Tag: Jobs

Why I Teach in Prison (opinion)

When people hear that I teach sociology in a maximum-security prison, they often ask if I’m afraid. Then they assume I enter the prison, share knowledge and transform incarcerated students. That’s not the story I’m telling. The real transformation isn’t theirs. It’s mine.

For more than a decade, I have facilitated prison programs and worked with individuals who have been impacted by the justice system. For the past three years, I have made the hour-long drive, passed barbed-wire fences, walked through metal detectors and taken the escorted journey to the education wing of a Connecticut state prison to teach college-level sociology.

My desire to work with people in prison honors those who protected me, allowing me to survive, thrive and give something back. I grew up in Harlem during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. Public housing was my home. The stench of urine in the elevators, the hunger-inducing aroma of fried food wafting through the hallways, the ever-present sound of sirens and the fear of dying young all shaped my early years. Yet, amid these challenges, I also experienced love and protection.

Many of the older guys on my block were deeply involved in street life. However, they saw something in me. They never attempted to pull me into their activities. Instead, they ensured I stayed away. They often said, “Nah, you’re smart. You’re gonna do something with your life.” That kind of protection and love doesn’t appear in statistics or stories about the hood, but it saved me.

I didn’t make it out because I was exceptional. I made it because people believed in me. They helped me imagine a different life. I carry their love with me when I step into that prison classroom. I teach because I owe a debt—not in a way that burdens me, but in a way that allows me to walk in my purpose and see people through the same lens of possibility that allowed me to live my dreams.

Entering the prison each week requires mental preparation. Before the lesson begins, I go through multiple security checks. Doors buzz open and lock behind me. I never get comfortable with the experience, even though I know I will leave at the end of class. I often describe teaching in prison as a beautiful-sad experience. It’s beautiful because of the energy and connection in the classroom. It’s sad because many of my students may never see life beyond the gates.

These men, some of whom have already served decades, come ready to engage. We break down theories of race, class, power, socialization, patriarchy and other related concepts. We analyze films, question systems and interrogate assumptions. But what stays with me most are the unscripted moments, like when someone connects a sociological theory to their own story and says, “This sounds like what happened to me.”

One of the most unforgettable moments came during a group debate assignment. I divided the class into small groups and asked them to analyze a text using different sociological theories. I stepped back and simply observed. I saw a group of 15 men serving long sentences, passionately debating whether structural strain theory, social learning theory or a Marxist conflict perspective was the best lens for analysis. These weren’t surface-level conversations. They were sharp, layered and theoretically rigorous. At that moment, I told them, “This is what the world doesn’t get to see.”

People carry assumptions about incarcerated individuals and what they are capable of. But they don’t see these men breaking down theories, challenging one another and demonstrating intellectual brilliance. We cannot record inside the prison, so moments like this remain confined to the room. But they are real. And they matter.

Another day, I asked students to reflect on the last time they cried or heard someone say, “I love you.” One student responded, “I don’t cry. Crying doesn’t change anything.” A week later, after completing an assignment to write a letter to his younger self, that same student began reading aloud to his 8-year-old self and broke down in tears. No one laughed. No one turned away. The other men gave him their attention, encouragement and support. In that room, we created a space where his vulnerability was met with care, even inside the walls of a prison.

These experiences forced me to confront my purpose. I stopped seeing myself solely as a professor or administrator. I reflected on what it means to serve and show up for people who’ve been pushed to the edges of society. I began to question the boundaries we draw between campus and community. Universities, especially those with the most resources, need to be more than institutions of learning for those lucky enough to be admitted. We are called to be and do more.

Throughout my career, I’ve worked to ensure my spheres of influence extend beyond the edge of campus. I’ve leveraged my position to build bridges by connecting faculty and students to re-entry programs, supporting formerly incarcerated scholars and creating opportunities for others to teach inside. Teaching in prison has made me more grounded. As a sociologist, I am keenly aware of how little separates my students’ lives from mine and how my path could have easily been theirs.

The United States leads the world in incarceration, holding more than 20 percent of the world’s prisoners despite representing less than 5 percent of the world’s population. According to the Prison Policy Initiative and the American Civil Liberties Union, many incarcerated people come from overpoliced, underresourced communities like the one I grew up in.

Yet even with this reality, some argue that people in prison don’t deserve education—that offering college courses to incarcerated individuals is a misuse of resources. I’ve heard those arguments, and I reject them. Education in prison isn’t special treatment. It’s human dignity. It’s recognizing that people can and do change when given the tools to reflect, grow and imagine a life beyond a perpetual existence in survival mode.

If higher education is serious about equity and access, we cannot limit our classrooms to students with perfect transcripts and traditional résumés. The men I teach do not need saving. They need space to grow, question and contribute. And our institutions need them, because any university that claims to care about justice, resilience or humanity cannot ignore the people our country has locked away.

Every day, I am reminded that none of my accomplishments happened in isolation. I think about what it means to repay a debt on which you cannot put a dollar amount. I think about honoring those who believed in me before I believed in myself. I’ve stood on the shoulders of people who never had the opportunities I did. I carry their investment into every space I enter, especially those where others have been forgotten.

One of the lessons I’ve held onto is this: The gifts we have are not for us to keep. They’re meant to be shared. Teaching in prison is my way of honoring that truth.

Don C. Sawyer III is an associate professor of sociology and vice president of diversity, inclusion and belonging at Fairfield University.

Source link

July 18, 2025
Colleges Need to Tell Their Stories, Then Live Up to Them

According to Gallup, after reaching an all-time low in the past two years, American confidence in higher education has risen to where those expressing “quite a lot” or “a great deal” of confidence is now 42 percent (up from 36 percent), while those with little or no confidence has decreased from 32 percent to 23 percent.

A poll out of New America shows that Democrats and Republicans align with about 42 percent of respondents from both parties saying that higher education is “fine as it is.”

Higher education appears to be experiencing the “thermostatic model” of public opinion, where opinion moves in opposition to government action. The Trump administration attacks on higher ed have triggered some measure of backlash among public opinion, creating a certain rallying effect around the sector. Republicans saying that higher ed is “fine as it is” is essentially a declaration that they’d like to see institutions left alone.

Considering the scope and severity of the attacks, this is not particularly good news, but it is interesting news, and it is news that higher ed institutions should note and make use of moving forward. One of the realities I think everyone in higher ed must embrace is that the future is going to be different from the past and attempts to return to the past are unlikely to be successful, particularly since the return will be predicated on a rose-colored-glasses view of that past, rather than recognizing the real tensions prior to the present assault.

I am a believer in the thinking of Brendan Cantwell, a Michigan State professor who works on issues of institutional structure and operations and who believes in an “impoverished” future. As Cantwell says, “I do not believe Trump will be able to destroy American higher education, but his administration will try, and the sector will suffer.”

The aftermath of the suffering and how public opinion may ameliorate that suffering is what we’re talking about here.

During my post–grad school career as a market research consultant, I learned about something called SWOT analysis, where you draw a plus sign to make four quadrants, headlining the individual boxes with “strengths,” “weaknesses,” “opportunities” and “threats” and then listing the things you can think of that fit under the different categories in the individual boxes.

I will admit, I rolled my eyes the first time I witnessed this exercise, and continued to roll my eyes many times after that, because it often felt like a SWOT analysis was just something to do because you have to do something, rather than a truly useful tool.

For example, when “no one likes our product because it doesn’t work like we claim” is in the weakness category, whatever you might find in the opportunity box isn’t relevant.

That said, when there is something solid and meaningful at the core, threats often do come bundled with opportunities. My messaging around teaching writing and large language models has been to acknowledge the threat, but also to suggest that the existence of these text extruders can be viewed as an opportunity to move toward work that is meaningful to humans.

If we are in the midst of a rise in positive feeling toward higher education, the opportunity to shape public opinion around the attacks and to bolster the defenses must be seized.

Deeper in the data from New America, we see specific alignment around what institutions should be doing. As reported by Kathryn Palmer here at IHE, interpreting the results, “the vast majority of Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats, believe higher education should function as more than a transaction. They say it should not only equip students with the skills and knowledge to succeed in their chosen fields (97 percent of Democrats; 98 percent of Republicans), but also help students become informed citizens (97 percent of Democrats; 89 percent of Republicans) and critical thinkers (97 percent of Democrats; 92 percent of Republicans).”

People also want colleges and universities to do what colleges and universities do. They believe in education and opportunity and research and helping people reach their potential. Those of us who work within or are close observers of higher education understand that while these institutions are significantly flawed and could do better at this work, they also, often and for millions of people … work.

It’s important to recognize that this increased confidence has nothing to do with actions universities have taken thus far. If thermostatic politics are at work—and I think the evidence is significant—it is the outside attacks that have fueled it. It seems as though figures like Chris Rufo are overplaying their hand, as he did again recently in a statement published at the Manhattan Institute in which he declares, “Now, the truth is undeniable. Beginning with the George Floyd riots and culminating in the celebration of the Hamas terror campaign, the institutions of higher education finally ripped off the mask and revealed their animating spirit: racialism, ideology, chaos.”

The recent public opinion polling cited above suggests that a core plurality or majority of the public does not believe this. This is an opportunity.

The unfortunate wrinkle in seizing this opportunity is that what bipartisan supermajorities want from higher ed institutions (skills and knowledge to succeed, informed citizens, critical thinkers) is open to many different interpretations when it comes to actual institutional operations.

Indiana University has recently pivoted to becoming a place where the humanities are almost absent. Those currently in power at the University of Virginia are apparently trying to revivify the past, when it was primarily a finishing school for landed gentry. Florida has put their money down on being “anti-woke.”

Some schools will insist that the future is AI. Others will go the opposite way. As vague as those public desires are, and as unhelpful as they are in determining the specific path an institution must take, they are an excellent guide for how to frame the work of your institution, whatever it might be doing.

It is also a way to push back against things like the gutting of the student loan program, an initiative that will make it hard to impossible to do these things everyone wants colleges to do.

The assault on universities, first prosecuted by people like Rufo and partially fueled—whether intentional or not—by groups like Heterodox Academy before being put to work by Trump, was a narrative not really based in reality but sufficiently plausible to enough people to make things happen.

Resistance starts with a counternarrative. We have enough data to get going.

Source link

July 18, 2025
An Ultrarunner’s View on Higher Ed Leadership (opinion)

Last weekend, I completed my third 12-hour ultramarathon, finally achieving my goal of logging 50 miles (51.3 miles, to be exact!). For the past two years, I’ve finished the same course with exactly 47.5 miles each time. This year’s personal best felt both within reach and incredibly distant during my training. Reaching it required not just physical preparation, but strategic thinking and flexibility.

Leading up to the race, as I fine-tuned my training plan, adjusted my fueling strategy and mapped out rest intervals, I was struck by how much this preparation mirrors the leadership challenges in higher education today. Just as I could not control the weather on race day or predict which mile would test my resolve, today’s college and university leaders cannot anticipate every funding cut, technological disruption or student crisis that will demand our immediate attention and creative response.

The parallels run deep. Both ultrarunning and higher education leadership require what I’ve come to recognize as “adaptive preparation”—the ability to plan meticulously while remaining nimble enough to pivot when circumstances change.

Scenario Planning on the Trail and in the Boardroom

During my ultramarathon training, I spend considerable time visualizing different race-day scenarios. What if temperatures soar beyond those forecasted? What if my nutrition strategy fails at mile 30? What if an injury forces me to completely restructure my pacing? These aren’t pessimistic exercises—they’re strategic preparations that allow me to respond rather than react when challenges arise.

Higher education leaders must engage in similar scenario planning, particularly as we navigate an increasingly volatile landscape. Will federal funding for essential student support programs face cuts? How will evolving AI capabilities reshape our academic programs, student support services and the ways we engage with donors?

Just as I map out multiple fueling stations and gear adjustments, we must develop multiple contingency plans for our institutions. The leader who only prepares for the best-case scenario—whether on a 50-mile trail or in a strategic planning meeting—will find themselves unprepared when reality delivers its inevitable surprises.

The Creativity of Endurance

People often assume ultrarunning is about grinding through pain with sheer determination. While mental toughness matters, the most successful ultrarunners are creative problem-solvers. When your planned nutrition strategy isn’t working at mile 25, you don’t quit—you improvise. When equipment fails, you find workarounds.

This creative problem-solving has become essential for higher education leaders. Traditional approaches to student retention and institutional sustainability aren’t sufficient in our current environment. We need leaders who can think like ultrarunners: methodical in preparation, creative in execution and resilient in the face of setbacks.

Consider how institutions have had to reinvent student support services in response to changing needs. At Holyoke Community College, our foundation exemplifies this adaptive creativity. Rather than limiting support to traditional scholarships, the HCC Foundation distributed more than $5.5 million this past year across an innovative spectrum of student and institutional needs: a six-week faculty training program on trauma-informed practices, a menstrual equity initiative ensuring feminine products are available in high-traffic restrooms, funding for student travel to leadership development conferences and essential equipment for theater, science labs and our radio station. Like that runner who creatively problem-solves when their original strategy isn’t working, our foundation recognized that supporting today’s students requires addressing the full ecosystem of their educational experience, not just the financial barriers.

The Collaborative Nature of Solitary Pursuits

Ultrarunning appears to be the ultimate individual challenge, but successful runners know better. Every long training run depends on a network of support: the running group that motivates you through dark winter mornings, the crew that will meet you at aid stations, the community that shares advice and encouragement. Even in the loneliest miles of a race, you’re drawing on collective wisdom and support.

Higher education leadership, despite its often-isolating responsibilities, must embrace this same collaborative spirit. The challenges facing our institutions—from enrollment pressures to mental health crises to technological disruption—are too complex for any single leader to solve alone. We need cross-functional teams that can respond as dynamically as an ultrarunner adjusting strategy midrace.

The most effective higher education leaders I know have built networks that extend far beyond their campus boundaries. They’re learning from peers at other institutions, collaborating with community partners and drawing insights from sectors beyond academia. Like ultrarunners who study the strategies of athletes in other endurance sports, these leaders understand that innovation often comes from unexpected sources.

Training for the Unknown

As I prepared for my 50-mile goal, I knew that no amount of training can eliminate uncertainty. Weather patterns can shift, my body might respond differently than expected and race-day dynamics will present challenges I hadn’t anticipated. The certainty of uncertainty is precisely why my training needed to be comprehensive and adaptable.

The same principle applies to higher education leadership. We cannot predict every challenge our institutions will face, but we can develop the skills and mindsets necessary to respond effectively. This means building diverse teams, fostering cultures of innovation and maintaining the kind of institutional fitness that allows for quick pivots when circumstances demand them.

The leaders who will guide higher education through its current transformation are those who understand that preparation and flexibility aren’t opposing forces—they’re complementary strengths. Like ultrarunners who train obsessively while remaining ready to throw out their race plan if conditions change, effective leaders combine rigorous planning with adaptive execution.

The question, on race day or in our day-to-day work, isn’t whether we’ll face unexpected obstacles. The question is whether we’ve developed the endurance, creativity and collaborative spirit necessary to navigate them successfully. In both arenas, the longest distances are covered not by those who avoid challenges, but by those who have learned to run through them.

Amanda E. Sbriscia, Ed.D., is vice president for institutional advancement and executive director of the HCC Foundation at Holyoke Community College.

Source link

July 18, 2025
4 Things to Know About In-State Tuition for Noncitizens

Undocumented students who grew up in the U.S. were allowed to pay in-state college tuition in roughly half of states. But now those benefits are under attack, and some states are walking back their policies, leaving thousands of students scrambling.

This summer, the U.S. Department of Justice sued three states—Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas—over laws that permit noncitizens who grew up in these states to pay the same rates as their peers.

In a shocking move, Texas sided with the federal government within hours of the first lawsuit in June, abruptly ending in-state tuition for noncitizens in the state. Now undocumented students in Texas and multiple civil rights groups are seeking to intervene and reopen the case. They argue Republican state lawmakers and the federal government colluded to reach a speedy resolution, and affected students didn’t get to have their day in court.

The defendants in the Kentucky case—Gov. Andy Beshear, Commissioner of Education Robbie Fletcher and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education—have until mid-August to respond to an amended complaint from the DOJ. The Minnesota lawsuit has been assigned to a federal district judge. Gov. Tim Walz, Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison and the Minnesota Office of Higher Education received a summons in late June.

The rash of lawsuits comes after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April calling for a crackdown on sanctuary cities and state laws unlawfully “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” citing in-state tuition benefits for noncitizens as an example. The recent DOJ lawsuits allege that these state laws favor undocumented students over American out-of-state students.

As these in-state tuition policies become a political flashpoint across the country, here’s what you need to know about them.

1. These laws are more than two decades old.

Texas became the first state to offer in-state tuition rates to certain undocumented students in 2001 when the Texas Dream Act was signed into law. California soon followed, enacting a similar law later that same year.

Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have such policies, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal. Another four states allow in-state tuition rates for noncitizens at some but not all public universities. And five states permit in-state tuition only for participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. For about a decade, Florida also allowed in-state tuition for undocumented students who met certain requirements, but the state rolled back the policy earlier this year.

2. They’ve historically been bipartisan.

While in-state tuition for noncitizens has become a politically polarizing issue, these policies historically enjoyed broad support from state lawmakers of both parties. Republican and Democratic advocates argued that helping undocumented students who attended local high schools go to college would set these students on career paths that benefit state economies. Opponents now argue these laws incentivize illegal immigration.

The Texas Dream Act was signed by Republican governor Rick Perry 24 years ago. He stood by the policy during his 2012 run for president, despite pushback.

“If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought there through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said during a 2011 Republican primary debate. “We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society.”

Perry opposed the federal DREAM Act, which would have created a pathway to citizenship, but advocated for in-state tuition decisions to be left up to states.

The author of Oklahoma’s in-state tuition law, enacted in 2007, was also a Republican lawmaker, Oklahoma representative Randy Terrill. His bill, which won bipartisan support in the state House and Senate, was signed into law by Democratic governor Brad Henry.

Florida Republican governor Rick Scott signed a similar law in 2014, which was scrapped as part of broader immigration legislation signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year.

When asked about the prospect of the law’s repeal in 2023, Scott told The Florida Phoenix he was “proud” to have signed the bill and “would sign [it] again today.”

Other Republicans rescinded their support.

“It’s time to repeal this law,” Jeanette Nuñez, former lieutenant governor of Florida and current president of Florida International University, wrote on X shortly before the law’s demise. “It has served its purpose and run its course.”

3. Undocumented students must meet specific criteria in each state to qualify.

Each state law comes with different requirements, but undocumented students generally need to prove they’ve lived in a state for a significant amount of time and attended local high schools to qualify for in-state tuition benefits.

For example, in Oklahoma, noncitizens must have graduated from an Oklahoma high school and spent two years with a parent or guardian in the state while taking classes. They also must sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal status when able or show proof they’ve already petitioned U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for legal status.

Undocumented students in Washington State must have spent their senior year at a local high school or earned a G.E.D. in the state, live in the state for at least three consecutive years, as of the date they graduated, and pledge to seek legal permanent residency as soon as legally possible.

4. The laws are designed to also apply to citizens.

These in-state tuition laws are typically crafted to offer in-state tuition rates to students who meet their specific criteria—regardless of immigration status.

That means, in California, for example, any nonresident who spent three years in California high schools is eligible for in-state tuition. So, the policy not only applies to undocumented students but also U.S. citizens who perhaps grew up in the state but may have left and returned for any reason.

Similarly, before the Texas law was dismantled, out-of-state students could gain residency and eligibility for in-state tuition if they graduated from a Texas high school and spent at least three years prior in the state. The policy benefited citizens born and raised in Texas whose parents moved out of the state before they enrolled in college, according to an amicus brief filed by the Intercultural Development Research Association in 2022, when the law faced a legal challenge from the Young Conservatives of Texas.

Advocates for these policies say that’s why they don’t violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which prohibits states from providing higher ed benefits to undocumented immigrants unless citizens are also eligible. Trump cited the federal statute in his executive order.

Over the years, these laws have been challenged multiple times in court, but until the DOJ’s lawsuit against Texas, none succeeded.

Source link

July 18, 2025
Humanities Students Participate in Faculty-Led Research

On-campus engagement is one metric that can predict student success, but external factors including needing to work, caretaking responsibilities or living off campus can hinder students’ participation in activities.

At Stony Brook University, part of the State University of New York system, institutional data showed retention rates lagged for students in the humanities and social science disciplines. In response, leaders created several programs to incentivize students in those majors to build relationships with others in their field and engage in hands-on work.

Three Stony Brook leaders—Tiana De Jesus, lead academic success advisor and retention specialist; Richard Tomczak, director of faculty engagement; and Jennifer Rodriguez, associate director of the student success and retention center—shared details of the program and initial results at NASPA’s Student Success in Higher Education conference in Denver last month.

The background: The Undergraduate Retention Initiatives and Success Engagement (U-RISE) office houses a variety of innovative retention supports, including a research lab, called SSTAR, and re-engagement advising.

One of the more recent projects the staff at SSTAR—short for Student Success Through Applied Research—have taken on is addressing gaps in retention for non-STEM students.

University data pointed to six majors in the humanities and social sciences with the lowest retention rates as well as relatively high admission rates of students with lower grade point averages from high school.

Research shows that students who are engaged on campus are more likely to feel a deep sense of belonging and establish meaningful relationships with peers and faculty, as well as develop career skills. Students who have a strong sense of belonging in their major program are also more likely to have higher retention rates and levels of faculty connection.

SSTAR team members sought to foster relationships between students and their instructors, improve students’ academic readiness and provide financial support to ensure equitable retention for students across socioeconomic groups.

A National Picture

Research from the Student Experience in the Research University Consortium at the University of California, Berkeley, found fewer students participating in faculty-led research post-pandemic compared to their peers enrolled in 2019, showing a gap in experiential learning opportunities.

One of the more common reasons why students are unable to take on research roles is a lack of pay or needing to work for pay. A significant number of colleges have established financial aid for students to receive a stipend for participating in unpaid or underpaid experiential learning opportunities, ensuring the inability to pay does not prevent participation.

To accomplish these goals, campus leaders created three interventions: research assistantship positions in faculty-led research, a first-year seminar for academic preparation and paid on-campus jobs for humanities students.

In focus: This past spring, Stony Brook hired 12 first-year students out of an application pool of over 100 to serve as research assistants. Each student was matched with a faculty member from one of a variety of departments, including English, art, history, linguistics and Asian and Asian American studies. Research assistants committed to eight to 10 hours of work per week and were paid a stipend. Funding came from the provost’s office.

The projects varied; one English and sociology student analyzed TikTok videos of social activists to challenge stereotypes, while an English and psychology student trained artificial intelligence on European literature from the 1700s, according to a university press release.

The impact: Across interventions, students who participated in the programs were more likely to say they feel connected to their peers, see the value of their degree and intend to persist, according to pre- and post-survey data.

Many students said the experiences helped open their eyes to the career and research opportunities available to them in their field and made them feel faculty were more accessible to them. Of the students who participated in the three interventions, 92.8 percent enrolled as a sophomore the following year, compared to 91.8 percent of their peers who didn’t participate, surpassing the university’s 92 percent retention goal. Students also had higher cumulative GPAs, showing a correlation between engagement and academic achievement.

An unexpected finding was that before participating in the program, many students said they felt stigmatized for their major choice (Stony Brook is a majority of STEM learners), but afterward they felt more connected to those in similar fields, even if not in their exact major.

In the future, researchers hope to recruit a larger number of students and expand their work to other humanities and social sciences majors.

Source link

July 18, 2025
Navajo Nation Considers Higher Ed Funding Boost

A month after President Donald Trump proposed slashing some $105 million in federal funding for tribal colleges next year, the Navajo Nation is considering legislation that would provide $30 million in recurring annual funding for tribal colleges and scholarships, Native News Online reported Thursday.

The Health, Education and Human Services Committee of the 25th Navajo Nation Council passed the proposal earlier this week, but it still has to get the approval of the full council. If it does, Diné College, Navajo Technical University and the Office of Navajo Nation Scholarship and Financial Assistance would each get $10 million a year beginning in 2027, potentially indefinitely.

The plan would more than double the current funding allocations for those institutions, which receive a total of $12.4 million from the Navajo Nation. Each one would be required to put at least 1 percent of the $10 million allocation toward support for Diné language teacher programs, institutional endowments and K–12 education pipeline efforts.

According to Council Delegate Andy Nez, who sponsored the legislation, fewer than half of Navajo students who apply for scholarships through ONNSFA get one.

“This legislation provides a stable source of funding that directly supports our students and institutions, while investing in the longevity of learners and Diné speakers,” he told Native News Online. “We are moving beyond limited five- or 10-year grants to a consistent, annual allocation. This ensures funds go directly to the institutions and scholarship office without delay.”

(This story has been updated to correct the amount of federal funding cut.)

Source link

July 18, 2025
New Michigan Law Essay Prompt Asks Applicants to Use AI

The prompt is one of 10 options for a supplemental essay.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Gazanfer and InspirationGP/iStock/Getty Images

In 2023, the University of Michigan Law School made headlines for its policy banning applicants from using generative AI to write their admissions essays.

Now, two admissions cycles later, the law school is not only allowing AI responses but actually mandating the use of AI—at least for one optional essay.

For those applying this fall, the law school added a supplemental essay prompt that asks students about their AI usage and how they see that changing in law school—and requires them to use AI to develop their response. (Applicants may write up to two supplemental essays, selected from 10 prompt options in total.)

“TO BE ANSWERED USING GENERATIVE AI: How much do you use generative AI tools such as ChatGPT right now? What’s your prediction for how much you will use them by the time you graduate from law school? Why?” the prompt asks.

Sarah Zearfoss, senior assistant dean at the University of Michigan Law School, said she was inspired to include such a question after hearing frequent anecdotes over the past year about law firms using AI to craft emails or short motions.

Indeed, in a survey released by the American Bar Association earlier this year, 30 percent of all law firms reported that they use AI tools; among law firms with over 100 employees, the share is 46 percent.

But many have been derailed by the same well-documented hallucinations that have plagued other AI users. Judges have sanctioned numerous lawyers over the past several years because their use of AI resulted in filings riddled with imaginary cases and quotations. That makes it all the more important to evaluate whether prospective students are able to use AI tools responsibly and effectively, the law school believes.

“That is now a skill that … probably not all legal employers, but big law firms, are looking for in their incoming associates,” Zearfoss said in an interview. “So I thought it would be interesting: If we have applicants who have that skill, let’s give them an opportunity to demonstrate it.”

Michigan Law still disallows applicants from using AI writing tools when they compose their personal statements and for all other supplemental essay questions, which Zearfoss hopes will allow her to compare applicants’ writing with AI’s assistance to their writing without it.

Is AI Inevitable for Lawyers?

Frances M. Green, an attorney with Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., who specializes in AI, told Inside Higher Ed that she believes the ability to use and engage with AI will eventually become a required skill for all lawyers. That doesn’t mean just using it to write court filings but also understanding how to manage the use of AI-generated evidence—say, the notes of a physician who uses AI technology to listen to and summarize appointments, rather than old-fashioned, handwritten doctors’ notes.

“I believe lawyers who use AI will replace lawyers who don’t,” she said. “I think that is very, very true. And judges even, in some jurisdictions, are encouraging the use of artificial intelligence tools.”

Even so, Green noted that she doesn’t really like how Michigan’s question is phrased, because applicants may be inclined to over- or understate how much they use AI based on what they think the admissions officer is looking for.

But Melanie Dusseau, an English professor at the University of Findlay in Ohio and a critic of AI, questioned the prompts’ utility in actually evaluating if a student is well-suited for law school.

“A law school application is a showcase of a student’s language abilities, their passion for lively rhetoric, logic, and captivating narrative. Do reviewers want to know how well future lawyers can prompt a bot [to] turn its beige copyslop into something compelling, or how well they can write? And which would be more important in a law school application?” she wrote in an email. “Since LLMs are fawning sycophants, at least tonally, I would imagine that future lawyers would do better to polish their persuasive writing chops without automation.”

Zearfoss is not a prolific AI user herself; once she decided she wanted to include an essay option related to AI, she recruited the help of another Michigan Law professor, Patrick Barry, who teaches a course on lawyering in the age of AI, to help compose the question itself.

She expects the essays will reveal uses of and perspectives on AI that she never would have been exposed to otherwise.

“I’m always excited when an essay teaches me something, but I don’t really expect that—it’s sort of a bonus, right?” she said. “But I think with this particular prompt, I assume a high percentage of the essays will be teaching me something.”

Source link

July 18, 2025
Republicans Denounce Georgetown Professor for Post on Iran

On June 22, the United States bombed Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. Observers wondered whether it was the start of another lengthy, destructive American war in the Middle East.

Hours later, a conservative social media account with more than 4.3 million followers highlighted one response—allegedly from a Georgetown University professor. According to a screenshot the Libs of TikTok X account posted, Jonathan Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization, had written on X, “I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops.”

Tagging the university’s X account, Libs of TikTok summarized it this way: “Professor at Georgetown University @Georgetown says he hopes Iran strikes a US base.”

What transpired is becoming a familiar story in U.S. higher education: Conservatives denounce a faculty member’s speech, members of Congress join in and eventually pressure a prestigious university’s president to publicly denounce and punish the scholar.

In his own June 22 X post, Congressman Randy Fine, a Florida Republican whom Gov. Ron DeSantis previously wanted to lead Florida Atlantic University, noted that Georgetown interim president Robert M. Groves was scheduled to testify before the House Education and Workforce Committee, which he did on Tuesday.

“This demon had better be gone by then,” Fine wrote of Brown. “We have a Muslim problem in America.”

A June 23 Iranian strike that appeared symbolic did mark the end of the conflict. President Trump said Iran had forewarned the U.S. about the coming attack on a U.S. base in Qatar, allowing Americans to avoid any casualties. But, unlike that fight’s swift end, the battle over Brown’s social media post has dragged on.

At the House committee’s hearing this week, former committee chair Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, asked Groves about Brown, who works in Georgetown’s respected School of Foreign Service. “Is this person really suited to be educating the next generation of American diplomats?” she said.

Groves didn’t respond that this was a personnel matter he couldn’t discuss. Like former Columbia University president Minouche Shafik did in front of the same committee last year, he discussed actions the university was taking regarding his employee.

“Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted Professor Brown, the tweet was removed, we issued a statement condemning the tweet, Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department and he’s on leave, and we’re beginning a process of reviewing the case,” Groves said.

“You are now investigating and disciplining him?” Foxx asked.

“Y-yes, Congresswoman,” Groves said.

He responded differently to a question from another Republican about Georgetown employee Mobashra Tazamal, an associate director of an Islamophobia research project who allegedly reposted a statement that said, “Israel has been recreating Auschwitz in Gaza for two years.” In that case, Groves said he rejected the statement but added, “That’s behavior covered under the First Amendment on social media that we don’t intervene on.”

‘Willful Misreading’

Greg Afinogenov, an associate history professor and president of Georgetown’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said Brown has received “death threats, his family has come under attack and members of the university administration have also criticized him and disavowed him.”

Afinogenov said the university should clarify that Brown’s post was “protected speech.”

The university didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview or answer most written questions Thursday. In an email, a university spokesperson said Brown is no longer chair of the Arabic and Islamic Studies Department. But the spokesperson didn’t say why or whether he violated any policy.

“He retains his faculty appointment,” including his named chair position, the spokesperson wrote.

In a statement the day after Brown’s alleged post, the university said, “We are appalled that a faculty member would call for a ‘symbolic strike’ on a military base in a social media post.”

“The faculty member has since deleted the post and stated that he would not want any harm to befall American servicemembers,” the statement said. “We are reviewing this matter to see if further action is warranted. We take our community’s concerns seriously and condemn language which is deeply inconsistent with Georgetown University’s values.”

In response to a request for an interview and written questions, Brown told Inside Higher Ed in an email, “I am unable to make any public comments at this time.” He previously told Fox News Digital he was “calling for de-escalation” in his post, likening it to the strikes Iran ordered after an American drone strike killed Gen. Qassim Suleimani during Trump’s first term, “with telegraphed warning and no American casualties and no one felt any further need for attacks.”

In a statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said that “to frame Dr. Brown’s comment as unpatriotic or violent, as some have done, requires a willful misreading of his intent and of the broader context of the brief U.S.-Iran war.”

“Hoping for a swift end to the war was the clear intent of his message, it was a sentiment shared by many Americans, and it is what ultimately happened: Iran launched a telegraphed strike on a U.S. military base that harmed no one, President Trump declined to respond, and the war ended,” the statement said.

For Afinogenov, the incident bodes ill for faculty rights.

“This procedure of hauling members of university administrations before” a “congressional kangaroo court” harms academic freedom, he said. Administrators should push back against these “smear campaigns,” and Georgetown should articulate a policy to protect faculty and other members of the university community from retaliation for their “extramural speech,” such as on social media, he said.

Over all, Afinogenov said, Brown’s situation is part of an “attack on academic freedom and the independence of universities in general, which we’re seeing across the country.”

Source link

July 18, 2025
UVA Seeks Nominations for Interim President

The University of Virginia is searching for an interim leader.

The University of Virginia is accepting nominations for an interim president to replace former executive James Ryan, who announced his resignation late last month under pressure from the Department of Justice. Ryan officially stepped down last Friday.

The nomination form will remain open to all members of the university community through July 25. Then the board will conduct a series of listening sessions with faculty, staff, division leaders and students.

“The Board of Visitors is committed to working closely with members of our community to hear their perspectives and ensure stability and continuity going forward,” board rector Rachel Sheridan said in a news release. “Shared governance is a core value of this institution and we will uphold it as we pursue the selection of an interim president, as well as our 10th university president after that.”

In the meantime, Jennifer Wagner Davis, the university’s chief operating officer, is serving as acting president.

The Justice Department had accused Ryan and the flagship institution of failing to eliminate all DEI programs on campus, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin. The letters said that Ryan and his “proxies” had made “little attempt to disguise their contempt and intent to defy these fundamental civil rights.” But the Trump administration has said multiple times that it did not demand Ryan’s resignation verbally or via the letters.

Source link

July 18, 2025
GMU President Responds to Civil Rights Investigation

In a pointed letter to the George Mason University community Wednesday, President Gregory Washington defended his institution against the Trump administration, which launched an investigation last week into the university’s alleged violations of Title VI.

According to an announcement from the Education Department, GMU “illegally uses race and other immutable characteristics in university policies, including hiring and promotion.”

In his letter, Washington vowed to “cooperate fully” with the Office for Civil Rights.

“I can assure you that George Mason has always operated with a commitment to equality under the law, ever since our inception,” he wrote. ”It is simply the Mason way, and in my experience, it has not discriminated based on race, color, national origin, or otherwise. Our diversity efforts are designed to expand opportunity and build inclusive excellence—not to exclude or advantage any group unlawfully.”

He offered a brief history of Title VI—which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in federally funded programs—and the rest of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then, without naming any names, he essentially accused the Trump administration of willfully misinterpreting the law.

“Today, we are seeing a profound shift in how Title VI is being applied,” he wrote. “Longstanding efforts to address inequality—such as mentoring programs, inclusive hiring practices, and support for historically underrepresented groups—are in many cases being reinterpreted as presumptively unlawful. Broad terms like ‘illegal DEI’ are now used without definition, allowing virtually any initiative that touches on identity or inclusion to be painted as discriminatory.

“This shift represents a stark departure from the spirit in which civil rights law was written: not to erase difference, but to protect individuals from exclusion and to enable equal opportunity for all.”

He noted that GMU—which enrolls roughly 40,000 students—admits 90 percent of applicants and has more Pell-eligible students than any other institution in Virginia.

The university’s mission “includes the belief that diversity includes thought, background, and circumstance and any attempt to artificially redefine our diversity, as one of race-based exclusivity, is doomed to fail no matter who ends up being excluded,” he wrote.

Source link

July 18, 2025