Tag: January

  • Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    There’s a huge story going on right now in Australian higher education, one that hasn’t made many ripples outside the country yet, but really should have.

    In January of 2026, two of the country’s major universities will be merging. The old research intensive University of Adelaide, one of the country’s so-called sandstone — meaning prestigious — universities, will be joining with the newer post Dawkins i.e., created in the early 1990s, University of South Australia, which began its life as the South Australian Institute of Technology.

    The new institution, Adelaide University, will be a behemoth of a multiversity, among the five largest institutions in the country. I’m fairly certain I’m right in saying this is the largest merger ever of two anglophone universities. But there are a lot of questions about how this is gonna work out. How will the new institution manage to maintain two separate missions? One is a research institution and one is an access institution. How can two very distinct cultures be bridged? And also, how do you create a distinct curricular or pedagogical identity for a new institution?

    With me today is David Lloyd. He’s the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia, and until the merger happens, also the Deputy Vice Chancellor at the University of Adelaide, and as you probably guessed, he’s one of the architects of the merger.

    In the course of this interview, we cover a range of issues such as what are the benefits of mergers? Why these two institutions? Why now? And how on earth do you possibly make a merger of this scale actually work? I can’t do any of this justice in an intro, so let’s just turn it over to David.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.33 | Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): David, why merge these two institutions—and why now? What made this the right moment to bring these two very different institutions together?

    David Lloyd (DL): I guess sometimes we joke and say there’s never going to be a better time. I’m not sure there ever is a perfect time. In this case, it’s not our first attempt. Ever since UniSA was established in 1991, people have questioned why another university was needed in South Australia.

    Right now, though, the political landscape is aligned in support of this. There’s institutional ambition on both sides of the ledger—coming from different motivations, but ultimately converging. You’ve got leaders who’ve known each other for a long time, strong financial positions in both institutions, and a shared history—we came very close before. We nearly merged in 2012. We nearly did it again in 2018. So in some ways, it’s like—third time lucky.

    AU: What do you gain together that you don’t already have apart? What’s the advantage here?

    DL: One of the biggest advantages is scale. Australian universities are large organizations. UniSA has about 40,000 students and Adelaide has about 30,000. So combined, you’re looking at 70,000 students—which makes it a $2.1 billion enterprise. It’s a big operation. Now, big isn’t automatically better, but it does mean you’re more financially robust and resilient.

    At that scale, the student mix is also important—about 75% domestic and 25% international on day one. That gives you a really strong foundation, making the institution more shockproof in the face of events like the pandemic or future geopolitical disruptions. You get a very robust organization.

    And then, if you think about how you can leverage the cash flow of a $2.1 billion enterprise into applications and resources—it throws off a lot more than each institution could alone. That gives you a real capacity for investment.

    AU: You said this isn’t your first go at this, right? That this is actually at least the second time, that I know of, that this has been considered. So take us back. Presumably, at some point after 1991, as UniSA grew from being an old technical institution into what it is now, there would have been various moments when people said, “Hey, there are gains to be had from a merger.” Over this long period—20 or 30 years—what were the big turning points? When did the light go off and people say, “Aha, we should definitely do this”?

    DL: I think it goes back to the origins of the institution in the 1990s. When the policy came through under the Hawke Labor government—John Dawkins was the Minister for Education at the time—the creation of new institutions was happening across the country.

    In that formative period, you had faculties and activities from what had been an Institute of Technology and a College of Advanced Education. There was a bit of a shop-around approach—people were saying, “Well, these parts could go to University X, or those parts could go to University Y, or we could put them together and create something new.” And in South Australia, that led to the creation of a new university.

    So you went from a town with two institutions—the old, established sandstone University of Adelaide, and Flinders University, a 1950s construct—to suddenly having this new kid on the block in 1991. And it quickly became a real challenger to the other two. It grabbed a large share of the domestic market and drove the participation agenda. The national driver at the time was to increase tertiary attainment, and suddenly, a lot of people who’d never gone to university had access.

    Then you fast forward to 2012. There was a desire at that time—between the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide—to pursue a merger. It didn’t go through, for all sorts of reasons. I think mostly small, local considerations. Peter Høj—who’s now my co–Vice Chancellor at the new Adelaide University—was the Vice Chancellor of UniSA back then. He left to run the University of Queensland.

    And I was recruited to lead UniSA after that particular push toward merger had fizzled. So I came into an institution that had thought about merging, had moved somewhat in that direction, but ultimately hadn’t done it.

    Then in 2018, the same kinds of conversations came up again. These things tend to resurface when there’s a leadership change. When a Vice Chancellor leaves, people say, “Well, we could hire a new one—or we could merge the universities.” It’s a very simple framing, but it does come up.

    In 2018, that cycle happened again. We went quite far down the road exploring a merger. There was a public process. But in the end, UniSA withdrew. We said no, and we said no because of the business case. What was being articulated at that time didn’t look like something that would take the goals and ambitions of the institution to where we believed it needed to be—especially not given the overhead that would come with creating a new university.

    So things settled down again—until we got to the conditions we talked about earlier, the ones that make this moment feel like the right one.

    AU: Let me just ask you—based on what you’ve described, why, from the University of South Australia’s perspective, is Adelaide the right merger partner? Why not Flinders?

    DL: Yeah, yeah, that’s a really good point. I can tell you that in the various machinations over the years—and I’ve been here now for 13 years—there have definitely been times when I thought, you could actually end up with quite a different landscape in South Australia. UniSA and Flinders could have come together to create a kind of younger, more modern university that would have competed in the domestic market against the older, more established University of Adelaide. That would’ve created a local differentiator.

    But the combination that actually came about—and the reason we are where we are today—has a lot to do with a key political shift. In 2021, while still in opposition, the now state government released a policy position saying that, if elected, they would establish a merger commission to examine the merits of a combination—with a view to making it happen. It was a very clear and determinative policy.

    They believed a merger had been a missed opportunity in the past and were committed to a process that would determine the next steps. That put universities in an interesting position. You had the prospect of an external body telling you, “You have to merge—and here’s who you’re going to merge with.” That creates a real risk of losing institutional autonomy and control.

    What stood out in that policy position, though, was the stated ambition to create a university that could rank sustainably in the global top 100. If you look at different combinations, a UniSA–Flinders merger wouldn’t get you there—at least not without a significant uplift in investment. But a UniSA–University of Adelaide merger could. And so that becomes one of the key factors shaping the path we chose.

    AU: There’s one other country that’s really moved in this direction, specifically with the goal of getting institutions into the global top 100, and that’s France. Right? You’ve seen a lot of that in places like Lyon and Paris. Did you spend much time looking at the dos and don’ts from the French experience—or from any other international mergers?

    DL: We did spend some time on that. There’s quite a bit of jurisdictional variability when it comes to amalgamating institutions. The example we really studied, with a kind of weather eye on how to do this properly, was the creation of the University of Manchester.

    But that was quite a while ago now. When we looked at the French experience, what stood out was that their approach often seemed to involve putting a veneer of amalgamation over existing institutions and then dropping a kind of cash bundle on top to make the veneer hold together. So it’s less the creation of a single institution and more the creation of an amalgamated system. From our perspective, this is a non-trivial exercise. We didn’t want to just have an umbrella that said, “This is a merged university.” We wanted to create a new university.

    And from UniSA’s side, the conditions for entering the process were very clear: we would create a new institution—with its own mission, its own purpose—its own values, and all of those things. That’s not really what the French model does. But one interesting lesson from the French approach was that if you apply that veneer—and if you’re something like Paris-Saclay—you can be considered a young university again, which is an intriguing outcome. The Sorbonne, for example, is now viewed as a young university again.

    That was an interesting insight into how these things are perceived. So for us, the goal was to do this really well—to create an integrated, new institution. That way, we’d have the benefits of a young university, with all the pedigree and legacy behind us too.

    AU: David, I assume—though I’m not sure exactly what process you used—there was some kind of letter of intent or memorandum of understanding that said, “We’re going to do this, and we’re serious.” How does the planning process unfold from there? Once you’ve done the initial feasibility and assured each other you’re acting in good faith, how do you move through the bottlenecks of institutional governance, stakeholder engagement, and all those kinds of things? How do you get to the finish line?

    DL: Um, great tenacity—I think that’s key. Peter and I started this as an informal conversation back in 2021, and we’re planning to open the doors of the new university on the first Monday of 2026—January 5th. So it’s a long road from informal talks to delivering a functional, operational, competitive institution.

    On the plus side, we had very strong intent from the state government to enable this. In our system, it’s the state government that legislates the creation of universities. But then you also have to negotiate with the federal government to be recognized as an Australian university—

    AU: And funded.

    DL: Exactly. So, at the local level, we could establish a corporate body, but we still needed legislation to pass through the house. It was much more complex than just signing an MOU.

    We actually had to draft legislation and, mechanistically, we created a new corporate entity—a new university—that sits alongside the two existing ones. So when I’m co–Vice Chancellor of the new Adelaide University, I’m still the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia. These are independent and autonomous institutions—one of which is actively creating the other, even while the original continues to exist legislatively. It’s quite an unusual construct.

    On the federal side, this goes back to why now. The current federal government—a Labor government—has a strong agenda around widening participation. When we approached them and said, “We’re going to have the largest population of domestic Australian students of any institution in the country,” that positioned us as a sovereign educator. We’re delivering an equity and participation agenda at a scale no other Australian university can match. That naturally leads to a conversation about: how do they help us set it up?

    AU: As I understand it, you’ve got some kind of transition council. I’m not sure if that’s a joint council for both institutions, or if each has its own. How does that work? Who’s on that council making the nitty-gritty decisions? And how do you make sure everything stays on track?

    DL: That goes back to the legislation. Adelaide University was formally established in legislation in March 2024. That legislation created a council—capital “C”—with the word “transition” in front of it, which gives you a sense of its purpose.

    The composition of that council was agreed upon by the two institutions, determining how to populate the board of this new university from the existing boards of UniSA and the University of Adelaide. It was set up as a 50/50 split between the two, with UniSA having the right to appoint the chancellor of the new university. That was one of the key elements in the background negotiations—like why it’s called Adelaide University and not the University of South Australia.

    In fact, the act establishing the new university is based on the University of South Australia Act, and UniSA retained the right to appoint the transition chancellor.

    But functionally, this council operates as a fully independent university council, completely autonomous from the two existing institutions. Everyone who joined the council had to step off their former boards and now acts solely in the interest of the new institution, as required by law.

    What the council does is provide a governance framework for the executive to work within. It approves the strategy, but it’s the executive team—originally Peter and myself, along with a team drawn from both universities—that brings forward the decisions.

    Now, we’ve started appointing deputy vice chancellors who are employees of the new Adelaide University. We’ve brought forward a strategy that actually originated in the business case—a white paper—that both universities had independently agreed was in their best interests.

    If you go back to 2022, we were asking: What will we create? What should it look like? Why are we doing this? How much will it cost? We built a strong business case and rationale. That was then translated into a strategy for the new institution—one that doesn’t just cover the start in 2024, but runs all the way through to 2030. That’s when we aim to have a fully established, steady-state university of scale, delivering everything we set out to achieve: a purposeful, excellent institution.

    AU: One thing that’s really struck me about this process—watching it from 8,000 miles away—is how remarkably smooth it seems to have been. Mergers often stir up a lot of turbulence, especially with alumni communities. And while I don’t know the geography of Adelaide very well, I imagine there can be tensions if one part of town gains certain things and another part doesn’t.

    Then there’s the fact that your two institutions have different origins, stories, and areas of specialization—but still quite a bit of overlap in terms of departments and programs. That’s usually where the real head-butting happens: getting people to play nicely together. But you seem to have managed that really well. What’s the secret to a smooth merger?

    DL: Well, part of it is that this is our third attempt—so maybe it’s third time lucky. As I said earlier, this isn’t our first rodeo. This has been considered before, so there was a certain inevitability in the way we presented it this time. There was a clear policy position, enabling legislation, and strong support from the government behind us.

    But that only takes you so far. You can’t just rely on top-down directives. People can still dig in their heels. If the message had been, “We’re doing this because we were told to,” we could’ve faced a lot of turbulence.

    Instead, what we had were two universities that went through their own internal processes—through their academic boards, their senates—and independently concluded that creating this new institution was in their best interest, and in the best interest of the state. So both came to the table willingly, but from different perspectives.

    Each institution had a view of what it would give up—and what it would become. This is really a baton pass from both organizations to something new.

    And when we looked at the mechanics of creating that new institution, we didn’t take a “lift and shift” approach. We didn’t just bundle together the activities of both universities under a single umbrella. We committed to building a new structure. We committed to delivering a new curriculum. We agreed to design everything—program content included—through a forward-looking Adelaide University lens, rather than from the perspective of UniSA’s past or Adelaide’s past.

    And what was remarkable—and maybe a bit fortuitous—was the way our people responded. Let’s say we brought together two marketing faculties. We told them, “We want you to design a new curriculum that takes the best of both.” And instead of any sense of loss or resistance, what we got was strong academic alignment in shaping that new product.

    We did that across the board—wherever we had overlapping programs: two business degrees, two law degrees, two science degrees. The faculty teams who had once been institutional competitors came together and asked, “If we start with a blank piece of paper—not with the past—what would the ideal program look like?”

    And that approach has been incredibly unifying. Thousands of academics have gone through that process already, and many more will continue to do so between now and 2030.

    AU: You’re talking about new programs here. What’s striking, again from a distance, is the early commitment to pedagogy—a move away from the traditional lecture system. As I understand it, the institution committed to moving away from in-person lectures. Have I got that right? Is that the plan?

    DL: I love having these conversations—especially when the 8,000-kilometer view is, “You guys aren’t going to have lectures anymore.”

    AU: That’s why we’re having this conversation, David!

    DL: Exactly. And we had a similar conversation in Beijing when we were on stage launching the new brand. Journalists there were asking the same thing. But no, we are not getting rid of lectures.

    What we are getting rid of is the idea that students just sit in a room while someone talks at them for an hour, and then leave—as if knowledge has magically transferred from the person at the podium to the students in the seats. Instead, we’re aiming for much richer, more engaging classroom experiences.

    These will still be face-to-face, but students will come prepared. The foundational content—the pre-reading, the prerequisite material—will be delivered online. We’ll expect students to engage with that before attending the in-person component, whether it’s a workshop, tutorial, or some other interactive format.

    And that core online content is being designed so it can also stand alone. If you’re not physically in South Australia, you’ll still be able to engage with the material from anywhere—across the country or internationally.

    AU: So, it’s flipped classrooms at scale?

    DL: Yes. Exactly.

    AU: That’s a significant pedagogical shift. It’s not something you’d typically get from individual departmental committees. Was there wide buy-in for that? Because even when you frame it as flipped classrooms rather than online classes, it still feels like a big change for academics across a wide range of disciplines.

    DL: Yeah, and I think in a post-COVID era, that shift is more understandable. The pandemic showed us all that you can go online—and do it either really well or really poorly. But if you do it well, students can have a great experience.

    We’ve anchored all of our structural decisions through the lens of student experience and student success. And the evidence we have shows that, when done right, students actually report better experiences with these kinds of blended or flipped models than they do with traditional, lecture-heavy formats.

    If you go back to one of UniSA’s strengths: in 2018, we created a division called UniSA Online. Higher education bodies now say we’re number one in Australia for online education—and top ten globally. That means we already had a strong engine for content creation and pedagogical design.

    Now we’re layering that into an institution with the generational pedigree and academic reputation that the University of Adelaide brings. So together, the new Adelaide University will have a really compelling mix.

    And to be clear—it’s not a wholesale replacement of everything that came before. The academic content is still owned by the faculty. What’s changed is how that content is curated and presented in the online environment. That curation is handled institutionally, but the ownership remains firmly with the academics.

    AU: We’re a little more than seven months away from opening day. I have two questions: what are you most looking forward to in all of this? And what do you think the global implications are—what lessons might institutions outside Australia take from this?

    DL: Yeah. The first part—this has been nearly a five-year journey for me, getting this institution to the point of opening. On a personal level, my daughter is just finishing a diploma with the University of South Australia. She’s about to start her degree in the next few weeks, entering mid-year. So she’ll begin at UniSA just as it officially ends—and she’ll graduate from Adelaide University in, hopefully, three years’ time.

    So I have a very real hope that we’ve managed to build an institution that will empower her, her peers, our colleagues, and future learners—to be successful, to find meaningful employment, and to have a great experience along the way. That’s not the reason we did all this, of course, but when I look at the outcomes we aimed for, I want to see that we’ve hit the metrics we set.

    It’s a very ambitious strategy. But we’ve had the financial resources and a long runway to plan—something only a whole-of-institution change like this could make possible.

    Personally, I’m really looking forward to 2030. That’s when I want to look back and assess whether we’ve achieved what we set out to do. Not necessarily from inside the organization—Peter and I won’t be the Vice Chancellors next year. We’ve made a conscious decision to hand over to a new leader who will carry this strategy forward.

    But I want to see how they reach those milestones based on the breadcrumbs and trail we’ve laid down. And in the next few months, we’ll see the inaugural rankings for this institution as we move into its first year of operation. I’m quietly confident we’ll meet our targets.

    And I’ll admit—part of me is looking forward to proving the doubters wrong. The ones who said, “You can’t do this. You’ll go backwards. It’s dilution.” I want them to be left eating humble pie. Glen Davis—the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, now working in the Prime Minister’s department—once said to me, “Good luck as you attempt the impossible.” And if we pull this off, that’s where the real satisfaction will come from.

    AU: And from an international perspective—what should others learn from this?

    DL: I think what we’re demonstrating is that there are two ways to approach a merger. You can put up an umbrella, apply a veneer, and say, “Here’s a system.” Or you can take a planned, deliberate, mindful approach—what I wouldn’t call a leap of faith, but an investment in doing it properly.

    And that means proper integration. Proper consideration of what it means to deliver a new organization—not just on paper, but in culture, structure, and purpose. If you do that, you can create something that really is more than the sum of its parts.

    I think we’re showing what’s possible.

    AU: DL, thank you so much for being with us today.

    DL: Pleasure. Thanks, Alex.

    AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week, when our guest will once again be Brendan Cantwell from Michigan State University. You may remember him from last fall’s episode, when he suggested—based on a close reading of Project 2025—that a second Trump administration might shift from a culture war posture to one of active sabotage and destruction of the higher education sector. We’ll see whether he can resist saying, “I told you so.” Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • Big state systems were among those announcing cuts in January

    Big state systems were among those announcing cuts in January

    A new year is underway, but many colleges are still reeling from the fiscal challenges of 2024.

    With yawning budget gaps and bleak financial projections at some campuses, administrators are cutting jobs, academic programs and athletics options to plug holes and stabilize their finances.

    Here’s a look at cuts announced in January.

    Sonoma State University

    Facing a budget deficit estimated at nearly $24 million, the California State University campus is enacting deep cuts that will include dismissing dozens of faculty members, eliminating multiple programs and dropping athletics, according to an announcement from interim president Emily F. Cutrer.

    “The University has had a budget deficit for several years. It is attributable to a variety of factors—cost of personnel, annual price increases for supplies and utilities, inflation—but the main reason is enrollment,” Cutrer wrote in an announcement last month.

    She added that Sonoma State’s enrollment has dropped by 38 percent since 2015.

    On the personnel side, 46 faculty members, including tenured as well as adjunct professors, will not have their contracts renewed for the next academic year. An unspecified number of lecturers will also receive notices that “no work will be available in fall 2025,” Cutrer wrote. Four management and 12 staff positions are also being eliminated as part of Sonoma State’s cost-cutting measures.

    In addition, more than 20 programs have been identified for closure and others will be combined. University officials are also looking to close a half dozen academic departments.

    All 11 SSU athletic programs, which compete at the NCAA Division II level, will be eliminated. However, SSU coaches have announced plans to file a lawsuit in an effort to save their sports.

    California State University, Dominguez Hills

    Anticipated budget cuts also drove layoffs at this CSU campus in Southern California, which let go 32 employees last month, many probationary or temporary workers, LAist reported.

    “While these layoffs will be disruptive to our operations, the vast majority of our staff will remain employed at CSUDH continuing to provide the high level of support to our community that we are known for,” President Thomas Parham wrote in an email.

    Other institutions across California are also likely to introduce cost-cutting measures in the coming months due to anticipated decreases in state appropriations that will limit funding. The 23 institutions in the CSU system are bracing for state budget cuts of nearly $400 million.

    University of New Orleans

    After consolidating five colleges into two in December, the University of New Orleans laid off 30 employees last month as it chips away at a $10 million budget deficit, NOLA.com reported.

    Additionally, the university announced furloughs for full-time, nontenured employees last month, which local media outlets reported will affect nearly 300 workers.

    “While these actions are necessary, we are deeply sensitive to the hardship they undoubtedly will cause. We remain fully committed to supporting those who are affected through this transition,” President Kathy Johnson said in a January announcement. “Our focus remains on protecting UNO’s academic mission and its vital role in the New Orleans region. We are pursuing long-term strategies to increase enrollment, secure new funding, and enhance operational efficiency to avoid similar measures in the future.”

    St. Francis College

    The financially struggling institution in New York laid off 17 employees last month, The City reported. It follows other moves administrators have made in recent years—including previous layoffs, the sale of the Brooklyn campus and the elimination of athletic programs—to help fix St. Francis’s financial woes.

    Despite the institution’s recent struggles and multiple years of operating losses, President Tim Cecere offered the news outlet an optimistic outlook, noting that cost-cutting measures have put the college on a path toward sustainability.

    “The college hasn’t been this strong in years,” Cecere said. “We have zero debt, which not a lot of colleges can say. Every dollar that comes in is optimized for the benefit of the students.”

    St. Norbert College

    Jobs and programs are on the chopping block as the small Catholic institution in Wisconsin navigates financial issues, The Green Bay Press Gazette reported.

    At least 13 majors will be cut, including chemistry, computer science, history and physics.

    An unspecified number of faculty members are also expected to be laid off, the newspaper reported, as the college aims to shave $7 million in expenses ahead of the next fiscal year.

    Cleveland State University

    Efforts to cut spending prompted Cleveland State University to drop three athletic programs—wrestling, women’s softball and women’s golf—Ideastream Public Media reported.

    Cleveland State will also move its esports team from athletics to the College of Engineering.

    The move comes as the university whittles down a budget deficit that reportedly stands at $10 million. Last summer 50-plus faculty members took buyouts as part of cost-reduction efforts.

    Indiana University

    More than two dozen jobs were eliminated from the state flagship’s athletics department last month—part of a cost-reduction effort in response to the House v. NCAA settlement, which will require IU and other institutions to begin sharing revenue with athletes starting in the 2025–26 academic year, The Indianapolis Star reported.

    Of the 25 positions eliminated, 12 were reportedly vacant.

    Western Illinois University

    Furloughs for administrative employees who are not in a bargaining unit are expected as the regional public institution seeks to cut expenditures, Tri States Public Radio reported.

    WIU is reportedly dealing with a $14 million deficit for fiscal year 2025.

    The furlough program will run from the beginning of February through July 31 and is tiered by annual salary. Administrators making more than $150,000 will be required to take three unpaid days off each month, while those earning between $100,000 and $149,000 will be asked to take off two unpaid days each month and those making $99,999 to $75,000 will have to take off one unpaid day per month.

    Catholic University of America

    With the Catholic research university in Washington, D.C., facing a $30 million structural deficit, administrators are considering merging departments and potentially closing the Benjamin T. Rome School of Music, Drama, and Art, Catholic News Agency reported.

    Officials did not specify publicly whether job cuts would be included as part of the overall changes, which are expected to go before CUA’s Board of Trustees for approval in March.

    University System of Maryland

    Amid state budget cuts, Maryland’s public university system will likely be forced to lay off employees.

    Anticipating a funding cut of $111 million across the 11-campus system, officials may eliminate as many as 400 jobs through layoffs as well as closing vacant positions, The Baltimore Banner reported, which they estimate will save $45 million. Though a timeline for cuts was not announced, system chancellor Jay Perman said some jobs will be student facing, including advising, counseling and mental health services. Perman also noted that some faculty positions across the system will likely go unfilled.

    Source link

  • HESA’s AI Observatory: What’s new in higher education (January 31, 2025)

    HESA’s AI Observatory: What’s new in higher education (January 31, 2025)

    Transformation of education

    Leading Through Disruption: Higher Education Leaders Assess AI’s Impacts on Teaching and Learning

    Rainie, L. and Watson, E. AAC&U and Elon University.

    Report from a survey of 337 college and university leaders that provides a status report on the fast-moving changes taking place on US campuses. Key data takeaways include the fact faculty use of AI tools trails significantly behind student use, more than a third of leaders surveyed perceive their institution to be below average or behind others in using GenAI tools, 59% say that cheating has increased on their campus since GenAI tools have become widely available, and 45% think the impact of GenAI on their institutions in the next five years will be more positive than negative.

    Four objectives to guide artificial intelligence’s impact on higher education

    Aldridge, S. Times Higher Education. January 27th, 2025

    The four objectives are: 1) ensure that curricula prepare students to use AI in their careers and to add human skills value to help them success in parallel of expanded use of AI; 2) employ AI-based capacities to enhance the effectiveness and value of the education delivered; 3) leverage AI to address specific pedagogical and administrative challenges; and 4) address pitfalls and shortcomings of using AI in higher ed, and develop mechanisms to anticipate and respond to emerging challenges.

    Global perspectives

    DeepSeek harnesses links with Chinese universities in talent war

    Packer, H. Times Higher Education. January 31st, 2025

    The success of artificial intelligence platform DeepSeek, which was developed by a relatively young team including graduates and current students from leading Chinese universities, could encourage more students to pursue opportunities at home amid a global race for talent, experts have predicted.

    Teaching and learning

    Trends in AI for student assessment – A roller coaster ride

    MacGregor, K. University World News. January 25th, 2025

    Insights from (and recording of) the University World News webinar “Trends in AI for student assessment”, held on January 21st. 6% of audience members said that they did not face significant challenges in using GenAI for assessment, 53% identified “verifying the accuracy and validity of AI-generated results” as a challenge, 49% said they lacked training or expertise in using GenAI tools, 45% identified “difficulty integrating AI tools within current assessment systems”, 41% were challenged in addressing ethical concerns, 30% found “ensuring fairness and reducing bias in AI-based assessments” challenging, 25% identified “protecting student data privacy and security” as a challenge, and 19% said “resistance to adopting AI-driven assessment” was challenging.

    Open access

    Charting a course for open education resources in an AI era

    Wang, T. and Mishra, S. University World News. January 24th, 2025

    The digital transformation of higher education has positioned open educational resources (OER) as essential digital public goods for the global knowledge commons. As emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), reshape how educational content is created, adapted and distributed, the OER movement faces both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges in fulfilling its mission of democratising knowledge access.

    The Dubai Declaration on OER, released after the 3rd UNESCO World OER Congress held in November 2024, addresses pressing questions about AI’s role in open education.

    Source link

  • HELU’s Wall-to-Wall and Coast-to-Coast Report – January 2025

    HELU’s Wall-to-Wall and Coast-to-Coast Report – January 2025

    This winter and spring, HELU activists are leading workshops in six states to develop platforms, advance coalitions, and share concrete, tested strategies for winning political change. I hope your union will join these opportunities so we can connect with and fortify each other. At a moment when we could go quiet and dark, we must choose to build up and out…. Read more.
     

    From the HELU Blog:

    Why should healthcare unions join HELU?

    Profiteers have taken over our hospitals and put patients’ lives on the line. They are forcing the closure of hospitals that do not make a profit. Insurance companies tell us how and when to treat our patients. The corporatization of both academia and healthcare are ruining the quality of education and health respectively for many of our students and patients. Just as faculty and staff say, “Our working conditions are our students’ learning conditions,” healthcare workers say, “Our working conditions are our patients living or dying conditions.”… Read more.

    United Steelworkers Local 1088 is Newest HELU Member

    HELU keeps growing thanks to locals like 1088 who agree with our theory of change and also carry it on their workplaces to build a higher education system that works for all. Our strength and coalitional capacity increases thanks to the engagement of members within their locals carrying our strategic vision and program…. Read more.
     

    “Alone our debts are a burden, but together they give us power.”

    Debt permeates nearly all aspects of today’s neoliberal higher education landscape. Our students accumulate mountains of debt while studying, and faculty labor under unpayable debt burdens which are particularly burdensome for contingent faculty, who often work multiple jobs so they can make student loan payments. The universities we teach and learn in are drowning in billions of dollars of debt owed to Wall Street…. Read more.
     

    The NCSCBHE 2024 Directory: A Boon to Unions, Researchers and Educators

    The new 2024 Directory of Bargaining Agents and Contracts in Institutions in Higher Education by William A Herbert, Jacob Apkarian, and Joseph van der Naald is an excellent update of the last 2012 comprehensive directory issued by the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining for Higher Education and the Professions… Read more.

    Defend the University: Lessons from Brazil & Argentina on Resisting Fascist Attacks on Higher Education

    Wednesday, January 29 at 8pm ET/7pm CT/6pm MT/5pm PT

    Universities in the United States are under conservative and neoliberal attack. The Trump administration has promised to intensify the assault on higher education. In this Jubilee School discussion, leading Argentine and Brazilian scholar-activists that have fought to defend their public universities from the Milei and Bolsonaro regimes will share lessons on how to defend higher education against fascist attacks. Register here.
     

    Coalition for Action in Higher Education: National Day of Action Organizing Call

    Friday, January 31 at 2pm ET/1pm CT/Noon MT/11am PT

    On April 17, we will hold a National Day of Action for Higher Education to assert our collective power to organize for higher education and protect the common good. Before April, we’ll be hosting a series of national organizing calls to plan the Day of Action events. Our first call is Friday, January 31, at 2pm ET/1pm CT/Noon MT/11am PT. Register here.
     

    Winning Healthcare in Minnesota and New Jersey for Contingent Faculty: Lessons from Oregon and California

    Wednesday, February 12 at 6pm ET/5pm CT/4pm MT/3pm PT

    On April 17, we will hold a National Day of Action for Higher Education to assert our collective power to organize for higher education and protect the common good. Before April, we’ll be hosting a series of national organizing calls to plan the Day of Action events. Our first call is Friday, January 31, at 2 pm ET/1pm CT/Noon MT/11am PT. Register here.
     

    Coalition for Action in Higher Education: Antisemitism, False Charges of Antisemitism, and Building Resistance Workshop

    Thursday, February 20 at 5pm ET/4pm CT/3pm MT/2pm PT

    Part of building mutual solidarities, resistance, and narratives to fight false accusations of antisemitism is through widespread political education. PARCEO will share its approach and issues it addresses in its curriculum on antisemitism from a framework of collective liberation, as well as challenges that arise. Register here.
     

    Want to support our work? Make a contribution.

    We invite you to support HELU’s work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU’s main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement.
    From Helena Worthen and Evan Bowman, Co-Chairs of the HELU Media & Communications Committee.

    Source link

  • HESA’s AI Observatory: What’s new in higher education (January 17, 2025)

    HESA’s AI Observatory: What’s new in higher education (January 17, 2025)

    Transformation of education

    The McDonaldisation of higher education in the age of AI

    Yoonil Auh, J. University World News. December 11th, 2024.

    Reflection on how AI’s impact on higher education aligns with the principles of McDonaldisation (efficiency, calculability, predictability and control), what opportunities and challenges it creates, and how institutions are responding

    Decolonization

    AI and digital neocolonialism: Unintended impacts on universities

    Yoonil Auh, J. University World News. July 12th, 2024. 

    The evolution of AI risks reinforcing neocolonial patterns, underscoring the complex ethical implications associated with their deployment and broader impact

    Workforce preparation

    As workers seek guidance on AI use, employers value skilled graduates

    Ascione, L. eCampusNews. December 9th, 2024.

    A new Wiley survey highlights that 40% of respondents struggle to understand how to integrate AI into their work and 75% lack confidence in AI use, while 34% of managers feel equipped to support AI integration

    California students want careers in AI. Here’s how colleges are meeting that demand

    Brumer, D. and Garza, J. Cal Matters. October 20th, 2024. 

    California’s governor announced the first statewide partnership with a tech firm, Nvidia, to bring AI curriculum, resources and opportunities to California’s public higher education institutions. The partnership will bring AI tools to community colleges first.

    Let’s equip the next generation of business leaders with an ethical compass

    Côrte-Real, A. Times Higher Education. October 22nd, 2024. 

    In a world driven by AI, focusing on human connections and understanding is essential for achieving success. While AI can standardize many processes, it is the unique human skills – such as empathy, creativity, and critical thinking – that will continue to set individuals and organizations apart.

    How employer demand trends across two countries demonstrate need for AI skills

    Stevens, K. EAB. October 10th, 2024. 

    Study reviewing employer demands in the US and in Ireland to better understand how demand for AI skills differ across countries, and examine if these differences are significant enough to require targeted curricular design by country

    Research

    We’re living in a world of artificial intelligence – it’s academic publishing that needs to change

    Moorhouse, B. Times Higher Education. December 13th, 2024.

    Suggestions to shift mindsets towards GenAI tools to restore trust in academic publishing

    Teaching and learning

    The AI-Generated Textbook That’s Making Academics Nervous

    Palmer, K. Inside Higher Ed. December 13th, 2024. 

    A comparative literature professor at UCLA used AI to generate the textbook for her medieval literature course notably with the aim to make course material more financially accessible to her students – but the academic community reacted strongly

    GenAI impedes student learning, hitting exam performance

    Sawahel, W. University World News. December 12th, 2024.

    A study conducted in Germany using GenAI detection systems showed that students who used GenAI scored significantly lower in essays

    The renaissance of the essay starts here

    Gordon, C. and Compton, M. Times Higher Education. December 9th, 2024. 

    A group of academics from King’s College London, the London School of Economics and Political Science, the University of Sydney and Richmond American University came together to draft a manifesto on the future of the essay in the age of AI, where they highlight problems and opportunities related to the use of essays, and propose ways to rejuvenate its use

    These AI tools can help prepare future programmers for the workplace

    Rao, R. Times Higher Education. December 9th, 2024.

    Reflection on how curricula should incorporate the use of AI tools, with a specific focus on programming courses

    The future is hybrid: Colleges begin to reimagine learning in an AI world

    McMurtrie, B. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 3rd, 2024.

    Reflection on the state of AI integration in teaching and learning across the US

    Academic integrity

    Survey suggests students do not see use of AI as cheating

    Qiriazi, V. et al. University World News. December 11th, 2024. 

    Overview of topics discussed at the recent plenary of the Council of Europe Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education

    Focusing on GenAI detection is a no-win approach for instructors

    Berdahl, L. University Affairs. December 11th, 2024

    Reflection on potential equity, ethical, and workload implications of AI detection 

    The Goldilocks effect: finding ‘just right’ in the AI era

    MacCallum, K. Times Higher Education. October 28th, 2024. 

    Discussion on when AI use is ‘too much’ versus when it is ‘just right’, and how instructors can allow students to use GenAI tools while still maintaining ownership of their work

    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — January 2025

    HR and the Courts — January 2025

    by CUPA-HR | January 15, 2025

    Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

    Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team, SEIU Withdraw Union Petition

    In March 2024, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted 13-2 in favor of joining the Service Employees International Union Local 560 after the National Labor Relations Board regional director ruled that the players were employees eligible to vote in an NLRB-supervised representation election. On December 31, 2024, Local 560 pulled back its representation petition, and the NLRB will dismiss the case (Trustees of Dartmouth College (N.L.R.B. No. 01-RC-325633, Petition Withdrawn 12/31/24)).

    An SEIU spokesperson stated that they withdrew the petition to preserve the legal precedent of the NLRB regional director’s decision holding that the basketball players were employees of Dartmouth. While SEIU will no longer participate as the collective bargaining representative, the union claims it will pursue its goals via a change in tactics. Dartmouth maintains that the regional director’s decision ruling that the basketball players are employees is legally erroneous.

    The employee status of student-athletes is still subject to NLRB litigation in the University of Southern California and Pac-12 case. The NLRB is pursuing unfair labor practice charges against USC and the Pac-12 as joint employers following their refusal to bargain with a union on the grounds that basketball and football players are students and not employees. We will continue to follow developments in this area as they unfold.

    Federal Court Allows Muslim Professor to Proceed With Religious Discrimination Claim — Dismisses Age Discrimination Claim

    The plaintiff professor, an immigrant from Bosnia and a Muslim, has had a non-tenure-track position for more than a decade with Teachers College, Columbia University. She alleged in federal court that she was discriminated against because of her religion and age when the university did not offer her a tenured position. While the court allowed the religious discrimination and retaliation portions of the complaint to proceed, it dismissed her allegations that she was also denied the tenure-track position because of age and age-related comments (Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College (S.D.N.Y. No.-24-cv-2891, 12/5/24)).

    The plaintiff alleged that no Muslim professor has ever received a tenure-track position in Teachers College, despite many being qualified, and that university leaders made remarks that could be construed as anti-Muslim. The plaintiff claims that the university’s rationale for its decision — that she lacked peer-reviewed publications — is false. The court also allowed the plaintiff’s allegations that she was retaliated against by a salary reduction after she made her religious discrimination complaints to proceed, notwithstanding the university’s denial of such allegations.

    Employer Sued in Class Action for Allegedly Mismanaging Pension Fund

    An employee group has filed a class action lawsuit against a national sports retailer alleging that the employer violated pension plan rules. The employee group alleges REI used non-vested pension fund employee forfeitures to reduce contributions otherwise owed to other employees, rather than adhere to plan provisions requiring the employer to use the funds to pay amounts owed for rehired participants or to pay administrative expenses (Smith v. Recreational Equipment Inc. (W.D. Wash, No. 3:24-cv-03062, complaint, 12/17/24)). Plaintiffs propose to represent a class of 24,000 participant employees.

    Plaintiffs claim that the employer used more than $5.8 million in forfeitures incorrectly from 2018 to 2023. Similar claims along these lines have been litigated in other courts, with some courts dismissing the claims in favor of the employer and others allowing the litigation to continue. It appears to be an unsettled issue at this time.

    Judge Rules Terminated Athletic Director Entitled to Jury Trial Over Allegations of Sex and Age Discrimination — Case Dismissed Subject to a Confidential Settlement

    A university’s first woman athletic director, who was terminated for alleged poor athletic team performance, is entitled to have her claims of age and sex discrimination heard by a federal court jury. The plaintiff alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of age and sex when she was replaced by a man who was 27 years younger. The judge pointed to this in ruling that a jury could find in the plaintiff’s favor (Ford-Kee v. Miss. Valley State University (2024 BL 460757 N.D. Mis. No. 4:23-cv-00107, 12/17/24)).

    The university president testified that hundreds of people recommended that the athletic director be fired, but he refused to identify people calling for the termination. The court concluded that this did not evidence any discriminatory intent by the president, but it did raise the question of whether the president was influenced by discriminatory views of others. The plaintiff alleged that the poor team performance was an after-the-fact rationalization and that the university president was swayed by the “sexist” views of the athletic foundation and key alumni. The plaintiff claimed the president did not raise poor team performance as a reason for the termination during her final meeting, but rather stated it was time for a change.

    Bloomberg later reported that the parties reached a confidential settlement dismissing the case, which will no longer go to trial.

    Federal Appeals Court Rules No Private Right to Sue Under Law Prohibiting Employment Discrimination Against Marijuana Users

    Under the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Market Place Modernization Act (CREAMMA), employers are specifically prohibited from discriminating against workers over the age of 21 for their use or non-use of cannabis. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the decision of the federal trial court, dismissing the case in which the plaintiff alleged cannabis use employment discrimination (Zanetich v. Walmart Stores East Inc. (0:23-cv-01996, 3rd Cir. 12/9/24).

    The plaintiff alleged that his job offer was rescinded after he tested positive for cannabis use. Nonetheless the appeals court dismissed the case, holding that the CREAMMA statute contains no language creating or suggesting a private remedy. The appeals court also denied the plaintiff’s request to remand the case to the New Jersey Supreme Court so that the New Jersey court could interpret the statute. The appeals court concluded that the absence of an express remedy providing a private right to sue under CREAMMA was a deliberate choice of the legislature rather than an oversight.

    University Prevails in Gender Bias Claim Raised by Former Athletic Director

    The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split 2-1 decision, held that a university was entitled to a dismissal of a gender-based pay discrimination claim brought by the university’s former athletic director. The former athletic director claimed that her male successor was discriminatorily paid $170,000 annually compared to her last salary of $135,000. The court concluded that the university raised legitimate factors other than gender which led to its decision to pay the male athletic director more (Williams v. Alabama State University (11th Cir., No. 23-121692, unpublished, 12/23/24)). The majority of the three-judge appellate panel concluded that the university was justified in paying the male athletic director more because of his 10 years of experience in athletic administration leadership and because of his Ph.D. This compared to the plaintiff’s two years of relevant experience and a master’s degree.

    The appeals court pointed out that this is not a case of two employees being employed contemporaneously at different salaries to perform the same job. Rather, the court concluded that the employer met the salary demands of a more experienced leader for the job in order to secure him. One judge dissented from the decision to dismiss the case. The dissenting judge concluded that university leaders made a number of comments concerning this selection that a jury should be able to hear and consider.



    Source link

  • The Fifteen: January 10, 2025

    The Fifteen: January 10, 2025

    Our first Fifteen in the New Year! Although many institutions have been on winter break in recent weeks, numerous important stories from the world of higher education continue to unfold. This week on The Fifteen, we look at what’s happening around the globe. Enjoy!

    1. A thought-provoking post from the LSE Blog discusses whether traditional academics bring the ideal skills-set to institutional leadership positions as the UK PSE faces a financial crisis. Let’s look outside academia for university leaders. (LSE Blog)
    2. Staff at a UK university made a move to impeach the administration after they announced job cuts. Staff pass motion of no confidence in UEA executive. (BBC)
    3. Report from a US Conservative think-tank finds that US college accreditation is not an effective means of quality control and recommends scrapping it in favour of more general consumer protections to allow more new entrants to deliver higher education programs. Report: States Should Drop Accreditation Requirements for New Colleges. (AEI)
    4. Nazarbayev University in Kazakhstan was a pretty big deal when it opened 15 years ago. The President’s resignation in 2023 was something of a shock: here’s some interesting background to that story: The battle for Nazarbayev University’s future: Shigeo Katsu on financial mismanagement and accountability. (Eureporter)
    5. This is a quite fascinating look at a new venture which is attempting to create a network of universities across Eurasia and North Africa, in part by using course materials licensed form the ever-inventive Arizona State University. An experiment to watch. After bumpy start, ASU-backed university network picks up pace (Times Higher Education).
    6. A private Afrikaans university, Akademia, has been growing significantly since its establishment in 2012, and is now setting up a new campus. South Africa’s private Afrikaans university showing incredible growth. (BusinessTech)
    7. Finland is ramping up R&D spending, aiming to increase from 2.9% to 4% of GDP by 2030. The country hasn’t seen massive success in technology development since the days of Nokia: might this change soon? Will Finland’s big spending on R&D buy it the gift of growth? (Times Higher Education)
    8. Greece has a huge problem with students who enrol but simply neglect to finish their degrees. Rectors call for exemptions to law ousting university loafers. (ekathimerini.com)
    9. The Hungary-EU fight continues. The EU has been blocking funding from reaching institutions there due to concerns about the political influence of populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party. Hungarian universities stay blocked from EU grants despite appeal. (Times Higher Education)
    10. Belarus finds that being an international pariah is no barrier to increasing educational exports: BSU almost doubled exports of educational services in 2024. (SB News)
    11. Iran is very pleased at how its universities rank compared to those in countries it really shouldn’t be comparing itself against: Iran secures second place in D-8 universities ranking. (Tehran Times)
    12. Germany is trying to encourage PhD researchers to start their own companies with backing from a UK fund and a former Google exec. German innovation agency to fund spin-out focused PhDs. (Times Higher Education)
    13. Japan’s highly structured, seniority-based compensation system tends not to reward young people with very high levels of education. Result? A big drop in applicants to PhD programs. Now the government is experimenting with ways to make PhDs more financially appealing. Japan seeks to improve salary prospects for PhD graduates. (Times Higher Education)
    14. The Biden Administration has passed what is likely it’s final tranche of student loan forgiveness, this time for people enrolled in what is known as the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. Biden-Harris Administration Approves Additional $4.28 Billion in Student Debt Relief for Nearly 55,000 Public Service Workers. (US Department of Education)
    15. A working paper put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that American academics have (for several decades at least) been disproportionately drawn from better-off families, particularly in the humanities. Climbing the Ivory Tower: How socio-economic background shapes academia. (NBER)

    The post The Fifteen: January 10, 2025 appeared first on HESA.

    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — January 2024 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — January 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2024

    Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

    Medical School Surgeon Awarded $15 Million in Damages Resulting From Biased Harassment Investigation

    A federal trial court jury awarded a medical school surgeon $15 million in damages. The jury concluded that the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital medical school’s sex harassment investigation of the plaintiff, who was accused of harassment and sexually assaulting a female medical school resident, was biased against males (Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, et al (Case No. 2:20-cv-02967, E.D. Pa. 12/11/23)). The plaintiff claimed that prior to the incident, he had an “unblemished” reputation. He claimed that due to the medical school’s mishandling of the disciplinary proceeding, he had been labelled a “rapist,” had been ostracized by professional colleagues, and had suffered damages to his livelihood.

    The incident, subject to the lawsuit, involved a pool party at the plaintiff’s home in 2018. The plaintiff alleged that the medical resident became sexually aggressive toward him without his consent, and he was too intoxicated to resist. The plaintiff claims to have reported the incident to the hospital and found that the resident had filed a complaint against him, which resulted in the allegedly anti-male biased investigation and proceedings. Prior to the verdict, the medical school filed a motion for mistrial, alleging that the “belligerent” treatment of the court by the plaintiff’s counsel unduly influenced the jury. As of writing, there has been no action on the defendant’s motion.

    LSU Associate Athletic Director Claims Race and Sex Discrimination, Retaliation, and Hostile Work Environment in Lawsuit

    A federal district court judge granted partial summary judgement dismissing some charges brought against Louisiana State University by a terminated, former associate athletic director, but allowed some allegations of race and sex retaliatory discrimination and hostile work environment to move forward to a jury trial against the university’s board of supervisors (Lewis v. Board of Supervisors, Louisiana State University (2023 BL 437930, M.D. La., No. 3-21-cv-00198, Partial summary judgement, 12/1/23)).

    The university argued that the former associate athletic director was fired in a shake-up made by a new university football coach, which had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race or sex. However, the new coach denied at deposition that he made the decision to fire the associate athletic director, creating a factual dispute that the court ruled should go to a jury. The federal judge concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations of a sexually hostile work environment should proceed to a jury trial as well as the allegations that she was denied a pay raise and ultimately fired because she is a Black woman.

    NCAA Proposes Plan to Allow Institutions to Pay Student-Athletes

    The NCAA proposed a plan in December 2023 to allow some institutions to invest at least $30,000 into an educational trust for at least half of their student-athletes to address the ongoing controversy over payments to student-athletes. Commentators point out that there will be many challenges to the new plan, including possibly running afoul of Title IX. Moreover, the plan will not make the pending Fair Labor Standards Act and National Labor Relations Act student-athlete claims go away.

    Commentators also point out that the proposal does not address the pending class action damage claim filed against the NCAA in the name, image and likeness (NIL) litigation, which is scheduled for trial in January 2025. Plaintiffs in that class action are claiming damages of $4.5 billion as a result of the NCAA’s past ban on NIL payments, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston in August 2021 on anti-trust grounds.

    Federal Judge Rejects Religious Discrimination Claim Against Princeton

    A federal district court judge recently granted a motion to dismiss filed by Princeton University in a case brought by a former budget analyst who claims she was fired because of her religious beliefs when she refused to comply with COVID-19 protocols, including wearing a mask (McKinley . Princeton University (Case No. 3:22-cv-05069, D. N.J. 15/5/23)).

    The case was initially dismissed because the complaint did not mention any specific religion or set of beliefs. The court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to refile and correct that omission. The plaintiff’s amended complaint contained allegations that “my body is my temple” and “decries… any and all abuse against life.” In dismissing the case, the judge concluded that the plaintiff’s beliefs appear to be a collection of general moral commandments. The court found that the plaintiff’s personal moral code and beliefs do not constitute a comprehensive system of beliefs that could be called a religion.

    Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Former UMass Soccer Coach’s Age Discrimination Case

    A Massachusetts state appeals court reversed the dismissal of a former women’s soccer coach’s age discrimination complaint (Matz v. University of Massachusetts–Amherst (Mass App Ct No. 22-P-1162, 12/7/23)). The coach, who was 51 years old, filed the claim alleging that his termination was because the university wanted to hire a younger coach and that the stated reasons for his termination were a pretext.

    In dismissing the case, the university claimed the coach was terminated because of “an undisputed poor record” and “student criticism of his coaching abilities.” The appellate court recognized that the coach’s performance review concluded that he needed improvement and that there were student criticisms of his coaching abilities. Nonetheless, the appellate court held that the record contains “numerous positive reviews, inconsistent with the [2015 season] criticisms,” from which a jury could find he was terminated because of his age. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff raised a claim by a member of a protected class, who was performing his job sufficiently, and his allegations could raise reasonable speculation about discrimination.

    California Jury Awards Nurse $41.5 million in Damages in Retaliatory Discharge, Whistleblower Case

    A neonatal intensive care nurse who was fired after 30 years of service to her employer was awarded a California jury verdict of $41.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages as a result of her discharge, which she claimed was in retaliation for raising safety issues. The California state court jury awarded the plaintiff $1.3 million in lost wages, $1.2 million in future lost wages, $1.5 million in past mental suffering, $7.5 million in future mental suffering, $15 million in punitive damages against the hospital, and $15 million in punitive damages against the Kaiser Foundation.

    According to the hospital, the plaintiff was fired after she was found reclining in the neonatal unit, talking on her personal phone with her feet resting on an isolette that had a neonatal infant inside. The plaintiff claimed that the stated reason for discharge was a pretext and that the real reason for her discharge was that she reported a supervisor who refused to report that the father of a patient was present in the hospital with a knife, creating an unsafe situation in the hospital (Gatchalian v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals et. al. (Case No.  21STCV15300 Ca. Sup Ct. L.A. Cty. Jury Verdict 12/16/23)).



    Source link