Germantown voluntarily dismissed the municipal charges against Alexis a month later, but FIRE’s federal lawsuit against the ordinance remained pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. But last night, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted to repeal the ordinance entirely, and Germantown agreed to a $24,999 settlement in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit.
“Not only am I no longer at risk of being fined for my skeletons, the unconstitutional ordinance is now dead and buried,” Alexis said. “Today is a victory for anyone who has ever been censored by a government official and chose to fight back.”
The ghastly affair began in October 2024, when Alexis purchased a large decorative skeleton and skeleton dog for Halloween. She later kept the skeletons up and dressed them with Election Day signs in November and then Santa-themed attire in December.
COURTESY PHOTOS OF ALEXIS AND HER SKELETON DISPLAYS
Perplexingly, this was illegal under Germantown Ordinance 11-33, which required that holiday decorations “shall be removed within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 30 days.” In Germantown officials’ view, Alexis’s skeletons weren’t “really” Christmas decorations, but an unsanctioned Halloween display. In December, the town sent Alexis a warning that she violated the ordinance, and followed up with a citation and summons when the skeletons were still up in January.
Germantown’s ordinance wasn’t just an exercise in misguided micromanagement, it violated the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, Americans are free to put up holiday decorations on their property whenever they like, not just in a government-approved period of time. And by demanding the Santa-themed skeletons come down — even if one has a dark sense of humor, or happens to like Tim Burton movies — the city engaged in viewpoint discrimination about what constitutes an “acceptable” Christmas display.
“Germantown’s leaders deserve a lot of credit for quickly repealing its holiday ordinance after FIRE’s lawsuit,” FIRE Attorney Colin McDonell said. “Instead of digging in and wasting time and taxpayer dollars defending an unconstitutional ordinance, they boned up on the First Amendment and did the right thing.”
Alexis’ skeletons have remained in her yard and she’s continued to dress them up with different outfits and decorations for new holidays. Since February, they’ve been dressed in Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day, and Easter garb, and Pride Month and Juneteenth are coming up soon.
“Alexis and all the residents of Germantown can now celebrate the holidays of their choice on their own property without worrying their creativity will get them fined,” said McDonell. “And that’s how it should be in a free country.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
In sociology, the term ‘male flight’ refers to men abandoning fields, activities, or professions when they are perceived as becoming too ‘feminine’ or associated with women. Lisa Wade argues that this is ‘bad long-term strategy for maintaining dominance.’ Education, especially in recent years, has become a battleground for cultural and political struggles, particularly in the wake of growing far-right influence in both Europe and the United States. But is the shift away from higher education by young men simply a cultural power struggle, or are we failing to meet their needs and expectations?
Men are increasingly opting out of higher education. The widening gender gap in college enrolment reveals a troubling trend: higher education is now facing what can be described as male flight. In the United States, this gap has expanded dramatically. In 1979, only 200,000 more women attended college than men; by 2021, that number had surged to 3.1 million more women than men. While the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted enrollment figures in 2021, this shift underscores a broader trend in gender and education that warrants serious consideration.
A similar pattern is unfolding in the UK. In 2020/21, there were 2.75 million students enrolled in higher education, with women making up 57% of the student body. The undergraduate sector exhibits the largest gender gap. This growth, however, raises critical questions about the future of male participation in higher education.
The trend of male flight from higher education is unlikely to reverse without targeted intervention. A study by King’s College London highlights that young men today are particularly concerned about the challenges they face in society. Unlike their older counterparts, younger men and women hold vastly different views on education, social issues, and political ideologies. According to a survey of over 3,500 young people aged 16+, young men tend to be less supportive of gender equality initiatives and are increasingly aligning with right-wing political views. Within this context, right-wing political groups, such as Reform UK, advocate for a ‘no-nonsense’ approach to education, emphasizing a patriotic curriculum that they argue better addresses concerns about social equality. Their proposals often reflect a growing sentiment among some groups, particularly white men, who feel that their experiences and challenges do not align with current gender equality initiatives.
While the political rhetoric surrounding this issue is highly charged, it demands serious attention. The key question now is: How can we rebuild young men’s confidence in higher education? This is particularly pressing when considering young men from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds. Research shows that white working-class men are disproportionately likely to cite the high cost of higher education as a barrier to entry.
Fees and student loans are the biggest concern of young people as they look ahead onto the HE landscape, with over 25% of young Britons thinking that university is not worth it. Alongside this sector-wide issue, young men are retreating from HE in much higher numbers than any of their female or BAME counterparts. This is something that should not be ignored if we want truly inclusive HE.
Many of these issues must be addressed by universities themselves. Male students often feel that higher education fails to cater to their unique needs. Young men are less likely to engage in extracurricular activities – such as sports or student unions – that are integral to the student experience. Neil Raven’s contribution to this blog last year highlights young men feeling unsupported and disengaged, and as with everything in this sector, the solution to this question is not straightforward. To truly address the challenges young men face in education, universities must acknowledge that their needs and experiences are distinct and deserve to be supported in meaningful and effective ways.
When we talk about the financial red flags facing disadvantaged young white men, we’re really addressing the prospect of being burdened with debt—especially when they are just one choice away from avoiding it altogether. Adopting Tim Leunig’s recommendation to shorten the student loan repayment term from 40 years to 20 would give students greater confidence that they can achieve financial freedom by mid-life.
Furthermore, research conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) found that only 1 in 5 students would not be financially better off by going to university. This is reason enough to incentivise young white men back into the warm embrace of higher education.
A shorter repayment term would not only alleviate long-term financial anxiety but also encourage people from all backgrounds to pursue higher education without the fear of being shackled by debt for life. The Higher Education Policy Institute’s own research, despite indicating young women being more debt-averse than men (even with men paying more of the debt due to higher salaries in the longer term), shows that most of our young people are opposed to the Labour government’s tuition fee increase. A shorter repayment term will perhaps not only restore the confidence of our young women – who are already sceptical of the lower salaries they will receive throughout their careers – but reassure all of our young people that student loans are not a lifelong burden, and that we have a system that rewards ambition rather than punishing those who take the leap.
Moreover, this shift could help restore confidence in the value of a degree, particularly for those who currently see university as a risky financial gamble rather than a stepping stone to social mobility. This is, as Mr Raven identifies, especially important as men doubt and call into question graduate outcomes in the long term.
HEPI’s research also indicates that a tuition fee hike is made more palatable if accompanied by an increase in maintenance support. In a piece I wrote for the Sixteenth Council, I referred to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’s proposals regarding maintenance support. One of these was restoring the generosity of maintenance support to 2020 levels, which represents a 16% increase for the 23/24 intake. Yes, this means issuing £1.5bn in maintenance loans, but repayment levels would mean that the cost to the government and the taxpayer would fall to £0.4bn.
Therefore, making HE more attractive for young people – especially those white, working-class young men who are lacking that engagement with education – involves reducing the repayment term for tuition fees down to 20 years and restoring maintenance support to pre-COVID levels. Ultimately, this would, as HEPI’s research indicates, make the recent tuition fee rise more palatable and, in turn, set young minds at ease.
Another way of addressing these practical problems is spearheading a secondary school library-building scheme. The National Literacy Trust identified a strong link between school library use and reading attainment, which is especially important as low reading abilities help to ‘entrench’ education inequality in the UK. The provision and accessibility of school libraries from a young age can help boost attainment in early years and beyond, setting young men on a course that permits more positive thinking about further and then higher education.
The National Literacy Trust’s report also notes that library users receiving free school meals showed higher reading enjoyment and increased reading and writing for pleasure. They tended to read and write a greater variety of material relative to non-library users. In 2021, the Commons Education Committee found that white working class students were ‘by far the largest group of disadvantaged pupils’ with just under a million eligible for free school meals in 2020. Accessible libraries and reading spaces may be the next big step we can take to help disadvantaged pupils. The National Literacy Trust’s report reveals that white working-class boys receiving free school meals are particularly poised to benefit from a campaign of boosting libraries and reading spaces in educational settings, which may help improve their engagement with education as a whole.
A few months ago, I attended the Publishers’ Association’s parliamentary drop-in event, where I learnt a lot about the importance of the relationship between school libraries, reading attainment, and the publishing industry as a whole. I enjoyed reading in my primary school’s small library space, and throughout my time at secondary school, I made use of both the school’s reading spaces and our local community library. Unfortunately, I must recognise that this was an enormous privilege for a white working-class student when it should just be a permanent feature of our outstanding education system.
This is extremely relevant now as I look out on the educational landscape. Young men are falling behind women in education, a significant issue which goes way back to before primary school. According to the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), ‘From the day they start primary school, to the day they leave higher education, the progress of boys lags behind girls’.
Ultimately, the success of higher education in the 21st century will depend on how effectively universities can adapt to the evolving needs of all students. In the case of young men, this means recognizing their unique challenges and addressing them with targeted, thoughtful solutions. Only by doing so can we create a higher education system that truly serves everyone, regardless of gender.
As Mr Raven notes in his blog contribution, it is certainly ‘our problem, not theirs’.
In early March 2025, the Trump administration sent letters to 60 US universities warning them that they faced ‘potential enforcement actions’ for what it described as ‘failure to protect Jewish students on campus’ during the widespread pro-Palestinian protests on campuses during the last year. This Government direction not only permitted terms to be set on which continuing funding was to be conditional for a specific higher education provider, but also allowed those terms to encroach on the academic freedom of an institution to choose what to teach and how. This ‘Project 2025’ also allowed the President to require a significant proportion of funding to go to the provision of ‘business’ courses.
There were wider consequences of these Government directions. The resulting limitation of funding for research quickly prompted hints of restricted publication of results and encouraged US academics to seek employment in Canada, the UK and Europe.
Though it was joined in its active resistance by Yale and Princeton, Harvard became a test case. It objected to the Government demand that it immediately agree:
to implement the Trump administration’s demands to overhaul the University’s governance and leadership, academic programs, admissions system, hiring process, and discipline system—with the promise of more demands to come
and thus ‘overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the University to punishing disfavored speech’. [1] The US Education Department speedily responded, announcing on 14 April that it was freezing about $2.3bn of Harvard’s funding. On 15 April, Trump threatened to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status,
US universities are divided into the ‘private’ and ‘public’ on the basis of their funding and therefore differ in the extent to which they are at risk of loss of funding in attacks on their academic freedom. The ‘private’ Ivy League universities enjoy substantial endowments, making them less dependent on their supplementary Government funding than their ‘public’ counterparts.
The Office for Students funds and regulates higher education in England. MEDR, the Welsh Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, funds and regulates higher education in Wales, taking these responsibilities over from the former Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The counterpart body for Scotland is the Scottish Funding Council. This depends on the Scottish Government for the funding it disburses to providers.
English higher education providers enjoy an institutional autonomy, strengthened by the fact that Government funding for English higher education was greatly reduced with the progressive ending of a ‘block grant’ under the Higher Education Act of 2004 and the raising of tuition fees in 2012. That was replaced by much higher student tuition fees under the Higher Education and Research Act of 2017.
Under the same legislation the autonomy of higher education providers in England is protected, with express reference to their right to design their own courses, choose their students and appoint their academic staff. This extends to higher education at tertiary education levels 4 and 5 as well as to ‘degree-level’ 6 and postgraduate degrees at levels 7 and 8.
This legislative permission does not allow a free-for-all. ‘University’ is a ‘sensitive term’ in English law, as are ‘higher’ and ‘accreditation’ when used of education. New providers may grant their own degrees and call themselves ‘universities’ only if they have powers to do so. In the case of new providers that requires Registration by the Office for Students (OfS). The OfS is subject only to ‘guidance on strategic priorities from the Department for Education’, though its activity is open to expressions of Parliamentary concern. For example, on 2 April 2025, the House of Commons debated ‘the impact of university finances on jobs in higher education’. It was suggested that ‘the funding model, which depends on international students paying higher fees, has harmed universities since Brexit’, but it was recognised that only public funding and such broad policy preferences lay with the Government.
The accreditation of qualifications in the UK is the responsibility of a number of agencies, some of which are professional and some are public bodies. In the USA ‘relying on private, independent accrediting agencies has been the most important tool for preventing the centralized political control of higher education in the United States’. The authority of the Trump directive over these seemed clear at first.
What protects the institutional autonomy of US Universities? The nearest US counterpart to the Office for Students is the Higher Learning Commission, an independent agency founded in 1895. It accredits institutions granting degrees. The University of Michigan, for example seeks renewal of its accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission every ten years. Its ‘evaluations’ are conducted by reviewers from other institutions not the HLC itself.
The award of ‘University title’ and degree-awarding powers is not restricted in the US as it is in England. For example they may derive from a Charter establishing the institution. Its own Charter granted the Trustees of Columbia University degree-awarding powers and powers to create such:
ordinances and by-laws which to them shall seem expedient for carrying into effect the designs of their institution; Provided always, That such ordinances or by-laws shall not make the religious tenets of any person a condition of admission to any privilege or office in the said college, nor be inconsistent with the constitution and laws of this state, nor with the constitution and laws of the United States.
The privately funded Ivy League Universities were set up with a degree of constitutional independence. Each had a State-based beginning. Harvard was established as a College by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 with funding of £400. Its stated purpose was to ensure that the Puritans should be provided with educated ministers, by advancing ‘learning’ to meet the needs of ‘posterity’ and to avoid leaving churches with ‘an illiterate ministry’. Princeton, founded in 1746 by the Presbyterian Synod as the College of New Jersey, had its name changed to Princeton University in 1896. Its present charter dates from 1748. It too has Trustees. In an age when it could be expected that those arriving from England would be practising members of the Church of England, it was insistent about religious freedom:
Petitioners have also expressed their earnest Desire that those of every Religious Denomination may have free and Equal Liberty and Advantage in the Said College any different Sentiments in Religion notwithstanding.
Columbia, too, began as a College. It was granted a Royal Charter in 1754, making its governors a ‘body corporate’. In 1912, the corporate name was changed to ‘Columbia University’. A series of amendments followed, with an Act of the people of the State of New York in 1810 clarifying the position. Its Trustees were to form ‘a body politic and corporate’ ‘in the City of New York’, with ‘continual succession for ever’ and a common seal. The powers of its Trustees as governors were set out in detail, separating them decisively from the ‘professors’ and ‘tutors ‘. The Trustees were to:
have full power and authority to direct and prescribe the course of study, and the discipline to be observed in the said college, and also to select by ballot or otherwise, a president of the said college, who shall hold his office during good behavior,
but no ‘professor, tutor, or other assistant officer’ was to be a Trustee. There was to be an executive body, consisting of eleven of the Trustees, constituting ‘a quorum for the despatch of all [routine] business’.
Its Statutes include a ‘Code of Academic Freedom and Tenure’:
Academic freedom implies that all officers of instruction are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects; that they are entitled to freedom in research and in the publication of its results; and that they may not be penalized by the University for expressions of opinion or associations in their private or civic capacity; but they should bear in mind the special obligations arising from their position in the academic community.
In March 2025, seeking to force the University of Columbia to comply with his instructions, the President of the USA withdrew $400m of federal funding. Nine specific ’reforms’ had been called for in this case, including a change of Departmental Head and modifications to its provision of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies. A Senior Vice-Provost was to review the educational programmes.
The University published a statement of its own view that certain ‘protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are generally not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct’ because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities’. Yet Columbia acceded to the Trump administration’s demands, including an agreement to expand ‘intellectual diversity’ as ‘defined by the Trump administration’.
Princeton spoke of resistance when the ‘Trump administration suspended dozens of grants to the University from several agencies, including the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Department of Defense’, pending ‘an investigation into antisemitism on campus’. Yale too declared its resistance in a letter signed by 900 of its Faculty, protesting at ‘unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance’. On March 31, Cornell published an op-ed by its President in the New York Times, describing the point which had been made in the interests of freedom of speech when the University held a Panel conversation exploring ‘pathways to peace’ for Israel and Palestine.
On 24 March, the American Association of University Professors and Democracy Forward explained the decision to litigate. On 11 April 202,5 Harvard began its own litigation about ‘the Trump administration’s unlawful and unprecedented misuse of federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority to undermine academic freedom and free speech on a university campus’. It complained that on March 31 ‘an investigation of Harvard University’ had been announced and on April 3 this had been followed by an order to ‘adopt a list of vague yet sweeping programmatic and structural changes to university management, operations, and curriculum’ as a condition of the University continuing to be the ‘recipient’ of $9 billion ‘federal taxpayer dollars’.
Harvard argued that the Government had failed to take the required preliminary steps under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. These requirements, it pointed out, existed because ‘Congress recognized that allowing federal agencies to hold funding hostage, or to cancel it cavalierly, would give them dangerously broad power in a system in which institutions depend so heavily upon federal funding’. It pointed out that the Trump administration had:
frozen over $1 billion in funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University, with an even more shocking lack of process, not even purporting to issue communications providing notice under Title VI or any other legal authority.
US public universities are subject to national Government control as recipients of Government funding. State legislation about them is also significant. The University of North Carolina was established by legislation in 1789, becoming America’s first public university. Its many schools and offshoots were brought together by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1972. The Constitution of the State of Texas states that its legislature shall ‘establish, organise and provide for the maintenance, support, and direction of a University of the first class’ with a new ‘undergraduate curriculum’ and also ‘establish a more demanding standard for leadership of academic departments and research centres’. As a public research university, the University of Texas at Austin (founded 1883) now describes itself as ‘the flagship institution of the University of Texas System’.
A wise US university makes provision to respond to both Government and State supervision. Michigan has a Vice President for Government Relations, acting ‘as the university’s bridge between local, state, and federal governments’. Its ‘State Relations team is committed to building and nurturing strong relationships with state government officials and agencies’, seeking ‘to secure funding, influence policy, and represent the university’s interests in state-level discussions. It also has a Federal Relations team ‘dedicated to fostering and maintaining collaborative relationships between the university and federal government entities including the U.S. Congress’. It too has been subject to Donald Trump’s demands and has stopped the successful diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program it has run since 2016, and closed the office it had set up to deal with it.
It remains to be seen how far the present President of the USA will succeed in enlarging Government control of the nation’s institutions of higher education by linking direction of academic activity with their funding. Former President Barack Obama did not hesitate to express his support for Harvard, calling Trump’s action ‘unlawful and ham-handed‘.
[1] Harvard Faculty Chapter, and American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice, filed 11 April, 2025.
GERMANTOWN, Tenn., Feb. 12, 2025 — Christmas in Germantown, Tennessee, might be merry and bright, but be careful if your decorations give a fright: you might get dragged into court and fined.
Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down on First Amendment grounds the Memphis suburb’s ordinance dictating to residents how and when they’re allowed to display holiday decorations. On Thursday, FIRE will also defend Alexis Luttrell before a municipal court, after the Germantown resident was cited for celebrating Christmas with decorative skeletons.
“There is simply no good reason for the government to care how and when a resident celebrates a holiday in their own front yard,” said FIRE attorney Colin McDonell. “When government officials try to stop that resident from expressing their holiday spirit to others, that violates the First Amendment.”
In October, Alexis set up a decorative skeleton and skeleton dog in her front yard to celebrate Halloween. Then for Election Day, she used the same skeletons to hold political signs. But in December, a Germantown code officer left a notice that she was in violation of Ordinance 11-33, which decrees that home and yard holiday decorations “shall not be installed or placed more than 45 days before the date of the holiday” and must be removed within “30 days, following the date of the holiday.”
So Alexis updated her skeletons for Christmas, dressing them up for the holiday alongside her inflatable tree and Santa Claus.
But Germantown still had (ahem) a bone to pick. On Jan. 6, she received a citation from the city saying she was still in violation and that she would have to appear before a judge on Feb. 13. If found guilty, she could be subject to fines, a court order prohibiting skeletons in her holiday displays, and even city officials entering her property and forcibly removing the skeletons.
“You don’t have to like my decorations, but that doesn’t mean Germantown has the right to force me to take them down,” said Alexis. “This is America. Even our local government has to respect our rights.”
COURTESY PHOTOS OF ALEXIS AND HER HOLIDAY DISPLAYS
Germantown’s ordinance violates the First Amendment, no bones about it. To start, it targets residents’ displays based on their message — specifically, whether they celebrate a holiday. It’s perfectly legal to have miniature deer figurines in your yard year-round, for example . . . unless there’s nine of them and one of them has a red nose. The Supreme Court has long held that speech restrictions based on content are unconstitutional unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
“City governments can impose reasonable restrictions on yard displays that address concerns like safety, noise, or light pollution, but Alexis’s decorations aren’t harming anyone,” said McDonell. “Germantown is simply targeting protected expression.”
The ordinance is also unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because it allows government officials to enforce their own subjective views on what decorations may celebrate a particular holiday. By refusing to permit Alexis’s skeletons as an acceptable Christmas display, Germantown is telling residents they have to celebrate Christmas the government-approved “right” way, even if they have a macabre sense of humor or just enjoy “The Nightmare Before Christmas.”
How one celebrates a holiday should be dictated by their personal taste, not government officials. And many religions and cultures have different ideas of when a holiday falls or how it should be celebrated that defy Germantown’s narrow view:
Lastly, Germantown’s ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. Regulations have to be clear enough for the average person to know if they’re breaking the law or not, but the ordinance offers no guidance on what decorations are “intended” to celebrate a particular “holiday.” As a result, Germantown residents are constantly in the dark about which holidays their city will enforce, when they officially begin, and which decorations qualify for that holiday — and which are forbidden.
Alexis’s skeletons are currently dressed, for example, in a “Love is Love” theme. St. Valentine’s Day isn’t an official government holiday — but then neither is Halloween, and Germantown officials targeted her skeletons nonetheless. Her rainbow-colored decorations are intended as a Valentine’s Day message — but it’s also imagery about LGBT acceptance that many people display year-round. Alexis can only guess at whether her display meets the city’s definition.
With FIRE on her side, Alexis is fighting this unconstitutional ordinance. Once Valentine’s Day has passed, she has plans to put her skeletons in costumes for St. Patrick’s Day, Easter, Pride Month and other holidays this year and for years to come.
“Perhaps for President’s Day, I’ll dress the skeleton like a Founding Father and give him a copy of the Constitution,” said Alexis. “Maybe a visual display will make it finally sink in when they ask me to tear it down.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
It’s been another challenging year in higher ed, and colleges are unsure what 2025 could bring, especially with the Biden administration coming to an end and former president Trump returning to the White House. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing for them to celebrate this holiday season, whether it’s increased enrollment, new awards and recognitions, a close-knit campus community—or just the fact that there are students on campus willing to star in a silly holiday video.
Here are Inside Higher Ed’s favorite greetings of this holiday season, including five presidential cameos, four mascot stunts, three live music performances, two Die Hard references … and a partridge in a pear tree.
Since when can yellowjackets ice-skate? Google tells me that wasps need to find somewhere warm to hide away when temperatures drop below 40 degrees—but Buzz the Yellowjacket, the University of Wisconsin at Superior’s mascot, appears to be the exception. In this holiday greeting video, Buzz not only makes an impressive ice hockey goal but also displays some figure skating prowess, pulling off a top-rate arabesque. Could Buzz become the nation’s first ever apian Olympian?
In this video from Riverland Community College in southern Minnesota, different groups of students wish viewers a happy holiday in turn. Their greetings give glimpses into the unique programs, clubs and spaces on campus, from cosmetology students giving pedicures in a salon to handy welders- and electricians-in-training showing off their skills.
Iowa State’s Cyclone Marching Band comes together in perfect harmony in this artfully choreographed video, marching across campus to provide some brassy musical accompaniment for the campus’s tree lighting. From what I could find in my research, the group first plays the university’s alma mater, “The Bells of Iowa State,” which was written in 1931 by Iowa State English professor Jim Wilson, followed by a rousing rendition of ISU’s fight song.
Coniferous trees spring from sidewalks and dance studios in this collage-like animation by a GSU alumnus, featuring background music by a current undergraduate student. The video concludes with punny well-wishes for the holidays: “May the arts spruce up your season with good cheer!”
This sketch from Washington’s EWU opens with the university’s president, Shari McMahan, jokingly bemoaning the fact that she had run out of acorns on which to use her large collection of nutcrackers. But the campus community takes that joke seriously and shifts into high gear, with each department researching how to help her get her hands on more “nutcracker food.” I hope those math students were able to finally solve for the numeric value of acorn!
Howard president Ben Vinson III highlights the university’s 2024 achievements in this holiday message, including the D.C. university’s record-breaking freshman class and its 100th homecoming. “As we prepare for the holidays, I look forward to all that lies ahead. I wish everyone a joyful and restful break and a successful start to the new year,” Vinson said.
Rhythmic choral music rings out through Whitman College’s Memorial Building before the singers are eventually joined by an instrumental septet in this distinctive holiday video. What makes this video so unusual is the choice to use not a well-known holiday carol but a choral song by living composer Jeff Newberry with lyrics by Malcolm Guite, a poet and Anglican priest, that nevertheless speak to the gratitude and peace of the holiday season: “Become an open singing-bowl, whose chime / Is richness rising out of emptiness, / And timelessness resounding into time.”
MIT’s video this year is a short animated sequence that shows what happens after it magically begins snowing inside one of the university’s academic buildings. A student walks through the snow-dusted hallway, eventually happening upon an atrium where her classmates are playing instruments crafted from ice, sledding and crafting a snow beaver in the image of the institution’s mascot.
What a beautiful message for this holiday season: the importance of friendship across differences. When Norm the Niner, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s gold-mining mascot, orders goose on a food delivery app, he’s expecting dinner to arrive. But instead, he finds a live goose at his door at ready to move onto UNC-Charlotte’s campus. At first, the goose only wants to cause chaos, but eventually he mellows out, learning to enjoy college basketball, fine art and taking selfies before eventually departing south for the winter.
In this heartfelt video from one of Texas’s largest counties, members of the Tarrant County College community join together at a beautifully set table for what looks to be a homemade holiday dinner, reminding TCC students that they will always “have a seat at the table.” Joining them is college chancellor Elva Concha LeBlanc and Toro the Trailblazer, the college’s blue bull mascot, which is dancing in the background.
Hot takes abound in this video of Oral Roberts students answering Christmas-related questions, like their favorite holiday songs and films. Is Home Alone 2 superior to the original? Does the Phineas and Ferb Christmas special really qualify as a Christmas movie? Does anyone actually know the words to “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”? If you and your family don’t have enough to argue about this holiday, these are some questions you could bring up to really cause a ruckus.
Why does it seem like there’s a trend this year of rebuffing all the classic carols in favor of introducing new songs to represent the spirit of the season? I’m not complaining; apparently the song in this video is from Frozen 2, a movie I have never seen, but Yale’s student performers make it sound as loved and lived-in as a warm woolen sweater. This video also features Handsome Dale, Yale’s bulldog mascot, and Angus, the university’s First Puppy.
One of two institutions returning to this list from last year, Clackamas Community College in Oregon is back with another parodic holiday heist. This year, the college took inspiration from Die Hard. It stars Adam Hall, a math instructor at the college, in the role of John McClane, having to fight against a plot to “encrypt the digits of pi to ruin their holiday joy.” I’ve never seen Die Hard, but I have to assume that’s extremely accurate to what happens in the movie.
Oakland Community College is the second to make another appearance on this list from last year. In this year’s self-aware video, chancellor Peter Provenzano decides to use ChatGPT—one its few, if only, appearances in any of these videos!—to gather ideas for a Christmas movie parody that Talon, OCC’s owl mascot, could star in. The AI spits out It’s a Wonderful Life, Die Hard, A Charlie Brown Christmas and more, but none satisfy Provenzano. The moral of the story? “There are a lot of stories Talon can tell to capture the season’s joy, but none better than the story we tell at OCC,” he says. (And stick around to the end for bloopers!)
