Tag: Jobs

NSF, NIH Slash Support for Early-Career Scientists

Both the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are slashing funding support for graduate students and early-career researchers as President Donald Trump continues dramatic federal budget cuts.

Since Trump took office in January, the two agencies—which send billions in funding to research universities each year—have stalled grant reviews, fired scores of workers and terminated or flagged hundreds of active grants that conflict with the administration’s ideological goals.

On Tuesday, Nature reported the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program awarded 1,000 fellowships—fewer than half of the record-setting 2,555 fellowship offers it made in 2023, and the second-smallest number of awards since 2008.

Prior to this year, the fellowship program’s stated goal was to “ensure the quality, vitality, and diversity of the scientific and engineering workforce,” though the Trump administration has since replaced the word “diversity” with “strength.”

Since 1952, the NSF’s fellowship program has funded more than 75,000 master’s and Ph.D. students pursuing science degrees. Fellows receive five years of funding, which includes a $37,000 annual stipend and the cost of tuition. The fellowships are highly competitive; of the more than 13,000 applicants who apply each year, only about 16 percent typically get an award. While the cuts made it even more competitive this year, a record 3,018 applicants also received “honorable mentions,” which don’t come with an award but can boost a CV nonetheless.

Over the past two weeks, the NIH has also canceled numerous institutional and individual training grants, including many that support scientists from underrepresented communities, according to The Transmitter.

The outlet reported that a chemistry professor at the University of Puerto Rico–Río Piedras Campus received a letter from the NIH terminating funding for the Undergraduate Research Training Initiative for Student Enhancement because the award “no longer effectuates agency priorities.”

That justification is now central to a federal lawsuit researchers and advocacy groups filed against the NIH last week, which among other points argues that the Department of Health and Human Services (the NIH’s parent agency) hasn’t yet adopted rules that would allow it to terminate an award for not effectuating agency priorities.

Other terminated NIH training programs, according to The Transmitter, include the Maximizing Access to Research Careers program, which funded undergraduate researchers; the Post-Baccalaureate Research Education Program; the Bridges to the Doctorate program, which trained master’s students; the Initiative for Maximizing Student Development, which supported graduate students; and the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award, which aided postdoctoral researchers.

Source link

April 10, 2025
DHS Formalizes Policy Screening Noncitizens’ Social Media

The Department of Homeland Security is formalizing a policy to search the social media accounts of all foreign applicants for U.S. visas or other benefits, according to a memo issued Wednesday morning.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will collect applicants’ social media handles and scour their accounts for any “antisemitic activity.” Social media content “endorsing, espousing or promoting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic terrorist activity” is now “grounds for denying immigration benefit requests.”

“This will immediately affect aliens applying for permanent resident status, foreign students and aliens affiliated with educational institutions linked to antisemitic activity,” the memo continued.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed the policy last month, drawing criticism from free speech advocates. Others objected to the broad scope of the proposal, which included not just visa applicants but also current residents and green card holders. The new policy is just as broad.

The news comes after weeks of escalating attacks on international students, many of whom have had their visas and legal resident status revoked for pro-Palestinian speech under an obscure legal clause that allows the secretary of state to determine if a visa holder is a “foreign policy threat.” An Axios report found that the State Department was already using artificial intelligence to scan student visa holders’ social media accounts looking for the allegedly antisemitic speech referenced in the new memo.

Many more students have had their visas revoked over minor criminal infractions; others have no clear understanding why their status was terminated.

An Inside Higher Ed analysis found that nearly 450 students have had their visas revoked as of Wednesday afternoon. Follow along with our interactive map and tracker.

Source link

April 10, 2025
NIH Freezes Millions More in Funding for Columbia

Columbia University was dealt another blow to research funding this week.

DNY59/iStock/Getty Images

The Trump administration has frozen all U.S. National Institutes of Health funding for research grants at Columbia University, Science reported, cutting off the flow of $250 million to the private institution mere weeks after it yielded to sweeping demands related to pro-Palestinian campus protests.

The federal government had already clamped down on $400 million in research funding for Columbia last month. But after the university agreed to enact various reforms the Trump administration demanded to address alleged antisemitism on campus, it appeared a reprieve was in order. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said last month that she believed Columbia was “on the right track” toward final negotiations to unfreeze the research funds.

Instead, the Trump administration has gone in the opposite direction, cutting off even more research funding. According to Science, the NIH froze Columbia’s funding Monday at the direction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is reportedly not only blocking new funding but also ceasing payments for work on existing projects. In addition, the agency will require prior approval to tap existing disbursements.

“HHS strongly condemns anti-Semitic harassment against Jewish students on college campuses,” a department spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed by email. “In line with President Trump’s mission to combatting discrimination and promoting fairness, HHS is partnering with other federal agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of grants awarded to universities that have failed to protect students from discriminatory behavior. We will not tolerate taxpayer-funded institutions that fail to uphold their duty to safeguard students from harassment.”

Critics assailed the move.

“It’s shocking, but not surprising, as with so many previous developments in this matter,” said Michael Thaddeus, a Columbia math professor and vice president of the institution’s American Association of University Professors chapter. “And it shows that the Trump administration just has an animus against American universities.”

Thaddeus called the actions “so patently unlawful” that litigation against the Trump administration would have a strong chance of success—yet Columbia hasn’t sued. The AAUP and the American Federation of Teachers union, with which the AAUP is affiliated, have filed a lawsuit over the prior $400 million cut.

“If what you’re dealing with is threats from an extortionist, then capitulating to the threats of an extortionist is not a wise move,” Thaddeus said. “What’s happening is not an enforcement action, it’s a political vendetta.”

Reinhold Martin, president of the Columbia AAUP chapter and an architecture professor, said “the defunding of science” reflects a structural pattern: “the movement of public funding out of the nonprofit sector into, eventually, we can fully expect, the for-profit sector. So that’s what this is about.”

A Columbia spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed the university has not yet been notified of the freeze. “At this time, Columbia has not received notice from the NIH about additional cancellations,” the spokesperson said via email. “The University remains in active dialogue with the Federal Government to restore its critical research funding.”

Columbia would not be the first university to learn about the loss of federal funding indirectly. The Trump administration also froze $790 million in federal research funding at Northwestern University earlier this week, which officials learned about via media reports. Cornell University was also dealt a $1 billion blow to its federal funding this week.

Elsewhere in the Ivy League, the Trump administration has frozen $510 million at Brown University, $175 million at the University of Pennsylvania and $210 million at Princeton University. The funding freezes mainly come in response to allegations of antisemitism related to pro-Palestinian campus protests, though federal investigations into the claims are ongoing.

Outside of Columbia, scholars noted that even though the university gave in to Trump’s demands, the administration still seemed unsatisfied.

“The NIH just froze ALL grant funding owed to Columbia University, meaning that the university’s concessions to the Trump administration clearly didn’t go far enough to satisfy the federal government,” Robert Kelchen, a professor of education and head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, wrote in a BlueSky post.

Source link

April 9, 2025
Finding a Rewarding, Remunerative Job in Creative Fields
Daniel Grant, the go-to authority on the business of being an artist, recently published a fascinating essay, “The Art of Usefulness: Inside the Complicated World of Studio Assistants.” This piece is valuable not only for budding artists but for anyone who is interested in the role of internships and assistantships as stepping-stones into careers as creative professionals.

Grant’s basic point is that these roles vary wildly in quality, compensation and outcomes. Not all assistantships offer mentorship or artistic growth. Many studio assistants do menial labor—cleaning, organizing, packing—without meaningful creative engagement. Some are subject to workplace abuse. It’s been claimed, for example, that the English artist Damien Hirst outsourced entire works to assistants.

Grant contrasts today’s assistants with their historical counterparts, the apprentices, who were contractually trained and groomed into full-fledged artists. While echoes of mentorship persist, many contemporary assistants are hired more for manual labor or technical skills, with no promise of instruction or career development.

According to Grant, some artists like Frank Stella, Susan Schwalb and Mark Tribe rely heavily on assistants, but their relationships tend to be professional rather than personal. Grant’s takeaway: Don’t romanticize assistantships. Yes, some provide opportunity, but others are exploitative and many are menial. While a few assistants benefit from proximity to power, most do invisible labor with little recognition.

Grant also subtly critiques the blurred ethics of large-scale art production, where big-name artists rely on unseen labor to fabricate works they will claim as their own. This raises deeper questions about authorship, originality and fairness—issues not unique to visual art but present across creative industries. The art world, like many other fields, relies on invisible labor, and those who perform it are only rarely recognized.

Professional success in creative fields is, in the end, a product of chance and connections. The romantic myth of the gifted assistant rising to stardom survives because it occasionally comes true—but for most, the reality is far more utilitarian.

What the Heck Is a Creative Professional?

Many college graduates—especially those with degrees in the humanities, arts, media studies or communications—aspire to enter the amorphous world of creative professionals.

Unlike students in clearly delineated fields like engineering, nursing or accounting, these graduates face a job market where roles are loosely defined, pathways are nonlinear and success depends as much on networking, hustle and timing as on credentials.

The category of creative professionals encompasses a vast and varied terrain: freelance writers, graphic designers, editors, content creators, social media managers, filmmakers, animators, musicians, photographers, arts administrators, game designers, copywriters, museum workers, marketing associates and more.

Some roles are embedded in companies (in advertising, branding, media production), while others are entrepreneurial or gig-based.

But what makes this group amorphous is not just the range of roles. It’s the fact that many of these jobs don’t have clear entry-level positions and rely heavily on connections and portfolios. Nor is it easy to locate job openings. Not only are these jobs precarious, with low pay, limited benefits and few clear growth trajectories, but they require self-branding, freelancing and juggling multiple part-time gigs.

The Gigification of Creative Labor

The romantic image of the creative professional—free-spirited, self-directed, thriving on inspiration—has long concealed the economic and structural realities of pursuing a career in the arts and media. For today’s college graduates who aspire to work in film, publishing, design, music, digital media or other creative sectors, the terrain is far less glamorous and far more uncertain.

Their challenges are not unique but are emblematic of deeper transformations reshaping the 21st-century labor market. In an era marked by gigification, the erosion of stable entry points and the increasing importance of social capital, aspiring creatives are navigating a world of work defined less by ladders than by lattices, portfolios and side hustles.

Long before Uber drivers and DoorDash couriers came to symbolize the gig economy, creative professionals had already been living in a world of short-term contracts, project-based work and multiple income streams.

Freelance writing, illustration, video editing and even arts education often follow a feast-or-famine cycle, with creators constantly juggling gigs to make ends meet.

Platforms like Upwork, Fiverr, Bandcamp and YouTube have made it easier to distribute and monetize creative work, but they’ve also intensified competition and pushed creators to prioritize content volume and algorithmic appeal over depth or development. These platforms demand constant content creation, personal branding and entrepreneurial hustle.

The Collapse of Clear Entry Points

In journalism, the collapse of local newsrooms and the shift to digital-first business models have decimated entry-level reporting jobs. Once-traditional pathways—working a beat, rising to editor—have given way to freelance blogging, newsletter writing or content marketing. Writers for outlets like BuzzFeed, Vice and Gawker faced mass layoffs in recent years despite audience growth, illustrating the volatility of media employment.

In music, artists once relied on record deals for studio time and distribution. Today, they must often self-produce, self-promote and rely on streaming royalties that pay mere fractions of a cent per play. Even high-profile musicians like Taylor Swift have spoken out against exploitative contract terms and the difficulty of maintaining artistic control.

In publishing, editorial assistantships once served as springboards into long careers. Now, many of those jobs are underpaid or outsourced. Entry into major publishing houses increasingly depends on unpaid internships, elite connections or the ability to work in expensive cities without support. Aspiring editors and writers often cobble together freelance gigs, adjunct teaching and grant-funded residencies.

Similarly, graphic designers and illustrators face a flooded marketplace where clients can access low-cost design through Canva templates or $5 commissions on Fiverr. While a few designers rise through agencies or cultivate niche followings on Instagram or Behance, many struggle to find full-time employment with benefits.

In the art world, as Daniel Grant describes in his article on studio assistants, recent graduates often take jobs hoping for mentorship or exposure. Some are fortunate to turn these opportunities into gallery representation. But many more are relegated to menial labor with little visibility, let alone advancement.

The Power—and Limits—of Connections and Credentialing

With few formal entry points, connections play an outsize role in the creative industries. Jobs in film, media and publishing are often filled through personal recommendations, referrals and informal networks.

This favors those with pre-existing access to elite institutions or cultural capital. Graduates of Ivy League programs or specialized M.F.A. programs (e.g., Iowa Writers’ Workshop, RISD or USC School of Cinematic Arts) often find themselves in better positions to land opportunities than those from less connected backgrounds.

The disparities are also geographic. Being in New York, Los Angeles or London matters. These hubs concentrate industry gatekeepers, networking events and cultural institutions. Aspiring creatives in smaller markets face many hurdles simply to get noticed.

The Growing Dysfunction of Academic Credentialing

In a recent Substack post titled “The Professional-Managerial Class Has No Future,” Peter Wei offers a sobering, sharply argued critique of how America’s professional class has become trapped in a self-consuming cycle of institutional dependency.

Wei begins with the Varsity Blues scandal—the 2019 revelation that wealthy parents had bribed college officials and fabricated athletic credentials to secure their children’s admission to elite universities. The irony, Wei notes, is that these parents weren’t trying to buy businesses or invest in their children’s talent—they were paying enormous sums just for the opportunity to pay even more in tuition.

Why? Because in the worldview of the professional-managerial class, education is not just a pathway to opportunity—it is the only viable path. Knowledge, credentials and institutional endorsement matter more than social capital, which is why a degree from USC is seen as preferable to one from Arizona State.

Wei argues that this dependence on elite institutions for status and opportunity has made the professional class uniquely vulnerable. Unlike traditional elites, who can pass down businesses, land or networks, this class has no durable assets to transfer—only a highly contingent form of symbolic capital that must be re-earned with every generation through a costly and competitive credentialing system.

Wei likens this class to giant pandas—unable to reproduce without intervention.

From elite preschools to graduate degrees and unpaid internships, Wei sees a system of “institutional parasitism” that extracts time, money and energy from aspirants, with no guarantee of upward mobility. The result is a bloated, extractive pseudomeritocracy that privileges wealth over talent and inertia over innovation.

Implications for Creative Professions

Although Wei focuses primarily on conventional high-status fields—law, medicine, finance—his insights carry powerful implications for the creative economy, where credentialism is more ambiguous in its outcomes but no less pervasive.

Wei critiques the growing trend of formalizing creative careers through graduate and certificate programs. M.F.A.s in writing or fine arts, film schools, design degrees and other academic programs promise legitimacy and access. But more often, they function as status symbols and revenue streams for universities, not as meaningful gateways into sustainable creative work.

In practice, these programs frequently delay entry into the field, saddle students with debt and shift talent validation from peers and mentors to institutional branding. As Wei might argue, creative credentials offer prestige but little in the way of guaranteed opportunity.

Mentorship and Networks Matter More Than the Actual Degree

Creative careers have long depended more on networks and visibility than on diplomas. The most important variables often include whom you know, who advocates for you and how effectively you can showcase your work. Wei’s insight—that social and relational capital are more durable than formal credentials—is especially relevant here.

Creative professionals frequently get their start through informal pathways: studios, internships, apprenticeships, artist assistantships or digital communities. What these avenues offer is not accreditation, but proximity to opportunity, mentorship and practice.

Wei’s argument helps explain why so many talented graduates flounder despite having “done everything right.” They’ve invested in institutional validation in a field where validation rarely comes through formal channels.

As Daniel Grant has documented, art school graduates can accumulate six-figure debt and still find themselves in low-paid assistantships or unpaid labor, hoping for a breakthrough. Many end up subsidizing the very systems that promised to launch their careers.

Wei’s Call for Alternative Paths

Wei’s broader point is that real security and sustainability come not from deeper immersion in fancy-pancy credential mills but from building independent capital—whether financial, creative or communal. For creative professionals, this means:
- Leveraging digital platforms, such as Substack, TikTok, Patreon and Etsy.
- Developing entrepreneurial skills.
- Forming collectives or cooperatives with other aspiring creative professionals.
- Building long-term relationships with peers, patrons and collaborators.
These forms of capital—unlike credentials—can be scaled, adapted and passed down. They offer autonomy rather than institutional dependence.

Wei challenges the foundational logic of credential-based class reproduction. He suggests that lasting success, especially in the creative fields, won’t come through elite validation but through independence, adaptability and networked collaboration.

Toward New Models of Creative Work

Wei’s essay is more than a critique—it’s a wake-up call. It suggests that many creative professionals have been sold a bill of goods—a narrow vision of success: climb the institutional ladder, get the right degrees, wait for permission. But this path is extractive and increasingly out of reach.

Instead, creative workers—especially emerging artists, writers and designers—need to forge alternative models: ones rooted in craft, community, ownership and resilience. That doesn’t mean abandoning education, but it does mean resisting the illusion that credentials alone will ensure a viable creative life.

In a world where institutions increasingly extract more than they offer, the most powerful move may be to step outside their orbit—and build something of your own.

What Universities Ought to Do

University programs for aspiring creative professionals—whether in writing, design, media, fine arts, filmmaking or performance—have a responsibility to ensure that their offerings are both educationally meaningful and practically valuable. Too often, these programs are exploitative or misleading, promising more than they can deliver. Here are several concrete steps institutions can take to fulfill their mission with integrity:
1. Set clear, honest expectations. Avoid inflated rhetoric. Be transparent about what a creative degree can—and cannot—guarantee. These programs should not be marketed as guaranteed pathways to fame, prestige or financial security. Honesty builds credibility.
2. Publish real outcomes. Share detailed, accurate data on employment rates, average debt, income trajectories and postgraduation paths. Transparency builds trust—and helps students make informed choices.
3. Integrate career education into the curriculum. Creative students need more than artistic technique—they need tools to build sustainable careers. Programs should teach freelance business basics (contracts, invoicing, taxes) and grant writing, budgeting and pitching projects. They should also educate their students about copyright and intellectual property essentials and about branding, marketing and building an audience. Portfolio development starting early, not just at the end. The job is not just to teach skills—it’s to prepare students for a meaningful, rewarding career.
4. Provide real-world experience. Bridge the gap between the classroom and the profession. This means partnering with professionals to create paid internships and mentorship opportunities and hosting public showcases, exhibitions and performances. Offer opportunities for leadership through student-run publications and collaborative studios. Assign project work that mimics client briefs and industry expectations. Follow the example of one of my cousins, who teaches in a leading film program: Have the students create pilots, then show the best to industry professionals.
5. Foster industry connections while students are still in school. Help students begin building a creative network by creating alumni mentorship programs and hosting career fairs and industry mixers. Collaborate with local arts and media organizations. Also, encourage interdisciplinary collaborations—connecting writers with designers and musicians with filmmakers.
6. Offer affordable and flexible credentials. Not every aspiring creative can afford a traditional two-year M.F.A. Institutions should offer more accessible alternatives, including stackable certificates, short-term residencies and continuing education for different stages of a creative career.
7. Support the postgraduation transition. The first year out of school is often the hardest. Universities should offer “alumni launch” fellowships or microgrants and provide continued access to key campus resources—equipment, studios, software and advising—for recent graduates.
8. Prioritize mentorship and community. Creative growth thrives on connection and feedback. To that end, programs should build intentional mentorship structures with faculty, alumni and visiting professionals. They should also support long-term creative communities—like writing circles, critique groups and production collectives—that outlast graduation.
9. Redefine success. Success shouldn’t be measured solely by commercial visibility or gallery representation. Programs should honor diverse career paths in teaching, community arts, arts administration, arts and music therapy, and independent creative entrepreneurship. Help students see themselves not just as individual artists seeking recognition, but as contributors to a broader creative ecosystem.
Universities must resist the temptation to sell prestige and focus instead on empowering students with the skills, networks and resilience to live creative lives—not just earn creative degrees. That means reimagining programs not as talent showcases but as launchpads: places where craft is developed, careers are seeded and communities are built.

The Rise of Precarity and the Myth of Passion

Creative work has long been framed as a labor of love. But this framing often masks a more exploitative reality. The expectation that young professionals should work for exposure, accept unpaid internships or endure grueling hours in the name of passion has become normalized.

Hollywood offers one glaring example. Aspiring screenwriters and filmmakers face a labyrinth of assistant jobs, script reading gigs and “general meetings” with no guaranteed outcomes. The 2023 Writers Guild of America strike underscored how even seasoned professionals struggle to earn a living wage in an industry increasingly dominated by streaming algorithms and franchise formulas.

In digital content creation, influencers and YouTubers appear to bypass traditional gatekeepers—but the reality is a grind of content calendars, brand deals, metric tracking and parasocial labor. Few creators make a sustainable income, and many burn out trying to keep up with algorithmic expectations.

Toward a More Sustainable Creative Economy

Creative professionals have always been dreamers, but dreams alone can’t sustain a livelihood. In an era of precarity and gigification, the creative class is emblematic of broader economic shifts that reward flexibility over stability, connections over merit and visibility over depth.

But this is not a reason for resignation. It is a call to action: to create new structures that honor the value of creative work, to build ecosystems that support risk-taking and reflection, and to ensure that the future of art, storytelling, design and media is not left to those who can afford to wait for luck.

To do that, we must see the creative economy not as a lottery, but as a system that can be shaped—and improved—by collective effort, institutional vision and public investment.

Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and recipient of the AAC&U’s 2025 President’s Award for Outstanding Contributions to Liberal Education.
Source link
April 9, 2025
Most Students Say Colleges Promote Free Speech

While freedom of speech remains a hot-button issue in higher ed, most undergraduates feel like they’re free to speak their minds on campus, according to a new report by the Lumina Foundation and Gallup.

The report, released Tuesday, found that roughly three-quarters of students earning bachelor’s degrees believe their college does an “excellent” or “good” job of fostering free speech, including 73 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Democrats. More than two-thirds of students of all races, genders and major political parties report feeling like they belong on campus, and at least three-quarters say they feel respected by faculty members.

But some topics are more easily discussed than others. Most students feel like they can freely discuss race (66 percent), gender and sexual orientation (67 percent), and religion (62 percent). Discussing the Israel-Hamas war appears to be more fraught. Half of students report that pro-Israel views are welcome on campus, while 57 percent say the same of pro-Palestinian views. Students are also divided on how campuses have handled protests—a little over half, 54 percent, described their campus as doing an “excellent” or “good” job responding to protests and other disruptions.

The report also showed that students are more likely to believe liberal views are welcome on campus than conservative views, 67 percent and 53 percent respectively. But most Democratic (78 percent), Republican (69 percent) and Independent students (73 percent) individually report that they can discuss their views openly on campus.

“At a time when public discourse often questions whether free speech is still alive on college campuses, students are telling us a more hopeful story,” Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning, said in a news release. “It’s a powerful reminder that, despite the national narrative of polarization, many campuses are doing what higher education is meant to do: foster open dialogue, encourage learning and create a sense of belonging.”

Source link

April 9, 2025
Jewish Studies Can’t Be a Pawn in Trump’s Attacks (opinion)

This administration’s purported war against campus antisemitism is in fact a crusade against the rights of free expression, academic freedom and due process for everyone involved in higher education in the United States. Those of us in the fields of Jewish and Israel studies strenuously object to being used as pawns in the administration’s venal political games. Threats to cut government-funded research and the deportations of protesters without due process are not solutions to campus tensions and will just intensify the existing polarization.

Teaching about Israel or any contemporary Jewish topic has become a minefield over the past several years. On one side we face campus members who boycott or ostracize anyone who comes from Israel and any academic unit that has “Israel” in its name. On the other side are those within and beyond the academic community whose expectations of advocacy and activism for Israel contradict the scholarly ethos that most of us share.

The campus climate has become difficult to endure for many Jewish students, staff and faculty. The number of tracked antisemitic incidents has skyrocketed since the Hamas terror attack of Oct. 7, 2023, and the start of Israel’s Gaza war. Muslim and Palestinian campus members have also been targeted in violent ways. Several task force reports have concluded that, in many cases, university leaders responded inadequately to incidents of campus antisemitism and Islamophobia.

The field of Israel studies has become a target in the campus battles. Today, our events often can take place only under police protection, lectures on Israel are disrupted and antisemitic tropes are used in activists’ fights against Zionism and Israel. Many Israel and Jewish studies faculty have faced internal boycotts and the refusal of colleagues to engage in any communication. As the director of American University’s Center for Israel Studies, I can testify that my colleagues across the country and I are neither activists for a cause nor spokespersons for a government.

Just as an American studies professor should not be held responsible for the actions of the U.S. government, Israel studies professors should not be associated with the actions of the Israeli government. Our job in Israel studies is to teach critically about Israel, just as scholars of Arab studies are supposed to teach critically about the Arab world and scholars of China about China. Our task is to educate and to present a variety of viewpoints and narratives to our students. We present Israel in all its diversity, which includes its Jewish citizens with ancestry in Europe, the Americas, the Arab world and Ethiopia, as well as the Palestinian citizens, who make up about 20 percent of Israel’s population.

We need to take a clear stance when academics are ostracized and boycotted for the actions of their government or of the country they study instead of for their individual positions. We need to make sure that there is a healthy campus climate and no tolerance for any form of antisemitism, racism or Islamophobia. But we need to fix this without external interventions and threats to our academic freedom.

The case against Columbia University, my own alma mater, is just one in a series of attempts in which the Trump administration has used Jewish students and faculty as pawns in its own attack on the higher education system in this country. Recently, the Department of Education notified 60 universities that they may face enforcement actions for failing to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment.

Columbia conceded to the Trump administration’s demands after the cancellation of $400 million in government grants and contracts. Among other things, Columbia’s leadership pledged to adopt a formal definition of antisemitism, to hire an internal security force that will be empowered to make arrests and to place the university’s Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department under the oversight of a senior vice provost.

Our students are not protected by cutting research programs, and our programs have no intention to thrive at the expense of others. The fight against antisemitism must be waged on our own grounds and within accepted legal parameters. Cracking down on universities is how authoritarian regimes act, not democracies.

Everyone deserves due process in a democratic society, including and especially those with whom we disagree. We need to fight against bigotry on our campuses, rebuild our campus communities and relearn civic dialogue by preserving our academic freedoms.

Michael Brenner is Distinguished Professor of History and director of the Center for Israel Studies at American University in Washington, D.C., and professor of Jewish history and culture at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich.

Source link

April 9, 2025
UniSQ to cut 259 jobs after all other Qld, WA universities post surpluses – Campus Review

The University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ) will shed 259 jobs to plug a multi-million dollar budget hole despite all other Queensland universities reporting a 2024 surplus.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

April 9, 2025
Northwestern, Cornell Face Federal Funding Freeze

The Trump administration is freezing more than $1 billion in federal funds at Cornell University and $790 million at Northwestern University—the latest colleges to see their federal grants and contracts threatened, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing anonymous officials.

The affected funds will include money from the Agriculture, Defense, Education and Health and Human Services Departments. The Times didn’t say why those universities were losing the money aside from noting that both institutions are facing civil rights investigations related to alleged antisemitism on campus. In recent weeks, Northwestern has sought to highlight its efforts to combat antisemitism, which include policy changes and mandatory antisemitism training for students, faculty and staff.

However, the administration can’t legally pull funding from colleges for civil rights violations until after a lengthy process that’s supposed to include notice to Congress and the opportunity for judicial review. Still, the Trump administration has used other avenues—which some experts say are illegal and are the subject of legal challenges—to cut off money. They include tapping a task force to investigate colleges and targeting their grants and contracts. The task force is currently reviewing Harvard University’s federal funding, which totals $9 billion, and has demanded several changes in order for the college to continue receiving money.

“This was wrong last week, it is wrong this week, and it will be wrong next week,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education.

Jon Yates, a Northwestern spokesman, said the university learned via the media about the freeze, which would affect “a significant portion of our federal funding.”

“The University has not received any official notification from the federal government,” Yates wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Federal funds that Northwestern receives drive innovative and life-saving research, like the recent development by Northwestern researchers of the world’s smallest pacemaker, and research fueling the fight against Alzheimer’s disease. This type of research is now at jeopardy. The University has fully cooperated with investigations by both the Department of Education and Congress.”

Cornell didn’t respond to an Inside Higher Ed request for comment.

The American Jewish Committee on Tuesday warned the Trump administration against making dramatic cuts to universities’ funding, adding that such a step should be a last resort.

Colleges That Have Lost Federal Funding So Far:

Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.

Source link

April 8, 2025
AI Detection Tools Are Powerful When Instructors Know How to Use Them

To the editor:

I’m sympathetic to the overall thrust of Steven Mintz’s argument in Inside Higher Ed, “Writing in the Age of AI Suspicion” (April 2, 2025). AI-detection programs are unreliable. To the degree that instructors rely on AI detection, they contribute to the erosion of trust between instructors and students—not a good thing. And because AI “detection” works by assessing things like the smoothness or “fluency” in writing, they implicitly invert our values: We are tempted to have higher regard for less structured or coherent writing, since it strikes us as more authentic.

Mintz’s article is potentially misleading, however. He repeatedly testifies that in testing the detection software, his and other non-AI-produced writing yielded certain scores as “percent AI generated.” For instance, he writes, “27.5 percent of a January 2019 piece … was deemed likely to contain AI-generated text.” Although the software Mintz used for this exercise (ZeroGPT) does claim to identify “how much” of the writing it flags as AI-generated, many other AI detectors (e.g., chatgptzero) indicate rather the degree of probability that the writing as a whole was written by AI. Both types of data are imperfect and problematic, but they communicate different things.

Again, Mintz’s argument is useful. But if conscientious instructors are going to take a stand against technologies on empirical or principled grounds, they will do well to demonstrate appreciation for the nuances of the various tools.

Christopher Richmann is the associate director of the Academy for Teaching and Learning and affiliate faculty in the Department of Religion at Baylor University.

Source link

April 8, 2025
Boards Must Fight for Institutional Independence (opinion)
The academy is facing a crisis of confidence. Where shared governance once nurtured robust debate and institutional progress, a climate of fear is taking hold, stifling dialogue and endangering the very mission of higher education. Decision-makers, ensnared in an atmosphere marked by uncertainty, are both terrified to act and paralyzed by inaction. They are troubled by a well-orchestrated effort that seeks to fundamentally alter higher education, forcing the sector into a state of existential terror for the foreseeable future. Consequently, we are witnessing a shift from shared governance to scared governance, and the consequences are profound.

At present, presidents seem to be thunderously quiet, boards approach critical issues with trepidation and faculty members feel suppressed in their teaching and research. The insidious costs of these constraints—the lost opportunities, the stifled innovation, the further erosion of trust—are staggering. These costs must be exposed to public scrutiny, as they are not confined to higher education. The repercussions of external intrusion will manifest in every facet of our society.

Governing boards—guardians of institutional mission and values—must recognize the gravity of this moment. This isn’t simply about diversity, equity and inclusion, though the attacks on DEI initiatives are a major part of the problem. This is about institutional independence, the freedom to pursue knowledge and the very DNA of our nation’s colleges and universities. Too often board members have permitted faculty or presidents to take the lead in governance and have used shared governance as an excuse, explanation or cover for their own lack of involvement. They have successfully hidden in plain sight.

Governance, however, is not a spectator sport. Boards have to champion the preservation of institutional independence and recognize that inaction under the guise of shared governance is still inaction. They cannot afford to be passive observers, expecting others to shoulder the burden of defending the institution’s core values while they remain detached. This is not a middle school group project; everyone has to participate or we will all fail the assignment.

The threats are widespread: curricula are under siege, co-curricular life is being dismantled, research programs are targeted, medical schools are undermined and free speech is gagged. This is not a series of isolated incidents; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend the foundations of higher learning, and it demands a unified, unwavering response.

The responsibility falls on governing boards to work with presidents to answer (clearly and immediately) some key questions:
- What principles defined our institutions before the current political climate?
- Do we still stand for these principles? If so, how can we hold fast to them now?
- What price are we willing to pay to uphold those foundational values?
- If we abandon our values now, what remains of our institutional identity?
Autonomy is not merely a privilege; it’s the bedrock of our academic mission. It is not only our institutional independence at stake, but our very integrity.

Many boards, understandably, are hesitant to address these challenges directly. But silence and inaction are not options. Board members are the ultimate arbiters of their institutions’ destinies. It is time to abandon the narrow focus on isolated initiatives and confront the broader, systemic assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Board leadership will determine how we navigate this defining moment.

Boards of trustees are the protectors of institutional values. They carry the legacies of their institutions forward. If they fail in this duty, the consequences may be irreversible. While other higher education decision-makers respond to executive orders, policy shifts and legal rulings, the board’s role is clear and unchanging. The only uncertainty is whether members will fulfill their responsibilities in alignment with the institution’s mission.

The future of higher education depends on boards of higher education. The 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities makes it clear that “The governing board has a special obligation to ensure that the history of the college or university shall serve as a prelude and inspiration to the future … When ignorance or ill will threaten the institution or any part of it, the governing board must be available for support. In grave crises, it will be expected to serve as a champion.”

Board members: This is that moment. Your institutions—and the public they serve—are waiting for you to lead. The future of higher education depends on your courage, your convictions and your willingness to champion the values upon which your institutions were built. Will you rise to the occasion? We need you now more than ever.

We’ve recently made some suggestions for concrete actions trustees and senior leaders of institutions can take immediately to advance the great work higher education does while partnering with good-faith collaborators to address the field’s challenges. For those boards that want to be proactive and not just reactive, here are a few ideas.

One key action is to highlight the implications for resources. A public, transparent review of the university’s budget should explicitly showcase areas under threat—like research and DEI programs. To take this further, institutions could consider reallocating funds from traditionally “untouchable” areas, such as athletics, to fortify initiatives focused on inclusivity and academic freedom. Publicly challenging politicians to justify cuts in the face of these demonstrated priorities could push the conversation beyond rhetoric.

Fundraising strategies also need reimagining. Universities could launch targeted campaigns specifically designed to offset federal funding cuts and support programs under siege. A bolder approach might frame these efforts as “impact investments,” emphasizing the societal returns on supporting research and DEI. This reframing could inspire donors who care deeply about the university’s role in shaping a more equitable future.

Equally important is stressing the human cost. Universities should conduct and publish comprehensive reports that quantify the real-world consequences of funding cuts—measuring lives impacted, medical treatments delayed, rising attrition rates and mental health issues among students and staff. Presenting these findings to legislators and the public forces a direct reckoning with the human toll of these policy decisions. The facts, laid bare, can speak louder than fear.

Finally, institutions must build collective strength through research consortia. By forming inter-institutional partnerships to pool resources and expertise, universities can ensure the continuation of vital research projects at risk. A more assertive stance could position these consortia as a direct counter to political interference, underscoring the importance of academic inquiry free from external pressure.

The path forward is clear: Governing boards must lead with transparency, strategy and courage. Higher education’s survival—and its ability to serve the public good—depends on it.

Raquel M. Rall and Demetri L. Morgan are co-founders and co-directors of the Center for Strategic & Inclusive Governance. Rall is an associate professor and associate dean of strategic initiatives in the School of Education at the University of California, Riverside. Morgan is an associate professor of education at the University of Michigan’s Marsal Family School of Education, within the Center for the Study of Postsecondary and Higher Education.
Source link
April 8, 2025