Tag: Jobs

  • White House Partners With Hillsdale for Lecture Series

    White House Partners With Hillsdale for Lecture Series

    President Donald Trump is tapping a familiar institution, Hillsdale College, to produce a video lecture series for the U.S. sestercentennial, the administration announced on social media.

    “On July 4, 2026, we will celebrate 250 years of American Independence. The White House has partnered with @Hillsdale to tell our story of a rag-tag army defeating the world’s mightiest empire and establishing the greatest republic ever to exist,” the administration posted Tuesday.

    The first installment in the series, according to the post, was a seven-and-a-half-minute video featuring patriotic imagery and comments from Hillsdale president Larry Arnn, who emphasized the importance of knowing American history in order to commemorate the 250th anniversary. 

    In introducing the video series, Arnn cast Trump in the mold of Abraham Lincoln. 

    “Part of the purpose of this series of lectures is to remember. President Trump does this in part I think—I don’t speak for him—but the word ‘again’ is important to him. He has a famous slogan that I will not repeat here, but everybody knows what it is,” Arnn said. “He wants to do something again. Something [that’s] already been done, he wants to see it happen again.”

    Arnn argued that Trump’s campaign slogan, Make America Great Again, “places him somewhere near the politics of Abraham Lincoln,” who sought to build on the foundation laid by George Washington.

    The video focused on the Declaration of Independence and start of the Revolutionary War. The second installment in the series is about the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

    A Hillsdale spokesperson told Politico the college did not take “a dime of federal money” for the video lecture series, which it is providing in partnership with the White House and the Department of Education. (Hillsdale, a private, Christian institution in Michigan, does not accept federal financial aid.)

    The Trump administration also worked with Hillsdale at the end of the president’s first term. In early 2017, Hillsdale officials were part of a commission, chaired by Arnn, that produced the 1776 Report, a widely ridiculed document that academics dismissed as unserious scholarship. Critics argued the 1776 Report provided a whitewashed view of American history, omitted Native Americans entirely and had multiple citation issues.

    Source link

  • NSF Director Panchanathan Resigns

    NSF Director Panchanathan Resigns

    Sethuraman Panchanathan, director of the National Science Foundation, resigned Thursday after nearly five years at the helm. His resignation comes less than one week after he issued sweeping priority changes—including terminating funding for projects that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion or combating misinformation—at the independent agency that funds billions of dollars to nonmedical university research each year. 

    “I believe that I have done all I can to advance the mission of the agency and feel that it is time to pass the baton to new leadership,” Panchanathan wrote in a resignation letter, first reported by Science. “I am deeply grateful to the presidents for the opportunity to serve our nation.”

    Although it’s not immediately clear what prompted his resignation, Panchanathan is among the latest top federal officials who have resigned since President Trump started his second term in January. The administration has also fired thousands of other federal employees, including dozens at the NSF, and terminated many grants that don’t align with the agency’s new anti-DEI priorities. Additionally, Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been targeting the agency for months, calling it a bastion of “a far-left ideology.”

    According to Science, even more changes are coming to the NSF. The Department of Government Efficiency reportedly told Panchanathan earlier this month to plan to fire half the NSF’s 1,700-person staff; the Office of Management and Budget reportedly told him that Trump only plans to request 55 percent of the agency’s $9 billion budget for fiscal year 2026. 

    “While NSF has always been an efficient agency,” he wrote in his resignation letter, “we still took [on] the challenge of identifying other possible efficiencies and reducing our commitments to serve the scientific community even better.”

    Trump picked Panchanathan, a computer scientist from India who previously worked as a top research administrator at Arizona State University, to run the agency during his first term in office. But soon after Panchanathan started his six-year term in 2020, voters rejected Trump’s bid for re-election, and most of Panchanathan’s work at the NSF happened under former president Joe Biden’s administration. 

    Under Panchanathan’s leadership, the NSF’s stated priorities have included increasing diversity in the STEM workforce, forming industry partnerships, job creation and broadening research opportunities for smaller universities and community colleges. In 2022, Panchanathan oversaw the creation of the NSF’s Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships, which is focused on “accelerating breakthrough technologies, transitioning these technologies to the market, and preparing Americans for better-quality, higher-wage jobs,” according to the NSF’s website

    Despite the second Trump administration’s quick and radical changes to some of those Biden-era policies, Panchanathan was seemingly adapting—up until his resignation Thursday—while many other scientists sound the alarm that Trump’s policies will hurt research and innovation. 

    In his statement on the NSF’s reoriented priorities last Friday, he said that any NSF-funded activities in support of “broadening participation” in STEM “must aim to create opportunities for all Americans everywhere” and “not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.”

    Source link

  • Cornell Pres. Nixes Kehlani Concert for “Antisemitic” Remarks

    Cornell Pres. Nixes Kehlani Concert for “Antisemitic” Remarks

    Cornell University’s president announced Wednesday that he’s canceling Kehlani’s campus concert, saying the R&B singer has “espoused antisemitic, anti-Israel sentiments.”

    Kehlani was set to perform May 7 at the annual Slope Day spring festival.

    “For decades, student leaders have taken the helm in organizing this event, hiring performers they hope will appeal to the student body,” Cornell president Michael I. Kotlikoff said in a statement. “Unfortunately, although it was not the intention, the selection of Kehlani as this year’s headliner has injected division and discord into Slope Day.”

    “In the days since Kehlani was announced, I have heard grave concerns from our community that many are angry, hurt, and confused,” Kotlikoff said, adding that the student Slope Day Programming Board agreed “that this selection has compromised what is meant to be an inclusive event.”

    The board didn’t respond to an email Thursday from Inside Higher Ed seeking comment. Kehlani has expressed pro-Palestine views—one of her music videos features the Palestinian flag and the phrase “long live the intifada.” She also said “fuck Israel” and “fuck Zionism” last year.

    Source link

  • Florida’s Own DOGE Is Reviewing Faculty Research, Grants

    Florida’s Own DOGE Is Reviewing Faculty Research, Grants

    Elon Musk’s days with DOGE appear numbered—the unelected billionaire bureaucrat said Tuesday that his time spent leading the agency-gutting U.S. Department of Government Efficiency will “drop significantly” next month. As Tesla’s profits plummet, the world’s richest man faces opposition from both Trump administration officials and voters.

    DOGE’s legacy remains unclear. Lawsuits are challenging its attempted cuts, including at the U.S. Education Department. Musk seems to have scaled back his planned overall budget savings from $1 or $2 trillion to $150 billion, and it’s unclear whether DOGE will achieve even that.

    But something may outlive Musk’s DOGE: all the state iterations it has inspired, with legislators and governors borrowing or riffing off the name. Iowa’s Republican governor created the Iowa DOGE Task Force. Missouri’s GOP-controlled Legislature launched Government Efficiency Committees, calling them MODOGE on Musk’s X social media platform. Kansas lost the reference to the original doge meme when it went with COGE, for its Senate Committee on Government Efficiency.

    But, as with the federal version, the jokey names for these state offshoots may belie the serious impact they could have on governments and public employees—including state higher education institutions and faculty.

    To take perhaps the most glaring example, the sweeping requests from the Florida DOGE team, which is led by a former federal Department of Transportation inspector general, have alarmed scholars.

    Earlier this month, the Florida DOGE asked public college and university presidents to provide an account—by the end of last week—of “all research published by staff” over the last six years, including “Papers and drafts made available to the public or in online academic repositories for drafts, preprints, or similar materials.”

    “If not contained therein, author’s name, title, and position at the institution” must be provided, according to the letters the presidents received. The letters didn’t say what this and other requests were for.

    The Florida DOGE also requested information on all grants awarded to institutions over the last six years, asking for each institution’s policy on allocating grants “for purposes of indirect cost recovery, including procedures for calculation.” Further, it requested an account of “all filled and vacant positions held by any employee with a non-instructional role.”

    By the end of April, Florida’s public institutions must also provide the “Length of research associated” with each research publication, funding sources associated with the research and any “publications about the research” from the researcher or institution. In addition, the state DOGE is requesting funding sources for each institution’s noninstructional positions and the names of the nonstudent employees administering the grants.

    And that may not be the end of the DOGE demands. In a March 26 letter, the state DOGE team told college presidents that it will conduct site visits “to ensure full compliance” with the governor’s executive order that created it, “as well as existing Florida law.” It said it may in the future request various other information, including course descriptions, syllabi, “full detail” on campus centers and the required end of diversity, equity and inclusion activities.

    The requests so far from the Florida DOGE are the latest in a string of state actions that faculty say threaten to infringe on, or have already reduced, academic freedom. Dan Saunders, lead negotiator for the United Faculty of Florida union at Florida International University and a tenured associate professor of higher education, expressed concerns about what he called a “continuation of a chilling effect on faculty in terms of what we research and publish.”

    “The lack of any meaningful articulation as to why they’re looking for this data and what they’re going to do with it just adds to the suspicions that I think the state has earned from the faculty,” Saunders said. “It’s clear that this is part of a broader and multidimensional attack” on areas of scholarship such as women’s and gender studies—part of a “comprehensive assault” on the “independence of the university,” he said.

    “If Florida DOGE is following the patterns of the federal DOGE, then I think we can expect some radical oversimplifications of nuanced data and some cherry picking” of texts that an “unsophisticated AI will highlight,” he said. Noting how much research is published over six years, he questioned “how anyone is supposed to engage meaningfully” with that much information.

    David Simmons, president of the University of South Florida’s Faculty Senate and a tenured engineering professor, said many faculty are “reasonably” concerned that this request is part of an effort to target “certain ideas that are disfavored by certain politicians.” Simmons—who stressed that he’s not speaking on behalf of the Senate or his institution—said such targeting would be “fundamentally un-American and inconsistent with the mission of a public university.”

    “We hope that’s not happening. We hope this is just an inefficient effort to collect data,” Simmons said. He noted that much of the research information that the Florida DOGE is requesting is already publicly available on Google Scholar, an online database with profiles on faculty across the country.

    “Universities are being required to reproduce information that’s already freely available in some cases, and to do that they’re using considerable resources and manpower,” Simmons said. The initial two-week data request was “so large as to be nearly impossible” to fulfill, he added.

    A State University System of Florida spokesperson deferred comment to the DOGE team, which didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for an interview or provide answers to written questions Thursday. A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education, which includes the Florida College System, deferred comment to Republican governor Ron DeSantis’s office, which responded via email but didn’t answer multiple written questions.

    “In alignment with previous announcements and correspondence with all 67 counties, 411 municipalities, and 40 academic institutions the Florida DOGE Task Force aims to eliminate wasteful spending and cut government bloat,” a DeSantis spokesperson wrote. “If waste or abuse is identified during our collaborative efforts with partnering agencies and institutions, each case will be handled accordingly.”

    ‘DOGE Before DOGE Was Cool’

    When Donald Trump returned to the White House in January and announced DOGE’s creation, he suggested it was an effort to cut the alleged waste his Democratic predecessor had allowed to fester. But DeSantis—who lost to Trump in the GOP presidential primary—launched his own DOGE in a state that he’s been leading for six years.

    “Florida was DOGE before DOGE was cool,” DeSantis posted on X Feb. 24. (His actions in higher education have, in many ways, presaged what Trump is now doing nationally.)

    So, perhaps not surprisingly, DeSantis’s executive order creating the Florida DOGE that day began by saying the state already has a “strong record of responsible fiscal management.” A list of rosy financial stats followed before DeSantis finally wrote, “Notwithstanding Florida’s history of prudent fiscal management relative to many states in the country, the State should nevertheless endeavor to explore opportunities for even better stewardship.”

    “The State of Florida should leverage cutting edge technology to identify further spending reductions and reforms in state agencies, university bureaucracies, and local governments,” DeSantis wrote, echoing, at least in language, the tech-focused approach of the federal DOGE.

    He established the DOGE team within the Executive Office of the Governor, tasking it in part to work with the statewide higher education agencies to “identify and eliminate unnecessary spending, programs, courses, staff, and any other inefficiencies,” including “identifying and returning unnecessary federal grant funding.” The executive order says state agencies must set up their own DOGE teams, which will identify grants “that are inconsistent with the policies of this State and should be returned to the American taxpayer in furtherance of the President’s DOGE efforts.”

    This executive order expires about a year from now. In an emailed statement, Teresa M. Hodge, the statewide United Faculty of Florida union president, said the request for faculty publication records “is not about transparency or accountability; it is about control.”

    “Our members should not be forced to defend their scholarship, or their silence, in a political witch hunt,” Hodge said. “We stand united in ensuring that Florida’s faculty are free to teach, conduct research, and to speak without fear of retaliation.”

    Source link

  • We Already Have an Ethics Framework for AI (opinion)

    We Already Have an Ethics Framework for AI (opinion)

    For the third time in my career as an academic librarian, we are facing a digital revolution that is radically and rapidly transforming our information ecosystem. The first was when the internet became broadly available by virtue of browsers. The second was the emergence of Web 2.0 with mobile and social media. The third—and current—results from the increasing ubiquity of AI, especially generative AI.

    Once again, I am hearing a combination of fear-based thinking alongside a rhetoric of inevitability and scoldings directed at those critics who are portrayed as “resistant to change” by AI proponents. I wish I were hearing more voices advocating for the benefits of specific uses of AI alongside clearheaded acknowledgment of risks of AI in specific circumstances and an emphasis on risk mitigation. Academics should approach AI as a tool for specific interventions and then assess the ethics of those interventions.

    Caution is warranted. The burden of building trust should be on the AI developers and corporations. While Web 2.0 delivered on its promise of a more interactive, collaborative experience on the web that centered user-generated content, the fulfillment of that promise was not without societal costs.

    In retrospect, Web 2.0 arguably fails to meet the basic standard of beneficence. It is implicated in the global rise of authoritarianism, in the undermining of truth as a value, in promoting both polarization and extremism, in degrading the quality of our attention and thinking, in a growing and serious mental health crisis, and in the spread of an epidemic of loneliness. The information technology sector has earned our deep skepticism. We should do everything in our power to learn from the mistakes of our past and do what we can to prevent similar outcomes in the future.

    We need to develop an ethical framework for assessing uses of new information technology—and specifically AI—that can guide individuals and institutions as they consider employing, promoting and licensing these tools for various functions. There are two main factors about AI that complicate ethical analysis. The first is that an interaction with AI frequently continues past the initial user-AI transaction; information from that transaction can become part of the system’s training set. Secondly, there is often a significant lack of transparency about what the AI model is doing under the surface, making it difficult to assess. We should demand as much transparency as possible from tool providers.

    Academia already has an agreed-upon set of ethical principles and processes for assessing potential interventions. The principles in “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research” govern our approach to research with humans and can fruitfully be applied if we think of potential uses of AI as interventions. These principles not only benefit academia in making assessments about using AI but also provide a framework for technology developers thinking through their design requirements.

    The Belmont Report articulates three primary ethical principles:

    1. Respect for persons
    2. Beneficence
    3. Justice

    “Respect for persons,” as it’s been translated into U.S. code and practiced by IRBs, has several facets, including autonomy, informed consent and privacy. Autonomy means that individuals should have the power to control their engagement and should not be coerced to engage. Informed consent requires that people should have clear information so that they understand what they are consenting to. Privacy means a person should have control and choice about how their personal information is collected, stored, used and shared.

    Following are some questions we might ask to assess whether a particular AI intervention honors autonomy.

    • Is it obvious to users that they are interacting with AI? This becomes increasingly important as AI is integrated into other tools.
    • Is it obvious when something was generated by AI?
    • Can users control how their information is harvested by AI, or is the only option to not use the tool?
    • Can users access essential services without engaging with AI? If not, that may be coercive.
    • Can users control how information they produce is used by AI? This includes whether their content is used to train AI models.
    • Is there a risk of overreliance, especially if there are design elements that encourage psychological dependency? From an educational perspective, is using an AI tool for a particular purpose likely to prevent users from learning foundational skills so that they become dependent on the model?

    In relation to informed consent, is the information provided about what the model is doing both sufficient and in a form that a person who is neither a lawyer nor a technology developer can understand? It is imperative that users be given information about what data is going to be collected from which sources and what will happen to that data.

    Privacy infringement happens either when someone’s personal data is revealed or used in an unintended way or when information thought private is correctly inferred. When there is sufficient data and computing power, re-identification of research subjects is a danger. Given that “de-identification of data” is one of the most common strategies for risk mitigation in human subjects’ research, and there is an increasing emphasis on publishing data sets for the purposes of research reproducibility, this is an area of ethical concern that demands attention. Privacy emphasizes that individuals should have control over their private information, but how that private information is used should also be assessed in relation to the second major principle—beneficence.

    Beneficence is the general principle that says that the benefits should outweigh the risks of harm and that risks should be mitigated as much as possible. Beneficence should be assessed on multiple levels—both the individual and the systemic. The principle of beneficence demands that we pay particularly careful attention to those who are vulnerable because they lack full autonomy, such as minors.

    Even when making personal decisions, we need to think about potential systemic harms. For example, some vendors offer tools that allow researchers to share their personal information in order to generate highly personalized search results—increasing research efficiency. As the tool builds a picture of the researcher, it will presumably continue to refine results with the goal of not showing things that it does not believe are useful to the researcher. This may benefit the individual researcher. However, on a systemic level, if such practices become ubiquitous, will the boundaries between various discourses harden? Will researchers doing similar scholarship get shown an increasingly narrow view of the world, focused on research and outlooks that are similar to each other, while researchers in a different discourse are shown a separate view of the world? If so, would this disempower interdisciplinary or radically novel research or exacerbate disciplinary confirmation bias? Can such risks be mitigated? We need to develop a habit of thinking about potential impacts beyond the individual in order to create mitigations.

    There are many potential benefits to certain uses of AI. There are real possibilities it can rapidly advance medicine and science—see, for example, the stunning successes of the protein structure database AlphaFold. There are corresponding potentialities for swift advances in technology that can serve the common good, including in our fight against the climate crisis. The potential benefits are transformative, and a good ethical framework should encourage them. The principle of beneficence does not demand that there are no risks, but that we should identify uses where the benefits are significant and that we mitigate the risks, both individual and systemic. Risks can be minimized by improving the tools, such as work to prevent them from hallucinating, propagating toxic or misleading content, or delivering inappropriate advice.

    Questions of beneficence also require attention to environmental impacts of generative AI models. Because the models require vast amounts of computing power and, therefore, electricity, using them taxes our collective infrastructure and contributes to pollution. When analyzing a particular use through the ethical lens of beneficence, we should ask whether the proposed use provides enough likely benefit to justify the environmental harm. Use of AI for trivial purposes arguably fails the test for beneficence.

    The principle of justice demands that the people and populations who bear the risks should also receive the benefits. With AI, there are significant equity concerns. For example, generative AI may be trained on data that includes our biases, both current and historic. Models must be rigorously tested to see if they create prejudicial or misleading content. Similarly, AI tools should be closely interrogated to ensure that they do not work better for some groups than for others. Inequities impact the calculations of beneficence and, depending on the stakes of the use case, could make the use unethical.

    Another consideration in relation to the principle of justice and AI is the issue of fair compensation and attribution. It is important that AI does not undermine creative economies. Additionally, scholars are important content producers, and the academic coin of the realm is citations. Content creators have a right to expect that their work will be used with integrity, will be cited and that they will be remunerated appropriately. As part of autonomy, content creators should also be able to control whether their material is used in a training set, and this should, at least going forward, be part of author negotiations. Similarly, the use of AI tools in research should be cited in the scholarly product; we need to develop standards about what is appropriate to include in methodology sections and citations, and possibly when an AI model should be granted co-authorial status.

    The principles outlined above from the Belmont Report are, I believe, sufficiently flexible to allow for further and rapid developments in the field. Academia has a long history of using them as guidance to make ethical assessments. They give us a shared foundation from which we can ethically promote the use of AI to be of benefit to the world while simultaneously avoiding the types of harms that can poison the promise.

    Gwendolyn Reece is the director of research, teaching and learning at American University’s library and a former chair of American’s institutional review board.

    Source link

  • Majority of AP Tests to Be Delivered Online

    Majority of AP Tests to Be Delivered Online

    Put down your pencils: The Advanced Placement test will take place entirely online.

    Starting this May, the College Board will discontinue paper exams for 28 of the 36 AP subjects that offer end-of-year exams, reflecting a growing transition to digital testing.

    All the AP exams will be offered via Bluebook, a digital testing application that also hosts the SAT and PSAT.

    Students will take the exam completely online or with a mix of online and handwritten responses, depending on the subject matter. Essay-based exams, like AP U.S. History and AP English Language and Composition, will be fully online, while computational tests, like AP Biology and AP Statistics, will be a mix of multiple-choice online and free response on paper. The remaining paper exams are language and music exams, which require audio files.

    College Board has offered digital AP exams for select subjects since 2022, after first providing at-home online test taking for students in 2020, when the pandemic caused challenges in administering and collecting students’ tests.

    The transition to digital testing hasn’t been smooth for the College Board; thousands of students experienced difficulties completing the English and Chinese tests in 2023.

    Cheating has also hurried College Board’s digitization plans, as the organization seeks to improve security after a higher-than-normal share of student scores had to be canceled in 2024 due to alleged academic misconduct.

    Changes to the AP exam have raised doubts about the rigor of the tests and scoring methodology. College Board acknowledged an overhaul of its AP scoring system in 2024, which it claims creates a more data-informed approach to scoring, though critics argue it is boosting student scores.

    Source link

  • College Offers Free Housing, Meals for Dependents of Students

    College Offers Free Housing, Meals for Dependents of Students

    College students who live on campus are more likely to feel a sense of belonging to their institution and have better educational outcomes, but on-campus housing facilities frequently neglect parenting students, thus limiting their opportunity to be more engaged at their institution.

    Additionally, students with dependents are more likely than their nonparenting peers to experience financial hardships and lack access to basic needs, according to a 2021 survey by Trellis Strategies. Three in five student parents had experienced housing insecurity in the previous 12 months, and one in five had very low food security.

    A January brief by Generation Hope identified housing as a key area for colleges to expand support for parenting students, since a lack of secure housing can impede students’ degree progress as well as negatively impact the socioemotional development of their dependents.

    For decades, Wilson College in Pennsylvania has offered special housing to single parents enrolled at the institution, alleviating financial barriers to on-campus living and providing greater access to educational resources. The Single Parent Scholar Program has helped dozens of single parents persist and opened doors for their children to be exposed to postsecondary education in a unique way.

    “It breaks my heart to think people would ever have to choose between your child and your education, so we’re trying to take that awful choice away,” said Katie Kough, dean of students at Wilson College. “You don’t have to make that choice.”

    Paving new ground: Wilson College was founded as a women’s college in 1869 and in 1996 first started the Single Parent Scholar Program—then called the Women With Children program—as a way to serve single mothers in the area.

    Historical data shows single parents are less likely to enroll and complete a degree, which negatively affects their earning potential over time and can create generational impact on their socioeconomic situation.

    A brief by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that only 28 percent of single mothers who entered college between 2003 and 2009 earned a degree or certificate within six years, compared to 40 percent of married mothers and 57 percent of women without children. Single mothers are also more likely to have higher levels of debt and financial insecurity while enrolled, according to the brief.

    “I’ve always said [supporting single mothers] was the right thing to do, but it was a brave thing to do,” Kough said, noting that Wilson was one of the first colleges to do so. “There’s obviously been growing pains throughout the years, but since that time, the college has made a commitment to this population in helping them earn their degree.”

    How it works: As the name suggest, the Single Parent Scholar Program is open to unmarried students who have a dependent between the ages of 20 months and 10 years old. Wilson College has been coed since 2014, so single fathers are also eligible to participate.

    Program participants and their dependents reside in a modified student housing complex; each unit includes two bedrooms and a bathroom, and residents share a common lounge and kitchen space with their peers. The Single Parent Scholars Program can accommodate up to 12 students per year.

    The college subsidizes childcare in the local community, though the parent is responsible for providing transportation and shuttling their dependents on and off campus.

    Single parent scholars must purchase a meal plan, but their dependents eat for free at on-campus dining facilities. Many opt for the lowest-priced plan to maintain their SNAP eligibility, Kough said.

    Parents are also allowed to stay on campus during academic breaks and summer term, which helps provide some stability.

    The impact: Program eligibility is dependent on the age of the child, not the parent, so the students range in age from teens straight out of high school to those in their 20s or 30s. To date, all participants have been single mothers, which could be due in part to the type of student who seeks out Wilson, Kough said, or the small number of single fathers who enroll in higher education.

    The campus is welcoming to the parents and their dependents, offering various events and activities geared toward families, such as kid-friendly movie screenings and visits to the college farm. Many parents engage in athletics, clubs and other on-campus activities, allowing them to have the full college experience.

    “The kids are a blast—they’re a lot of fun and they bring a lot of joy to this campus,” Kough said. Dependents of program participants are given their own cap and gown to walk at graduation, and some children have returned to Wilson as legacies.

    Wilson College Single Parent Scholars alumnae say the program helped them achieve their dreams through providing housing and community.

    Program alumnae also note the value of living in community with other single parents who are working toward the same goal of earning a bachelor’s degree.

    “I’m proud of the women who have come in, perhaps giving up a lot. In some cases, they gave up houses and apartments and jobs with some immediate gratification of a paycheck, just putting all that aside for a dream that was down the road,” Kough said. “It’s hard to put into words but it certainly makes a lot of the struggle and the work absolutely worth it.”

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Education Department’s Anti-DEI Guidance Blocked

    Education Department’s Anti-DEI Guidance Blocked

    The Education Department won’t be able to enforce its guidance that declared all race-based programming and activities illegal following two court orders Thursday.

    Federal judges in New Hampshire and Maryland handed down the rulings after finding plaintiffs in the two separate lawsuits were likely to succeed in proving that the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter violated procedural standards and the First Amendment. Prior to the orders, colleges and K-12 schools that failed to comply with the letter risked their federal funding.

    “Although the 2025 letter does not make clear what exactly it prohibits, it makes at least one thing clear: schools should not come close to anything that could be considered ‘DEI,’ lest they be deemed to have guessed wrong,” the New Hampshire judge wrote. And since loss of federal grants could cripple institutions, “it is predictable—if not obvious—that [they] will eliminate all vestiges of DEI to avoid even the possibility of funding termination,” regardless of whether it is an example of executive overreach.

    The New Hampshire court’s preliminary injunction, which was issued first, was limited to institutions that are members of the plaintiff association, leaving many colleges and universities vulnerable. But just hours later, a Maryland judge filed her opinion that prevented the letter from taking effect until the case is resolved, which essentially serves as a nationwide injunction.

    The injunctions do not, however, block all of Trump’s attacks on DEI. The Dear Colleague letter was just one aspect of the president’s multipronged strategy.

    In a separate lawsuit from the NAACP challenging the department’s guidance and actions related to DEI, a District of Columbia judge blocked the department from requiring that K-12 schools certify that they don’t have any DEI programs. Thursday, April 24, was the deadline to comply. The department threatened to withhold federal funding from K-12 schools that didn’t meet the certification requirement. The judge ruled that “because the certification requirement conditions serious financial and other penalties on insufficiently defined conduct,” the plaintiffs were likely to succeed.

    Since its release, the Dear Colleague letter has sent K-12 and higher education advocates across the country into an uproar as lawyers and others argued that the document was a prime example of Trump abusing presidential power.

    The Education Department said in the guidance that the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned race-conscious admissions, also made any race-based programming, resources and financial aid illegal. The department gave colleges two weeks to comply. A few weeks after the letter took effect, the Office for Civil Rights opened dozens of investigations into colleges, accusing them of violating the guidance in the letter.

    Some colleges and universities, in an effort to comply with the letter, began to retract, or at least rebrand, their DEI activities, resources and scholarships. Some institutions, including the Universities of Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Alaska, responded by scrubbing their websites of words like “diversity” and “inclusion.” Others, including Ohio State University, shuttered DEI offices and changed the eligibility requirements for certain programs entirely. (Those changes were made despite the advice of some academic associations to avoid pre-emptive compliance.)

    On March 3, the Education Department released an FAQ that watered down and provided clarity on some of the letter’s bold orders. But still, higher education groups continued to push back, and by the end of the week, both lawsuits had been filed.

    The one in New Hampshire was led by the National Education Association, the nation’s largest K-12 union, and the other in Maryland was from the American Federation of Teachers, a union that includes many higher education faculty.

    The unions argued that the letter and its threat to cut federal funding violated the First and Fifth Amendments, using vague language that exceeded the Education Department’s statutory authority. They also alleged that the scrubbing of DEI programs as well as the potential funding cuts would weaken schools’ and universities’ ability to act as tools of socioeconomic mobility.

    “This letter is an unlawful attempt by the department to impose this administration’s particular views of how schools should operate as if it were the law. But it is not,” the AFT complaint stated. “Title VI’s requirements have not changed, nor has the meaning of the SFFA decision, despite the Department’s views on the matter.” (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

    At a recent hearing in the Maryland case, the Department of Education argued that its letter was merely a reminder that existing civil rights laws protect white children from discrimination just as much as children from a minority group, Maryland Matters reported.

    “It’s highly unlikely that they’re going to go after a school because they taught a certain book,” U.S. attorney Abhishek Kambli said. “All this letter does is just clarify what the existing obligations are under Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act].”

    But the Maryland judge didn’t buy that argument, and she sided with the plaintiffs, as did the New Hampshire judge.

    The New Hampshire judge said the policies outlined in the letter failed to appropriately define DEI and therefore threatened to erode the “foundational principles” of free speech and academic freedom.

    The Maryland judge, on the other hand, approached her case from a perspective of “substantive and procedural legality,” saying the Trump administration’s letter failed to hold its own on that front as well.

    “Plaintiffs have shown that the government likely did not follow the procedures it should have, and those procedural failures have tangibly and concretely harmed the Plaintiffs,” Gallagher wrote. “This case, especially, underscores why following the proper procedures, even when it is burdensome, is so important.”

    And though the orders are just temporary holds and litigation will continue, education stakeholders consider it a win.

    “The nationwide injunction will pause at least part of the chaos the Trump administration is unleashing in classrooms and learning communities throughout the country, and it will provide the time for our clients to demonstrate clearly in court how these attacks on public education are unconstitutional and should be permanently stopped,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, a pro bono legal group that is representing AFT in Maryland.

    AFT president Randi Weingarten added in a statement that “the court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself.”

    For the NEA, the New Hampshire decision was “a victory for students, parents, and educators” that blocked an “unprecedented and unlawful” effort to control American schools.

    “Across the country educators do everything in their power to support every student, ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future,” NEA president Becky Pringle said in a news release. “Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.”

    The Department of Education did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment prior to the publishing of this story.

    Source link

  • Searches Were About Vandalism of Michigan Leaders’ Homes

    Searches Were About Vandalism of Michigan Leaders’ Homes

    The Michigan attorney general’s office revealed Thursday that the police searches Wednesday in Ann Arbor, Canton and Ypsilanti were part of a yearlong investigation into “evidently coordinated” vandalism, including pro-Palestine graffiti and in some cases shattered glass at the homes of the University of Michigan’s president, provost, chief investment officer and one regent, Jordan Acker.

    In a news release, the office of Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said there were many “related criminal acts.” It listed 12 locations where incidents—spanning February 2024 to last month—are under investigation, including the four university leaders’ homes.

    “It is currently estimated that the total damage from these incidents is approximately $100,000,” the release said. “In all cases, the crimes were committed in the middle of the night and in one case upon a residence wherein children were sleeping and awoken. In multiple instances windows were smashed, and twice noxious chemical substances were propelled into homes. At every site, political slogans or messages were left behind.”

    No arrests have been made yet.

    Police—including local, state and the FBI—raided five homes connected to university pro-Palestinian activists Wednesday, according to Lavinia Dunagan, a Ph.D. student who is a co-chair of the university graduate student union’s communications committee. She said at least seven people, including at least one union member, were detained but not arrested. All are students, save for one employee of Michigan Medicine, she said.

    The union—the Graduate Employees’ Organization, or GEO—said in a news release Wednesday that “officers also confiscated personal belongings from multiple residences and at least two cars.”

    The state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a release Wednesday that “property damage at residences took place, and individuals were handcuffed without charges during the aggressive raids.”

    The attorney general’s office did say Thursday that “in one instance, an entryway was forcibly breached following more than an hour of police efforts to negotiate entry to satisfy the court-authorized search warrant.”

    Source link

  • How to Lead Through Uncertainty (opinion)

    How to Lead Through Uncertainty (opinion)

    Uncertainty is unavoidable. Whether it relates to relatively minor topics such as today’s traffic and weather or potentially life-altering issues such as our health and employment, coping with an unknown future is part of our daily lives. At the same time, we are living in a moment of extraordinary uncertainty, with numerous changes to the landscape of higher education and increasing economic instability.

    If you are in a leadership role—whether that means leading an academic unit or leading a research lab or classroom—you may be feeling the weight not only of managing uncertainty for yourself, but also of guiding those you lead through uncertain terrain. In doing so, you are likely to encounter situations where those you lead are looking for definitive information around questions that you are not able to answer.

    How do you lead in these situations? I’m a firm believer that leaders can always do something even when it is not the specific thing that people are hoping for. In this case, I propose that even when we can’t provide answers or predict what the future will hold, we can offer something that might be even more valuable—the skills needed to manage uncertainty.

    Empowering others in the face of uncertainty is a complex and nuanced process, and your approach will differ depending on each individual and context. However, some steps that are likely to be helpful are:

    • Acknowledge the challenge. As a leader, you may feel an urge to avoid talking about issues that you’re not able to solve. However, this does not make those issues any less real for those you lead. Start by validating what is at stake for an individual, whether this is job stability, research funding or admission to graduate school. You can also acknowledge the broader challenge that uncertainty brings and how it taxes us mentally and emotionally. Acknowledging challenges does not mean that you are taking the blame for their existence or that you will not advocate to uphold the rights of individuals and shared values of your institution. However, openly recognizing the reality of a situation can go a long way in building trust with those you lead.
    • Reflect on past resilience. Every person you lead is a unique individual with their own way of managing adversity. You can offer some general strategies, such as focusing on purpose and impact and leaning on community for support. Even more helpful is to empower each person by encouraging them to reflect on challenges they have faced in the past and think about what strategies and supports enabled them to manage those situations. Helping someone remember that they have overcome difficult situations in the past provides guidance as to how they can do so again and builds their self-confidence to do exactly that.
    • Focus on what you can control. One of the many things that uncertainty robs us of is our sense of self-determination. A natural response is to place the greatest focus on the areas where we have the least amount of control. Effectively managing uncertainty or adversity can require that we do the opposite. Importantly, our domain of control includes both what we do and how we do it. You can offer guidance to an individual on how to create a plan and take actions that are within their domain of control, while also reinforcing that they are the one in control of the values and ethics that will guide the choice and implementation of those actions.
    • Create space for self-care. When the challenges we face may stretch over weeks, months or even years, self-care is more critical than ever in sustaining ourselves for what is to come. Just as you can help each person you lead reflect on their unique coping strategies, you can help them make a plan for self-care activities that will provide the greatest benefit to their mental health. This might include time spent doing activities they enjoy alongside people they care about. It can also mean checking out for a set time and playing video games or streaming a show where the only value is entertainment.

    Depending on your leadership role, simply managing your current responsibilities may already feel overwhelming. Adding in the task of helping others manage uncertainty may seem impossible. You may also feel unprepared to navigate a topic for which you haven’t received specific training. Those are very real challenges, but they do not have to prevent you from taking action.

    The principles outlined above can be woven into everyday meetings and email discussions and thus reap benefit without increasing workload. You can also lean on existing resources and expertise to disseminate helpful ideas in a time-efficient manner. For example, consider sharing an article or podcast on resilience, uncertainty or self-care with your team and setting aside 15 to 20 minutes at your next meeting to discuss the advice offered by experts. Or for a deeper dive, you can choose a book and work through each chapter together over a monthly sack lunch.

    As a leader, there is always something that you can do. And even when you don’t have all of the answers, you can have a powerful positive impact by mindfully guiding yourself and others through uncertainty.

    Jen Heemstra is the Charles Allen Thomas Professor of Chemistry and chair of the Department of Chemistry at Washington University in St. Louis. Her research is focused on harnessing biomolecules for applications in medicine and the environment, and she is the author of the forthcoming book Labwork to Leadership (Harvard University Press, August 2025)

    Source link