Tag: Jobs

  • Ohio and Kentucky Ban DEI, Reduce Tenure Protections

    Ohio and Kentucky Ban DEI, Reduce Tenure Protections

    Republican-controlled legislatures in two bordering states, Ohio and Kentucky, have now passed laws requiring post-tenure review policies at public universities and banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices, along with other DEI activities.

    Many faculty and some Democratic leaders say the new laws threaten academic freedom and undermine tenure. In Ohio, lawmakers passed the sweeping higher education legislation, which has been in the works for a few years, over protests from faculty and students. The Ohio Student Association, for instance, said the bill would kill higher education in the state. Meanwhile, in Kentucky, Republican lawmakers rushed legislation through the process in order to successfully override their Democratic governor’s veto and put their higher education changes into law.

    Ohio and Kentucky join Arkansas, Utah and Wyoming this year as states where Republicans have passed laws targeting DEI and/or promoting alternative “intellectual diversity.” Even if the Trump administration’s ongoing nationwide attacks on DEI founder, these laws lock in restrictions on DEI in these states, preventing institutions from reversing course on diversity program rollbacks.

    Much of the new laws in Ohio and Kentucky echo the DEI bans that the other states have enacted, but Ohio’s legislation goes further than Kentucky’s, allowing immediate “for cause post-tenure reviews,” banning strikes for a large group of faculty and much more.

    Ohio governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, signed into law Friday a version of higher education legislation that’s been debated for the last two years but had failed to pass despite Republican majorities in the capitol. Senate Bill 1, the evolution of the failed legislation, combined numerous postsecondary changes that GOP legislators have sought to enact in other states.

    Among many other things, the new law bans full-time faculty from striking. It prohibits DEI offices, DEI in job descriptions and DEI in scholarships, without defining what DEI is. It requires institutions to “demonstrate intellectual diversity” in a range of areas, including course approval, general education requirements, common reading programs and faculty annual reviews. It also requires four-year institutions to publicly post online the syllabi for undergraduate courses, including the names of the instructors and “any required or recommended readings.” Community colleges must post more general syllabi.

    SB 1 also mandates a version of institutional neutrality, requiring colleges and universities to declare they “will not endorse or oppose, as an institution, any controversial belief or policy, except on matters that directly impact the institution’s funding or mission of discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.” The “controversial” beliefs and policies that institutions are required to stay silent on include any that are “the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.” (Ohio colleges and universities do retain the right to endorse Congress when it goes to war.)

    The law further requires all institutions to establish post-tenure review policies—which could lead to firing tenured faculty. The legislation bans unions from using their collective bargaining rights to negotiate over these policies. And SB 1 allows certain administrators to launch “an immediate and for cause post-tenure review at any time for a faculty member who has a documented and sustained record of significant underperformance” outside their regular annual performance evaluations.

    “This bill eliminates tenure,” said Sara Kilpatrick, executive director of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors. “If certain administrators can call for post-tenure review at any time and fire a faculty member without due process, that is not real tenure, that is tenure in name only.”

    Pointing to a provision for an appeals process, Republican state senator Jerry Cirino, who filed SB 1, said, “They’re lying about that” and “once again, the AAUP is misrepresenting the facts.”

    He added that the bill is “very pro–higher education.”

    “I’m not going to fall for these false narratives that the left is trying to put out there mischaracterizing this bill,” Cirino said.

    The Ohio governor’s office didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Monday about why DeWine signed this bill into law.

    In Kentucky, the Democratic governor didn’t go along with the legislature, vetoing an anti-DEI bill. But Republicans overrode Gov. Andy Beshear.

    Bucking Beshear

    Kentucky’s House Bill 4 bans what that legislation defines as DEI offices, employees and training in public colleges and universities, as well as the use of affirmative action in hiring and in deciding scholarships and vendor selection. It also affects curricula by barring institutions from requiring courses whose “primary purpose is to indoctrinate participants with a discriminatory concept.”

    The new law generally defines a “discriminatory concept” as one that “justifies or promotes differential treatment or benefits” for people based on “religion, race, sex, color or national origin.” It broadly characterizes DEI as promoting a discriminatory concept. And it defines “indoctrinate” as imbuing or attempting to “imbue another individual with an opinion, point of view or principle without consideration of any alternative.”

    Additionally, under the new law, the Council on Postsecondary Education, which oversees Kentucky’s public colleges and universities, can’t approve new degrees or certificates that require courses or trainings primarily intended to “indoctrinate” with discriminatory concepts. And it encourages the council to eliminate current academic programs that contain such requirements.

    Beshear vetoed House Bill 4 on March 19 and defended diversity programs, adding that the legislation attempts to “control how universities and colleges meet the needs of their students and prepare them for their future.”

    “Acting like racism and discrimination no longer exist or that hundreds of years of inequality have been somehow overcome and there is a level playing field is disingenuous,” Beshear added. “History may look at this time and this bill as part of the anti–civil rights or pro-discrimination movement. Kentucky should not be a part of that movement.”

    On Thursday, the Kentucky House voted 79 to 19 to override this veto, and the Senate voted 32 to 6.

    Beshear also vetoed another bill, House Bill 424, which required institutions to evaluate president and faculty “productivity” at least once every four years using a board-approved process. Presidents or faculty who fail performance and productivity metrics could lose their jobs, under the bill. Beshear wrote in his veto message that the legislation “threatens academic freedom.”

    “In a time of increased federal encroachment into the public education, this bill will limit employment protections of our postsecondary institution teachers” and the state’s “ability to hire the best people,” he wrote. Lawmakers overrode him with an 80-to-20 House vote and a 29-to-9 Senate vote.

    Amy Reid, Freedom to Learn senior manager at PEN America, a free speech and academic freedom advocacy group, said in an email that the new Ohio and Kentucky laws “are not only significant blows to public higher education, but also reflect a galling disregard for the voters, educators and students in these states.”

    “Ohioans were massively organized in their opposition to SB 1, with hundreds of citizens coming to the capital to testify against the bill,” Reid said. “The legislature ignored them and so did Governor DeWine.” She said there was also “strong opposition across Kentucky” to the new laws there.

    But Tom Young, chairman of the Ohio House Workforce and Higher Education Committee, said he had heard support for the legislation from students and faculty who were concerned about speaking up. He said DEI had become “a tool for dividing people,” and most opposition to SB 1 that he heard regarded its anti-strike and post-tenure review provisions.

    “I don’t believe that any of these professors are concerned about the classroom,” Young said of faculty upset about the new law.

    Source link

  • Trump Investigates Harvard’s Federal Funding

    Trump Investigates Harvard’s Federal Funding

    Harvard is the second Ivy League institution to be targeted by the Trump administration for how it handled alleged instances of antisemitism on campus.

    Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

    Harvard University is the latest higher education institution to be investigated by the Trump administration in response to its alleged mishandling of antisemitic harassment on campus. The institution will undergo a “comprehensive” analysis of nearly $9 billion in federal grants and contracts, according to a multi-agency news release.

    The review, announced Monday afternoon, is part of ongoing efforts by the Justice Department’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism to tackle alleged antisemitic harassment on college campuses. The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration will carry out the investigation to “ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities,” the news release said.

    The task force said its review process for Harvard will be similar to the one it is currently carrying out at Columbia University.

    “This initiative strengthens enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order titled ‘Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,’” which “ensures that federally funded institutions uphold their legal and ethical responsibilities to prevent anti-Semitic harassment,” the news release said.

    In a matter of weeks, the task force’s investigation into Columbia has upended the institution. It received a notification in early March that the government had launched a review into $54.1 million in federal contracts. Then, on March 7, the department retracted $400 million in grants and contracts, and on March 13 it sent the university a sweeping list of demands, calling for immediate compliance in order to regain the funding. Columbia agreed to nearly all of the demands a week later, but the administration has not reinstated the funds.

    Shortly after announcing the decision to comply, the university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, resigned.

    The administration has said it will now review more than $255.6 million in federal contracts and $8.7 billion in multiyear grant commitments at Harvard.

    As with Columbia, the agencies will consider stop-work orders for any contracts the review identifies. But Harvard has also been ordered to submit a list of all federal contracts—both direct and through affiliates—that were not identified in the task force’s initial investigation.

    Addressing the review in a letter to the Harvard community, President Alan M. Garber acknowledged that nearly $9 billion in research funding is at risk: “If this funding is stopped, it will halt life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation.”

    He said the institution had “devoted considerable effort” to addressing antisemitism on campus for the past 15 months, but added, “We still have work to do” and committed to working with the task force.

    “We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom,” he said.  

    Critics have broadly opposed the Trump administration’s tactics, saying they are prime examples of using claims of antisemitism to justify “aggressive” executive overreach.

    “What we’re seeing is an attempt to weaponize federal funding to punish schools that don’t align with their political views,” said Wesley Whistle, a project director at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “That kind of pressure stifles the free exchange of ideas—and that’s the whole point of higher education.”

    Meanwhile, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the university’s “failure to protect students on campus from antisemitic discrimination—all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry—has put its reputation in serious jeopardy.

    “Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus,” she said.

    Source link

  • A Timeline for Job Search Success (opinion)

    A Timeline for Job Search Success (opinion)

    One of the most common questions I get from Ph.D. students and postdocs is “When should I begin my job search?” Most of the time, they are referring only to the application process—they are asking when they should start actually applying for jobs. While I generally recommend applying three to four months before you are available to start, the job search itself should begin much earlier. There is a lot of information and data that you need to gather in advance so that you are well positioned to recognize that a job is a good fit and make an informed decision with confidence.

    I see a lot of similarities between the job search and the way you might approach committing to a large purchase such as that of a car or home: The more research and preparation you do, the more confident and informed you’ll be when the right opportunity comes along.

    Like a house, a job needs to align with your values, interests and goals. However, compromise is inevitable. Just as home buyers must balance their wish list with budget constraints and market realities, job seekers must consider factors such as location, salary, job stability and growth potential. A strategic, long-term approach ensures that when the ideal opportunity presents itself, you can recognize it and act decisively.

    That said, it’s important to recognize that in both job searching and home buying, there are many variables we can’t control. Many Ph.D. students and postdocs I speak with are understandably concerned about the uncertainty of the job market they’ll be entering into in light of federal employee layoffs and university hiring freezes. This is unfortunate but makes long-term, careful planning all the more important.

    The House-Hunting Approach to Job Searching

    When I was a postdoc, my husband and I wanted to buy our first home. Initially, I had a long list of must-haves: a safe neighborhood close to work, hardwood floors, a spacious updated kitchen, three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a fireplace, a deck, a two-car garage and a lush yard for gardening. We determined our budget and began our search.

    For six months, we attended open houses and scoured online listings, refining our expectations along the way. We learned what features were common in our price range and which ones were unrealistic. We adjusted our priorities, and when we finally found the right home, even though it wasn’t exactly what we had first envisioned, we were confident in our decision because of the knowledge we had gained along the way.

    The job search follows a similar process. The more job descriptions you analyze and the more people you talk to, the more attuned you become to industry norms, required skills and job value. This preparation allows you to confidently apply and evaluate offers, just as a seasoned home buyer recognizes a great deal when they see one.

    To best position yourself for success, your job search should start long before you submit applications. Here’s a suggested timeline.

    More Than One Year Out: Laying the Foundation

    • Identify your career interests: Before house hunting, you need a vision for your ideal home. Likewise, before applying for jobs, you need a clear sense of your desired career path. If you’re unsure, conduct informational interviews to learn from professionals in different fields. Ideally, these conversations would be taking place throughout your graduate and postdoctoral training. More about informational interviewing can be found at Live Career. Resources such as MyIDP (for the sciences) and ImaginePhD (for humanities and social sciences) can help you explore career options. Vanderbilt University’s “Beyond the Lab” video and podcast interview series explores a variety of biomedical career paths, and InterSECT Job Simulations offers job simulation exercises to help Ph.D.-level scientists and humanists learn about various career options. Finally, the Propelling Careers podcast is another resource I would recommend that provides valuable insights into career exploration topics and the entire job search process.
    • Build your professional presence: Just as no one starts house hunting without securing their financing and mortgage pre-approval, you shouldn’t enter the job market without your professional documents ready. A strong, polished application package is like a solid financial foundation—it ensures you’re taken seriously and can move quickly when the right opportunity appears.

    Prepare your CV or résumé well in advance, tailoring it to the roles you’re considering. The National Institutes of Health Office of Intramural Training and Education has a great resource for these on their website. For jobs outside of academia, you will need a résumé, and this can take time to do well. Seek feedback from colleagues and career advisers to refine it. An up-to-date and well-crafted résumé also can be extremely valuable when you are conducting informational interviews to share with the professionals you meet; they will understand your background better, can provide feedback and may pass your document along to hiring managers.

    Updating your LinkedIn profile is equally important—it serves as both your online résumé and a networking and research tool. A polished LinkedIn profile increases your visibility and credibility within your target industry.

    One Year Out: Researching the Market

    • Track job postings: A year before you plan to transition, start monitoring job postings, just as you would start researching and looking at houses online and driving through neighborhoods. Save descriptions of roles that interest you and analyze them for common themes. This practice helps refine your job search keywords and informs the skills you should highlight on your résumé.
    • Identify skill gaps: By analyzing job descriptions early, you may discover missing skills that are crucial for your target roles. By recognizing this in advance, you can take online courses, join organizations or gain hands-on experience to strengthen your qualifications before applying.
    • Prepare for additional requirements: Depending on the field, you may be asked to share a writing sample or coding project. If you’ve been preparing throughout the year, you won’t be caught off guard.
    • Experiment with AI assistance: AI tools like ChatGPT can help analyze job descriptions to identify key themes and skills. They can also provide feedback on your résumé and help tailor application materials to specific roles.
    • Be open to exceptional opportunities: Occasionally, a job posting might appear that is a perfect fit—what I call a “Cinderella’s slipper” job. Even if it’s earlier than your planned timeline, consider applying or reaching out to someone in the organization. Expressing interest might open doors for a future opportunity.

    Three to Four Months Out: Start Applying

    • Start submitting applications: At this stage, it’s time to actively apply for jobs while continuing to network. Informational interviews remain valuable, as many jobs are never publicly posted. Take this time to reach back out to the contacts you have made over the past year or so to let them know you are on the market.
    • Tailor your application materials: Customize your résumé and cover letter for each application, incorporating language from the job description to highlight your fit. If the application allows an optional cover letter, always include one—it may be the deciding factor between you and another equally qualified candidate.
    • Leverage networking for hidden opportunities: Identify organizations of interest and connect with employees to learn more. This proactive approach often leads to learning about openings before they’re publicly listed. We’ve all heard stories of people reaching out to homeowners with letters expressing interest in a house—even if it’s not for sale—hoping the owners might consider selling in the future.
    • Secure references: Consider who can provide strong recommendations. Reach out in advance to confirm their willingness to serve as references and keep them updated on your search.
    • Keep a job search log: Maintain a spreadsheet to track applications, including submission dates, job descriptions and tailored résumé and cover letter versions. This record will be invaluable when preparing for interviews and following up with employers.

    Conclusion: Finding Your Dream Job

    Job searching is a complex and important decision-making process, one that also has to remain flexible in light of changing market conditions and unique personal constraints. Just as home buyers don’t purchase the first house they see, job seekers shouldn’t rush into the first opportunity that arises. A strategic job search, like a well-planned home-buying journey, requires research, patience and flexibility. By starting early, refining your criteria, and actively engaging with your field, you’ll be well prepared when the right job—your “dream home” in the professional world—becomes available. With knowledge and preparation, you can confidently apply, interview and accept an offer, knowing you’ve found the right fit for this stage of your career.

    Ashley Brady is assistant dean of biomedical career engagement and strategic partnerships and associate professor of medical education and administration at Vanderbilt University in the School of Medicine’s Biomedical Research, Education and Training Office of Career Development ASPIRE Program. She is also a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing a national voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Source link

  • 13-Percentage-Point Gap in Pell vs. Non-Pell Completion

    13-Percentage-Point Gap in Pell vs. Non-Pell Completion

    A survey of community colleges finds, across five states, Pell Grant recipients have lower success rates compared to their peers.

    Eduard Figueres/iStock/Getty Images

    Low-income students can experience a variety of barriers to success in college, and new data from the Richmond Federal Reserve points to gaps in success and completion among Pell Grant recipients at community colleges, compared to their peers.

    An analysis of a 2024 survey of two-year public institutions in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia identified a 13-percentage-point gap in success rates between Pell Grant recipients and those who do not receive the Pell Grant. Forty percent of Pell Grant students achieved at least one metric of success, versus 53 percent of non-Pell recipients.

    Methodology 

    The 2024 Survey of Community College Outcomes includes data from five states—Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia—and 121 colleges. Data includes all degree- or certificate-seeking students enrolled during the 2019–20 academic year, including dual-enrollment students.

    Around 34 percent of students included in the study received a Pell Grant while enrolled at a community college, (compared to the national average of 32 percent). Dual-enrollment students are not eligible for the Pell Grant.

    The background: Pell Grant recipients, who are low-income students enrolled in a college or university in the U.S., are more often to be enrolled at public institutions, and the greatest share are from families who earn less than $20,000 annually.

    Success, as defined by the Richmond Fed, means a degree- or certificate-seeking student at a community college completed one of the following over a four-year period following enrollment:

    • Earned an associate degree
    • Earned a diploma or credit-bearing certificate
    • Earned an industry- or employer- recognized licensure or credential
    • Transferred to a four-year institution prior to degree or award attainment
    • Persisted by completing at least 30 credit hours

    Over all, Pell and non-Pell students completed an associate degree at similar rates (19 percent), but Pell students were less likely to transfer (10 percent of Pell versus 20 percent of non-Pell) or complete a credential (6 percent versus 7 percent).

    Digging into the data: Researchers qualify that while there is a correlation between receiving a Pell Grant and graduation, that does not imply causation, or that receiving Pell Grant funding leads to lower outcomes.

    “Students who qualify for and receive Pell Grant funding may have substantively different characteristics than non-Pell students—differences that could be driving the differences in outcomes,” wrote Laura Dawson Ullrich, director of the Community College Initiative at the Richmond Fed, in a blog post.

    North Carolina was the only state with higher associate degree completion rates among Pell students, but this could be due to how the state classifies dual-enrollment students as degree-seeking and their ineligibility for the Pell Grant.

    South Carolina had the highest transfer rate among Pell (19.3 percent) and non-Pell recipients (27 percent), which could be a result of Clemson University and the University of South Carolina’s bridge programs with community colleges, Ullrich wrote.

    Low-income students are more likely to experience basic needs insecurity, which can hinder persistence and completion. The Richmond Fed plans to conduct more surveys focusing on wraparound student supports and how the existence of these resources may contribute to Pell Grant recipients’ success.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe to the Student Success newsletter here.

    Source link

  • New College of Florida Fires Chinese Adjunct

    New College of Florida Fires Chinese Adjunct

    New College of Florida fired a Chinese adjunct instructor after he asked why he wasn’t being paid and officials replied that they had overlooked regulations prohibiting his employment, according to a Suncoast Searchlight investigation.

    Kevin Wang—whose area of concentration was listed as Chinese Language and Culture on his now-deleted college directory page—told the nonprofit news outlet that he previously lost his professorship in China over criticizing Chinese leader Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. He’s seeking asylum and is allowed to work in the U.S., Searchlight reported.

    But New College fired him March 12, citing a university regulation based on Florida’s “countries of concern” law, the outlet reported. This came two days after Wang inquired why he hadn’t been getting paychecks all semester, Searchlight wrote. New College didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Friday.

    Florida’s Legislature has passed multiple laws limiting public colleges’ and universities’ relationships with listed “countries of concern,” such as China. The Searchlight story pointed to 2023’s Senate Bill 846, which—with exceptions—bars institutions from participating “in any agreement” with a “foreign principal.” The law defined foreign principals as “any person who is domiciled in a foreign country of concern and is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.” The Florida Board of Governors followed up the law by releasing guidance, Searchlight reported.

    Wang told the outlet, “I truly hope that such interference undermining academic freedom will not occur again in a place that claims to be a ‘beacon of democracy.’”

    Source link

  • Columbia’s Katrina Armstrong Resigns Amid Trump’s Attacks

    Columbia’s Katrina Armstrong Resigns Amid Trump’s Attacks

    Katrina Armstrong took on the top position at Columbia after her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, stepped down amid backlash for her response to campus protests.

    Sirin Samman/Columbia University

    After agreeing to the Trump administration’s sweeping demands and then appearing to backtrack to faculty, Columbia’s interim president stepped down Friday night—a move that federal officials praised, though it may add to the upheaval at the Ivy League institution that’s facing criticism on multiple fronts, from the federal government to faculty to students.

    Katrina Armstrong, who has served as the interim president since last August, is returning to her previous post leading the institution’s Irving Medical Center, according to the Friday announcement.

    In a brief statement, she said it had been a “singular honor to lead Columbia University in this important and challenging time … But my heart is with science, and my passion is with healing. That is where I can best serve this University and our community moving forward.” Claire Shipman, a former broadcast journalist and a co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, will take over as acting president while the university begins a nationwide search for a permanent leader.

    The leadership shake-up comes after weeks of turmoil at Columbia as the Trump administration has waged war against the Ivy League institution, stripping it of $400 million in federal contracts for what it calls Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment” against Jewish students on campus. Trump’s antisemitism task force, which was formed by executive order in early February, then demanded the university implement a number of sweeping reforms, including restructuring its disciplinary process under the Office of the President, expanding the authority of its campus security force and placing its Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department into receivership.

    The university announced a week ago that it would comply with the demands, to the frustration of critics who argued that the demands may be unlawful and that giving in to them undermines academic freedom and free speech. On CNN, Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised Armstrong, saying she had had productive conversations with the then-interim president and that Columbia was “on the right track” to having its funding restored.

    But according to a transcript of a virtual meeting between Armstrong and faculty members obtained by Bari Weiss’s news outlet, The Free Press, Armstrong told faculty members that many of the changes the university had promised the antisemitism task force would not come to pass. She said there would be “no change” to masking and admissions policies, that the MESAAS department wouldn’t be placed into a receivership, and that the disciplinary process would not move under the Office of the President.

    Armstrong seemingly denied those claims in a statement Tuesday, writing, “Let there be no confusion: I commit to seeing these changes implemented, with the full support of Columbia’s senior leadership team and the Board of Trustees … Any suggestion that these measures are illusory, or lack my personal support, is unequivocally false.”

    Her sudden resignation was met with enthusiasm from the federal antisemitism task force, which appeared to imply in a statement released Friday night that her leadership would have impeded the task force’s ability to move toward a resolution with Columbia.

    “The action taken by Columbia’s trustees today, especially in light of this week’s concerning revelation, is an important step toward advancing negotiations as set forth in the pre-conditional understanding reached last Friday between the University and the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism,” the statement read.

    While many faculty had strongly opposed Columbia’s choice to give in to the Trump administration’s demands, Armstrong appeared to be generally well-liked among the faculty; in a recent Inside Higher Ed article, Michael Thaddeus, vice president of the campus’s American Association of University Professors chapter, said she was one of the most open leaders he had worked with in his time at Columbia.

    Shipman, now the acting president, also praised Armstrong’s leadership in that article, calling her an “exceptional leader” who “came in to help us heal and get our campus in order” and who is skilled at working under “crisis conditions.”

    But one AAUP leader noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that, though he was personally surprised that Armstrong stepped down, it will do little to change the AAUP’s ongoing work to oppose Trump’s crusade against higher education.

    “Katrina Armstrong’s resignation changes almost nothing,” wrote Marcel Agüeros, Columbia AAUP’s chapter secretary. “For the past two years, we have been advocating for a greater role for faculty in the decision-making processes of the university. That, and defending our university and all universities against unwanted and likely unlawful interference by the federal government, remains our North Star.”

    The AAUP chapter at Columbia last week sued the Trump administration in an effort to restore the $400 million in funding. The lawsuit argues that the funding freeze was a “coercive tactic” that’s already caused irreparable damage.

    Clare Shipman joined the Columbia board in 2013.

    Shipman will be the third leader of Columbia in nine months; Armstrong took over the role when Minouche Shafik, who had led the New York institution for a little over a year, stepped down in August. Shafik resigned after backlash from both pro-Palestinian students and faculty and Republican lawmakers for how she handled pro-Palestinian encampments at Columbia. Shipman testified before Congress with Shafik last April at a hearing about antisemitism at Columbia.

    “I assume this role with a clear understanding of the serious challenges before us and a steadfast commitment to act with urgency, integrity, and work with our faculty to advance our mission, implement needed reforms, protect our students, and uphold academic freedom and open inquiry,” Shipman said in a news release. “Columbia’s new permanent president, when that individual is selected, will conduct an appropriate review of the University’s leadership team and structure to ensure we are best positioned for the future.”

    In a statement, Rep. Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, warned, “Ms. Shipman, while we wish you all good success, we will be watching closely.”



    Source link

  • Feds Investigate Stanford, UC Campuses’ Admissions Offices

    Feds Investigate Stanford, UC Campuses’ Admissions Offices

    The Department of Justice launched investigations into admissions practices at four California universities on Thursday night, accusing them of flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling banning affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

    The “compliance reviews,” as the department called them, will target Stanford University and three University of California campuses: Berkeley, Los Angeles and Irvine.

    In a statement announcing the investigations, the Justice Department wrote that the investigations are “just the beginning” of their efforts to “eliminate DEI” in college admissions.

    “President Trump and I are dedicated to ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity across the country,” U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi wrote in the statement.

    It’s unclear what prompted the investigations or what evidence the department has to support its suspicions of illegal racial preferences in admissions at the targeted institutions. Some affirmative action opponents have suggested that institutions that enrolled higher numbers of minority students last fall, the first class admitted after the Supreme Court decision, may have done so illegally.

    Berkeley, UCLA and Irvine all reported upticks in the number of Black and Hispanic students enrolled in the Class of 2028 last fall: 45 percent of students who enrolled at a UC system campus this fall were underrepresented students of color, a 1.2 percent increase from 2023 and a record for the system.

    Just hours before the DOJ announced its probe, the Department of Health and Human Services launched its own investigation into admissions practices at UCLA’s medical school, accusing it of illegally considering applicants’ race.

    The UC system has been banned from considering race in admissions since 1996, when the state passed a referendum making the practice illegal at public institutions. That hasn’t stopped anti–affirmative action watchdogs from accusing the system of doing so secretly.

    Last month, the newly formed public interest group Students Against Racial Discrimination filed a lawsuit accusing the system of practicing affirmative action behind closed doors, citing increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its most selective campuses, namely UCLA and Berkeley, and labeling recent admissions policies—like the decision in 2020 not to consider standardized test scores—proxies for affirmative action.

    “Since Proposition 209 banned California’s public institutions from considering race in admissions, UC has implemented admissions practices to comply with it,” a UC spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “The UC undergraduate admissions application collects students’ race and ethnicity for statistical purposes only. This information is not shared with application reviewers and is not used for admissions.”

    Stanford, unlike the UC schools, reported a marked decline in first-year underrepresented students last year, according to the university’s Common Data Set, released last month. Black enrollment at the university fell by nearly 50 percent, and Hispanic enrollment by 14.4 percent; meanwhile, white and Asian enrollment rose by 14.5 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

    Luisa Rapport, Stanford’s director of media relations, said the university has not flouted the affirmative action ban, and that following the SFFA ruling, it “immediately engaged in a comprehensive and rigorous review to ensure compliance in our admissions processes.”

    “We continue to be committed to fulfilling our obligations under the law, and we will respond to the department’s questions as it conducts this process,” she wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    ‘Just the Beginning’

    Angel Pérez, president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said he’s heard “extraordinary concern” from admissions officers and deans in recent weeks that investigations could spread to their institutions. They don’t know how to prepare because “we have no idea what these compliance reviews even entail.”

    What they do know, he said, is that investigations could throw their offices into chaos during the height of admissions season.

    “These kinds of reviews are extremely disruptive. They’re also extremely expensive,” Pérez said. “There are some institutions that, you know, may not survive a compliance review given the legal costs.”

    In an interview with Inside Higher Ed last month, Edward Blum, president of SFFA and the architect of the nationwide affirmative action ban, said he expected schools that reported higher enrollment of racial minorities in the fall to invoke legal scrutiny, both from the courts and the Trump administration. He said he believed a number of institutions could be “cheating” the SFFA ruling, including some that were not included in this first round of investigations: Yale, Duke and Princeton.

    “So many of us are befuddled and concerned that in the first admissions cycle post-SFFA, schools that said getting rid of affirmative action would cause their minority admissions to plummet didn’t see that happen,” he said.

    Some colleges are withholding demographic information about their incoming classes altogether. On Thursday, hours after the Justice Department probes were launched, Harvard admitted its Class of 2029 but did not release any information—including demographics, acceptance and yield rates, and geographic data—for the first time in more than 70 years.

    In response to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed about what the compliance reviews would entail or how the department plans to pursue its investigations into admissions offices, a Justice Department spokesperson referred to the initial statement announcing the investigations.

    “No further comment,” he wrote via email.

    There are some hints, though, as to what form a federal admissions investigation could take. In a December op-ed in The Washington Examiner outlining a plan that has reflected the Trump administration’s higher education agenda so far with uncanny accuracy, American Enterprise Institute fellow Max Eden suggested Bondi initiate “a never-ending compliance review” targeting Harvard University and others to enforce the SFFA ruling.

    “She should assign Office of Civil Rights employees to the Harvard admissions office and direct the university to hold no admissions meeting without their physical presence,” Eden wrote. “The Office of Civil Rights should be copied on every email correspondence, and Harvard should be forced to provide a written rationale for every admissions decision to ensure nondiscrimination.”

    For the four universities at the center of the investigations, this disruption could be especially pronounced right now, as colleges begin sending out acceptance letters and enter the busiest season for building their incoming classes.

    “This could not come at a worse time. It is April; this is enrollment management season,” Pérez said. “For institutions to take the time, energy and resources to [respond to compliance reviews] means that they’re going to have a harder time enrolling their classes.”

    ‘Absurd’ Accusations

    The Department of Justice is alleging that in the year and a half since the SFFA ruling, colleges have skirted the law by continuing to consider race in the admissions process. Those grounds make its targets particularly confusing, given that the University of California system hasn’t used affirmative action in admissions for nearly three decades.

    In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, banning the practice at public colleges. In the application cycles immediately after, Black and Hispanic enrollment fell precipitously. Pérez said it took many years of experimenting with race-neutral admissions, financial aid and recruitment policies for UC campuses to bring Black and Hispanic enrollment back to their prior rates.

    In the months following the SFFA decision, Pérez said college admissions professionals turned to California for lessons in how to maintain diversity without running afoul of the new law.

    “Officials and admission professionals [at UC] have been helping other institutions across the United States comply with the Supreme Court decision,” he said. “They have actually served as leaders in this space. To accuse them of violating any law is absurd.”

    Source link

  • Russia May Arrest Harvard Med Researcher if Deported

    Russia May Arrest Harvard Med Researcher if Deported

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement is detaining a Harvard Medical School research associate who’s a Russian native. One of Kseniia Petrova’s lawyers says the government is trying to deport her to Russia, where she faces possible arrest due to her “prior political activism and outspoken opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

    Gregory Romanovsky, the lawyer, said in a statement that Petrova was trying to re-enter the U.S. on Feb. 16 at Boston’s Logan International Airport when a Customs and Border Protection officer discovered she “had not completed the required customs paperwork for a non-hazardous scientific sample she was bringing from an affiliated laboratory in France.”

    “CBP was authorized to seize the item and issue a fine,” Romanovsky wrote. “Instead, they chose to cancel Ms. Petrova’s visa and detain her.”

    Petrova remains in ICE custody in Louisiana. The Boston Globe reported earlier on her detention.

    Romanovsky wrote that “CBP improperly invoked their extensive immigration authority to impose a punishment grossly disproportionate to the situation. This overreach reflects broader concerns about the treatment of international scholars by U.S. immigration authorities.”

    A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that Petrova was “detained after lying to federal officers about carrying biological substances into the country. A subsequent K9 inspection uncovered undeclared petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits. Messages found on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them. She knowingly broke the law and took deliberate steps to evade it.”

    Harvard spokespeople didn’t provide an interview Friday about the situation or answer multiple emailed questions. In a brief email, the medical school’s media relations arm said, “We are monitoring this situation.”

    Romanovsky has sued to restore Petrova’s visa.

    “Ms. Petrova’s 1.5-month-long detention has caused significant disruption to both her professional and personal life,” Romanovsky said in his statement. “As a dedicated and highly respected researcher, her work is critical to scientific progress. We strongly urge ICE to release Ms. Petrova while her legal proceedings are ongoing.”

    Source link

  • Senate Republicans Spotlight Campus Antisemitism at Hearing

    Senate Republicans Spotlight Campus Antisemitism at Hearing

    Nearly a year after pro-Palestinian encampments sprang up on college campuses across the country—and with them, increased reports of antisemitism—Senate Republicans are saying university leaders need to crack down on campus conduct or be placed “on notice.”

    Although the House Republicans have spent more than a year investigating campus antisemitism, the hearing, held Thursday on Capitol Hill, was the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s first strike at the issue since it became a top priority after Oct. 7, 2023.

    The two-hour discussion didn’t break much new ground, aside from giving members of the GOP a chance to highlight the changes President Trump has made since taking office and to promote several related pieces of legislation. Democrats largely used their time to criticize the Trump administration and the plan to shut down the Education Department.

    Last Congress, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held multiple hearings, blaming diversity, equity and inclusion for what they saw as “the scourge of antisemitism on campus.” They grilled the presidents of elite institutions, subpoenaed universities for documents and lambasted higher ed over all for its handling of protests. Ultimately, they concluded that university leaders made “shocking concessions” to protesters; intentionally declined to support Jewish students, faculty and staff; and failed to impose meaningful discipline, among other findings.

    But up until this year, Republicans had limited options to enact legislation that they say would address campus antisemitism. Up until the start of the year, Democrats controlled the Senate and the White House. That meant that no matter what acts of alleged discrimination the committee tried to highlight or what bills it tried to pass, their efforts were almost always dead in the water. But now, with Donald Trump as president and Republicans controlling the House and Senate, the HELP Committee chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and his fellow Republicans hold the power. And they were sure to make it known.

    “With President Trump in office and a Republican majority in Congress, the time of failed leadership is over,” Cassidy said in his opening remarks. “Universities have been put on notice: Failing to protect a student’s civil rights will no longer be tolerated.”

    Cassidy and multiple of his Republican counterparts promoted the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require colleges to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism when conducting civil rights investigations. He also pushed the Protecting Students on Campus Act, which would require institutions to provide students with information about how to file an antisemitism complaint. (Cassidy is lead sponsor of the Protecting Students on Campus Act.)

    The witnesses who testified Thursday included rabbis, researchers and Jewish student advocates. As was the case with the hearing over all, they largely echoed comments about campus antisemitism made at previous hearings. The three speakers selected by Republicans believed that the protests were not driven by students but faculty members and outside forces who were trying to demonize the definition of Zionist. The two selected by Democrats said colleges must focus on maintaining free speech while responding to antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.

    Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties wanted to talk about the actions of President Trump since he took office in January.

    Republicans praised his decision to strip Columbia University of $400 million in federal funding, saying it was high time to hold the Ivy League institution—an epicenter of campus protests—accountable. (Columbia said last week that it agreed to sweeping demands from the Trump administration, though the funds haven’t been restored.)

    The Department of Education has also sent out letters warning more than 60 colleges and universities that they could be the next to face “potential enforcement actions” if they don’t comply with civil rights laws and crack down on antisemitism.

    “The days of a tepid response or toothless resolution agreements are over,” said Sen. Ashley Moody, a Florida Republican. “Universities have now been put on notice, and I don’t think there’s any question that there’s been a change in the tenor on how we will protect the rights of Jewish students on our campus.”

    The conservatives also used the hearing as a chance to tie allegedly antisemitic protests to concerns about foreign influence on higher education and promote legislation that increases federal oversight of foreign gifts and student visas. On Thursday, the House passed a bill that would increase disclosure requirements for foreign gifts and contracts.

    Republicans embraced a report from the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, which found that American colleges and universities have received more than $3 billion in unreported gifts from Qatar. According to the report, colleges that received undocumented gifts saw a significant increase in incidents of antisemitism compared to those that did not. The report argues, essentially, that the gifts are a use of “soft power” to encourage antisemitic views on campus.

    Charles Small, founding director and president of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, was one of the witnesses at the hearing, and he urged lawmakers to increase their oversight of what gifts are allowed.

    “I don’t think it’s wrong to question foreign funding in universities and colleges and whether foreign nations are trying to persuade or influence or brainwash our children. Do you think that they want us to be more pro-American … is that why they’re giving hundreds of millions of dollars to our universities?” Moody said.

    But Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, defended the gifts, saying Qatar played a critical role in the release of Americans held hostage by Hamas.

    Democrats, on the other hand, repeatedly argued that rather than working to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination, President Trump and Secretary McMahon are making the problem worse by seeking to close the Department of Education and slashing its capacity. McMahon recently laid off half of the staff at the Office for Civil Rights and closed many regional offices—a move that experts said will only worsen the agency’s backlog of complaints and reduce enforcement.

    Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, said OCR is America’s front line of defense against discrimination. So if the goal is to combat antisemitism, there should be more support and resources distributed to the OCR, not less, she added.

    “It’s like saying if you want to fight fires, you should support the fire department. Well, I hate to tell you all, Trump is axing the fire department,” she said. “It’s as straightforward as it gets.”

    Source link

  • ICE Detains U of Alabama Doctoral Student, Iran Native

    ICE Detains U of Alabama Doctoral Student, Iran Native

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement has detained a University of Alabama doctoral student and Iranian native. A spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed in an email that the student “posed significant national security concerns” but didn’t clarify what those concerns were.

    The Crimson White student newspaper and other media previously identified the student as Alireza Doroudi. As of Thursday evening, the ICE website listed Doroudi as in ICE custody but didn’t note where he was.

    “ICE HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] made this arrest in accordance with the State Department’s revocation of Doroudi’s student visa,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in an email to Inside Higher Ed Thursday. The department, which includes ICE, didn’t provide an interview.

    It’s unclear whether the detention is part of the Trump administration’s targeting of international students for alleged participation in pro-Palestinian protests, with immigration officers raiding their dorm rooms and revoking their visas.

    The Crimson White said Doroudi was “reportedly arrested by ICE officers” at his home around 5 a.m. Tuesday. A statement from the university said the student, whom the university didn’t name, was detained off campus. The Crimson White also reported that—according to a message in a group chat including Iranian students—Doroudi’s visa was revoked six months after he came to the U.S., but the university’s International Student and Scholar Services arm said he could stay in the country as long as he maintained his student status.

    The university didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview Thursday or answer multiple written questions. Its emailed statement said, “Federal privacy laws limit what can be shared about an individual student.”

    “International students studying at the University are valued members of the campus community, and International Student and Scholar Services is available to assist international students who have questions,” the statement said. “UA has and will continue to follow all immigration laws and cooperate with federal authorities.”

    Source link