Tag: Jobs

  • Florida board approves extensive gen ed overhaul

    Florida board approves extensive gen ed overhaul

    Students at Florida State University can cheer on the Seminoles across multiple sports, but they can no longer learn about the namesake tribe of Indigenous Americans as part of FSU’s general education offerings after the Florida Board of Governors approved sweeping curriculum changes Thursday.

    Florida colleges have spent months rethinking their general education requirements following a change in state law. Thursday’s vote marked the final step in a contentious and controversial process that brought significant changes to all 12 state universities. Critics accuse the board and system officials of taking a heavy-handed approach and targeting specific topics or courses, while state officials have argued revisions were necessary both to simplify the curriculum and to strip it of “indoctrination.”

    Now, American History 583: The Seminoles and the Southeastern Indians is one of hundreds of courses across Florida’s public universities that will no longer count toward general education credit as part of the extensive overhaul. Neither will Black Women in America or LGBTQ History, both of which were previously included as general education offerings at FSU. Those are just three of numerous courses touching in some way on race, gender or sexuality that institutional boards voted in recent months to drop from general education. All 12 Boards of Trustees then submitted a pared-down list of classes to FLBOG for approval. Three Bible courses remain eligible for general education credit at FSU.

    (An FSU spokesperson noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that American History 583, which currently has about 150 students enrolled this semester, will now be offered as an elective. Pressed on the rationale for why the course was dropped from gen eds, FSU did not respond.)

    Florida State University’s Board of Trustees dropped a course on Seminole history from the list of general education offerings, but fans can still cheer on the Seminoles.

    Chris Leduc/Icon Sportswire/Getty Image

    State lawmakers required colleges in 2023 to review general education classes in an effort to cut “courses with curriculum based on unproven, speculative or exploratory content,” according to materials shared with the Board of Governors in a presentation for Thursday’s vote.

    The Florida Board of Governors unanimously approved the new suite of gen ed classes Thursday, though some members tried to downplay the notion that the state was trying to limit knowledge.

    “We are not prohibiting universities from offering courses,” Timothy Cerio, chair of the Academic and Student Affairs committee, said at the meeting. Instead, he emphasized that those courses are just being removed from general education curriculum and will remain available as electives.

    State University System of Florida chancellor Ray Rodrigues depicted the vote on general education as stripping indoctrination from curricular offerings. Rodrigues argued that the American public has lost faith in higher education, citing a recent Gallup poll that noted shrinking public confidence in the sector. Among the reasons for that diminished confidence, particularly among Republican respondents, is the belief that colleges push liberal agendas.

    “The general education curriculum that was approved today makes Florida the only state in the nation to address the No. 1 reason why the American people have lost confidence in higher education,” Rodrigues said during the meeting. “We can confidently say that our general education courses that students have to take in order to graduate will not contain indoctrinating concepts.”

    ‘Political Overreach’

    But critics allege administrators have overstepped, as curriculum has traditionally been the faculty’s purview. They also worry that removing courses from general education will cause enrollment in such classes to plummet, limiting the number of students who will be introduced to certain majors like sociology—a discipline state officials have taken aim at for an allegedly liberal tilt—which will subsequently weaken academic departments and potentially decrease staffing levels.

    United Faculty of Florida, a union representing 25,000-plus professors, denounced the move toward scaled-back general education offerings.

    “Florida is at the forefront of an assault against public education, restricting the subjects students can study from K-12 to the colleges and universities,” UFF declared in a news release ahead of Thursday’s vote, casting FLBOG’s actions as “bureaucratic and political overreach.”

    “General education courses are the foundation of critical thinking and informed citizenship, and censoring them limits not only what students can learn but also what they can become. These proposed cuts are an insult to our students and to the world-class faculty that instruct and guide them,” UFF president Teresa M. Hodge said in a Monday webinar ahead of the meeting.

    Hodge argued that the courses being targeted were just “words and numbers on a spreadsheet” to the Florida Board of Governors, but “for the rest of us, they are the future of our students, our jobs, and our democracy” and the “foundation of critical thinking” and “informed citizenship.” She also accused Republican governor Ron DeSantis, who pushed for the legislation that led to the changes, of prioritizing “his personal political ambition” over students.

    Robert Cassanello, a history professor at the University of Central Florida, argued on the call that it was lawmakers—not professors—who were attempting to indoctrinate students.

    “They tell us that classes have to be removed from the curriculum that focus on race, gender and sexuality, but at the same time, they want courses and lessons on the centrality of Western civilization, free-market libertarianism and patriotic histories of this country infused into the general curriculum and life on our campuses,” Cassanello said.

    Students on the call also noted that general education courses set them on career pathways.

    Tessa Barber, a graduate student at the University of South Florida, began college as a biology major but is now working toward a doctorate in politics and international relations. She attributed that change to general education courses in anthropology and political science that pushed her in a different direction. She expressed concern about “political interference” in the education of undergraduates.

    Some speakers at Thursday’s meeting also pushed back on the gen ed overhaul.

    Jono Miller, president of NCF Freedom, a group that has been critical of the state’s conservative takeover of New College of Florida, alleged that the overhaul of its core curriculum was “rushed and chaotic” with “minimal faculty input” and a “lack of transparency.” Miller argued that “telling faculty what to teach translates directly to telling students what to think.”

    Thursday’s vote followed prior action on general education courses from the State Board of Education, which oversees the 28 institutions in the Florida College System. Earlier this month that board removed 57 percent of FCS general education courses, according to state officials.

    Source link

  • Idaho legislators accuse Boise State of flouting DEI ban

    Idaho legislators accuse Boise State of flouting DEI ban

    Lawmakers in Idaho accused Boise State University officials of skirting a statewide ban on diversity, equity and inclusion during a House education committee meeting Tuesday, according to reporting from Idaho Education News. 

    Republican legislators questioned Boise State president Marlene Tromp about a sociology certificate program in DEI advertised on the university’s website as well as its Institute for Advancing American Values, the latter of which is described as encouraging “respectful dialogue” about “the issues and values that have shaped America and Americans from all walks of life.”

    One representative remarked that the institute “sounds like a continuation of DEI under different labels.”

    Tromp said the university had “absolutely not moved something under another name” but added that she’d have to investigate the certificate program more closely. 

    In December, the Idaho State Board of Education passed a resolution prohibiting “central offices, policies, procedures, or initiatives … dedicated to DEI ideology” at public higher ed institutions. Boise State shuttered two of its student equity centers a week before the vote.

    Source link

  • San Francisco State to require climate justice coursework

    San Francisco State to require climate justice coursework

    San Francisco State University will soon require all incoming students to take a climate justice course, KQED, San Francisco’s NPR affiliate, reported Tuesday. 

    Students will be able to choose from dozens of different courses across various disciplines—including STEM, English, ethnic studies and history—to satisfy the requirement, which is set to take effect as early as fall 2026.

    “Climate change is an all-hands-on-deck crisis that requires understanding and solutions from all different disciplines and sectors of society,” Autumn Thoyre, co-director of the university’s Climate HQ, which supports climate-related work on campus, told KQED. “Our students’ lives are already being impacted by climate change, and so we think it’s part of our responsibility as a university to prepare students for that.”

    Although numerous other colleges and universities across the nation require climate change–focused coursework, SF State officials said in a news release that its focus on climate justice, or “the unequal impacts of climate change on marginalized and underserved populations,” is novel.

    “We are responding to the understanding that all jobs in the future will be climate jobs in some way. Our students, no matter their major and no matter their career, need to understand climate change because it is already impacting their lives,” Thoyre said in the release. “If you come to SFSU, you will learn about climate change and be ready for it in your career and civic life, you’ll be an informed voter and you’ll be ready for discussions with your family and friends.”

    Source link

  • After Trump DEI order, MSU cancels Lunar New Year event

    After Trump DEI order, MSU cancels Lunar New Year event

    A college within Michigan State University canceled a lunch celebrating the Lunar New Year in part because of President Trump’s recent executive orders cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal government and elsewhere, the news site Bridge Michigan reported Thursday.

    The order, signed last week, doesn’t define DEI but calls on federal agencies to “combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” Colleges with endowments valued at $1 billion or more could be investigated for potentially violating the order, under the White House directive. Michigan State has a $4.4 billion endowment.

    A handful of colleges have taken down or reworked websites related to DEI since the order, while others have called off events. For instance, a conference at Rutgers University about registered apprenticeships and historically Black colleges and universities was canceled last week following the order. (Rutgers officials say calling off the conference wasn’t a university decision. Rather, it was canceled because the organizers, a group outside the university, received a stop work order from the Department of Labor.)

    Michigan State administrators told Bridge Michigan they canceled the lunch, which was scheduled for Jan. 29 and has been held four times before, after Chinese students “expressed concern about an event tied to one racial group.”

    The College of Communications Arts and Science was set to host the event. Lauren Gaines, the college’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion director, wrote in an email obtained by Bridge Michigan and the State News student paper that the cancellation was in response to concerns related to Trump’s immigration and DEI executive orders.

    “These actions have prompted feelings of uncertainty and hesitation about gathering for events that highlight cultural traditions and communities,” Gaines wrote. “We feel it is important to honor those concerns with sensitivity and care.”

    Heidi Hennink-Kaminski, the college’s dean, wrote in a follow-up email obtained by the news outlets that the decision was not “a statement of policy, but rather as an appropriate on-the-ground response given a very short decision window.”

    Michigan State officials did not respond to a request for comment by press time but confirmed after publication that staff at the college canceled the event, adding that other Lunar New Year events continue.

    Source link

  • Student visa numbers hit record despite Australian clampdown

    Student visa numbers hit record despite Australian clampdown

    Student visa issuances reached record levels in Australia late last year, suggesting that 12 months of policy upheaval have failed to suppress international education flows ahead of a federal election likely to be fought on migration.

    Visa grants to would-be university students applying from overseas reached an all-time high of almost 17,000 in November, the latest month for which Department of Home Affairs statistics are available.

    Monthly issuances have been at or near record levels since mid-2024, well exceeding pre-pandemic tallies and driving a surge in overall foreign student numbers. Higher education typically accounts for two-thirds or more of student visa recipients.

    The figures show that student flows have weathered some 10 separate policy changes unleashed to dampen overseas enrollments since December 2023. They include increased financial capacity requirements on applicants, a doubling of visa fees and a chaotic reprioritization of visa processing that has been blamed for soaring delays and refusals.

    The opposition Liberal Party, which is due to contest a general election by mid-May, has repeatedly berated the Labor government over student volumes since Australia’s post-pandemic reopening of its borders. The surge in student numbers, initially spurred by policies enacted by the opposition when it was in government, has been blamed for housing shortages.

    Liberal leader Peter Dutton promised “stricter caps on foreign students to relieve stress on city rental markets” during an election campaign rally on Jan. 12.

    While treasurer Jim Chalmers has attributed Australia’s lofty migrant tally to low departures rather than high arrivals, the latest statistics suggest both are contributing. And the figures do not include record numbers of applicants fighting to have their visa rejections overturned.

    The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the backlog of international students contesting their visa refusals in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had doubled in five months to exceed 20,000 for the first time, and that two-thirds of visa rejections were being overturned by the tribunal.

    Meanwhile, overseas students are pursuing strategies to extend their time in Australia, including starting new courses or applying for asylum. Immigration expert Abul Rizvi said the tally of onshore student visa applicants had blown out to more than 100,000.

    Home Affairs data provided to a Senate inquiry in October showed that a long-term monthly average of about 300 asylum applications from overseas students had increased to about 450 since mid-2024, reaching 516 by August—the highest figure in at least five years, and probably since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

    Student visa grants could also increase following the late-December replacement of the controversial ministerial direction 107, which slowed down the processing of many visa applications, with ministerial direction 111.

    International education consultant Dirk Mulder said opinion on the new arrangements was divided, with some operators saying visa processing had sped up while others complained that it was slower than a year ago.

    Both camps expressed concern about the likelihood of further policy changes and the fate of institutions that had reached their “thresholds”—80 percent of the formerly announced international student caps, the trigger point for slower visa processing.

    One worry was that agents might stop referring students to universities and colleges in this position. “There is a large amount of angst as to how recruitment partners will work amongst institutions when they hit their 80 percent threshold,” Mulder wrote on his Koala news site.

    Source link

  • Too many communities lack broad-access colleges

    Too many communities lack broad-access colleges

    Most American college students attend broad-access institutions, or public colleges and universities that admit at least 80 percent of applicants. Yet millions of people live in communities without one of these institutions nearby—and millions more live in areas with only one option, according to a new report from the Institute for College Access and Success.

    The report, released today, shows stark disparities in higher ed access based on students’ geography and how some broad-access institutions are single-handedly serving whole regions. It also highlights communities with nearby colleges located across state lines, an understudied college-access issue, higher ed leaders say.

    Researchers analyzed different “commuting zones,” or clusters of counties workers commute between, to see which communities have broad-access institutions within a reasonable commuting distance.

    Nicholas Hillman, an education professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and co-author of the report, believes it’s critical to understand students’ geographical contexts.

    He said conversations about higher ed access often revolve around “informational problems”—whether students know about different college options and understand the college admissions process. But his previous research shows most students, even if well-informed, choose to stay close to home for college. That’s why he wanted to take a deeper look at where residents do or don’t have broad-access institutions within reach.

    “Maybe some of the problems in college access and opportunity are that there aren’t colleges nearby, or that there are not appropriate transportation infrastructures in place for students to access colleges … or that there are cost-prohibitive options nearby,” said Hillman, who also directs the university’s Student Success Through Applied Research Lab. When studying college access through a geographic lens, “you see problems differently. You might come up with a very different set of policy solutions.”

    He also sees the report as a “love letter” to broad-access institutions, especially those that are the only ones in their communities.

    “They’re doing the lion’s share of the work,” Hillman said. “They’re the blue-collar colleges out there, doing the heavy lifting in higher education, serving the most students and doing so oftentimes with the least amount of financial resources and under some of the most pressure.”

    The Findings

    To identify broad-access institutions, the report drew on data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, with the caveat that IPEDS doesn’t account for all branch campuses.

    And then researchers used data from Pennsylvania State University’s Labor-sheds for Regional Analysis tool to measure commuting zones around the colleges. Finally, the report looked at how nearby these institutions were in “large-population commuting zones,” like urban or metropolitan areas, and “small-population commuting zones,” less populous areas, like rural communities.

    The report found that more than 831,000 people living in more populous commuting zones don’t have a local broad-access institution, and another 9.7 million had only one of these colleges nearby. That means about one in 16 people don’t have a broad-access institution nearby or just one, even in the country’s largest local labor markets.

    The issue was even more stark in less populous or rural local labor economies, where 2.8 million people don’t have a single broad-access institution in their area. Another 5.9 million live in areas with only one such institution. Meanwhile, among students who go to college in these less populous areas, 70 percent attend broad-access institutions, meaning these colleges “play an outsized role in creating opportunities and meeting local educational needs” in these communities, the report says.

    Riley Acton, an assistant professor of economics at Miami University in Ohio, said it’s important to differentiate between college access issues in the two types of regions, as the report did, because “what it means to have access, to have something nearby, can be really different in rural and urban environments.” In a rural area, a college might be miles away but easy to travel to by car, while in an urban area, a college could be close by but hard to reach via public transportation, she said, so the report opens up a conversation about those distinctions.

    Hillman added that a granular look at the data might surprise people. For example, some large metropolitan areas, like Chicago, are known for prominent private universities but have relatively few broad-access institutions for residents.

    “Local markets are just very different, depending on where you live, and I think that it’s important to put that out there, just to help remind ourselves that there’s no typical place or experience or market that every student experiences,” Hillman said.

    The report also highlights that some regions have broad-access institutions nearby but they’re across state borders, meaning they may not provide in-state tuition or could be harder to reach. There are 63 small-population commuting zones that cross state borders, which collectively have 77 broad-access institutions and serve about 190,000 students. The report also found 65 large-population zones that cross state lines with a total of 249 broad-access institutions enrolling roughly 1.3 million students.

    Acton said broad-access institutions that draw students from multiple states are an “understudied angle” in understanding students’ geographical contexts and what barriers could be getting in the way of their going to college.

    The Policy Implications

    To expand students’ access to these colleges, the report recommends that states offer nearby out-of-state students tuition discounts and that local leaders explore ways to improve transportation infrastructure, among other policy suggestions.

    Hillman emphasized that it’s also important to ensure broad-access institutions that are the only ones in their communities are well resourced. He suggested these colleges have a special federal or state designation that comes with extra financial support.

    “Sometimes a college is … serving a great need and is really an anchor for that community,” he said.

    Particularly in rural areas, broad-access institutions often do so much more for their communities than confer degrees, said Cecilia Orphan, associate professor of higher education at the University of Denver and founding co-director of the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges. In some cases, these campuses provide local internet access and serve as major employers, among other services. Western Carolina University, for example, is home to its community’s power plant and has police officers that serve its surrounding area.

    “It’s very tempting for policymakers to simply look at enrollment numbers … and to ask themselves whether or not that institution is needed,” Orphan said. “But if you think about the broader services that institution likely provides a local community, closing it could be catastrophic.”

    Acton noted that limited access to broad-access institutions can especially hurt some of the most vulnerable students.

    She previously conducted research with a team of economists focused on how community college proximity affected Texas high school students’ college-going decisions. They found that Black, Hispanic and lower-income students without a community college nearby were less likely to pursue higher ed, while white, Asian and upper-income students were more likely to travel to go to college.

    She agrees higher ed decision-makers need to think carefully about what a college means to particular communities when they make policy choices.

    “Where do we open new colleges? Where do we close colleges? Where do we merge colleges?” she said. If an institution closes, “what are the other options for the people in this area? Are the people who are in this area ones who would be able to travel and go to something further away? … Those are conversations for state policymakers and institutional leaders to be having.”

    Source link

  • Trump tackles higher ed during his first 10 days in office

    Trump tackles higher ed during his first 10 days in office

    During his first 10 days in office, President Trump signed a plethora of executive orders to combat so-called woke ideology, reversed a long-standing immigration policy that barred ICE officers from raiding college campuses and sought to freeze federal grants that don’t align with his agenda—a move blocked by a federal court.

    So far, his actions have had few immediate consequences for higher ed, and policy experts say more guidance is necessary to understand their implications. But the president has certainly created chaos and confusion, raising concern among university administrators across the country and inciting pre-emptive responses from some.

    Throughout the past two weeks, higher ed experts have told Inside Higher Ed they are trying to walk the thin line between necessary caution and undue alarm.     

    Many of Trump’s initial actions will take time to enforce and may face intervention from the courts. And while the president has nominated former wrestling mogul Linda McMahon as secretary of education and former University of Florida vice president Penny Schwinn as deputy, neither has a confirmation hearing scheduled. Trump has yet to nominate an under secretary—the highest-ranking official overseeing colleges and universities. So it will likely be at least a few weeks, if not more, until the department reaches full capacity.

    Until then, it will be run by acting secretary Denise Carter, who was already working in the department as head of the Office of Federal Student Aid, and a collection of 10 appointees who do not require confirmation. Of the 10, four have previously worked with the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank that McMahon formed in 2021.

    Though the department is not yet fully staffed, the small landing team has leaped into action. In a Jan. 23 new release, department officials said they had removed or archived hundreds of documents, dissolved councils and canceled service contracts that go against the president’s “ongoing commitment to end illegal discrimination and wasteful spending.”

    Executive Orders

    The president signed a record number of executive orders on his first day in office and has added to the tally nearly every day since. But the three that hold the most weight for colleges and universities concern DEI, “gender ideology” and antisemitism. Higher ed, free speech and civil rights advocates predict all three will create a significant chilling effects on campuses.

    “Gender Ideology”

    Signed on Inauguration Day, the first order declares that there are only two sexes, which the White House defines as “male” and “female.” The order also mandates that federal agencies use those definitions when “interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications” and bans the federal funding of any program that goes against those definitions or defends transgender and nonbinary students.

    Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

    The executive order Trump signed the following day, Jan. 21, tackled all things DEI, though unlike the first order, it never defined the term. Instead, it broadly ordered agencies—including the Education Department—to “enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”

    The document instructs the department to provide guidance for colleges and universities on how to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action. It also designates all institutions that receive federal financial aid as subcontractors and says that as such, they “shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin” in their programs or hiring decisions. Finally, it commissions the department to conduct an investigation of up to nine colleges with endowments worth more than $1 billion to scrutinize compliance.

    Antisemitism

    The most recent order, signed Wednesday, piggybacks on the tensions over recent campus protests and vows “forceful” measures to combat antisemitism. Its four main components define antisemitism, direct the Office for Civil Rights to reconsider closed investigations on ethnic and religious discrimination, encourage the Department of Justice to take action, and allow immigration officers to deport international student “sympathizers” who support antisemitic groups.

    DEI, LGBTQ+ and pro-Palestinian advocates, along with free speech and academic freedom groups, are pushing back against the order, and some are even encouraging colleges and universities not to comply unless pressured to do so.

    But several colleges have already taken pre-emptive actions in an attempt to avoid financial penalties. For example a conference at Rutgers University about registered apprenticeships and historically Black colleges and universities was canceled last week, and Michigan State University canceled a Lunar New Year event this week. Rutgers officials, however, say calling off the conference wasn’t a university decision. Rather, it was canceled because the organizers, a group outside the university, received a stop work order from the Department of Labor.

    Immigration Actions

    Although less directly targeted at institutions of higher ed, the president has also taken executive actions related to immigration. He attempted (and failed) to strip the children of undocumented immigrants of birthright citizenship; rescinded guidance that prevented immigration arrests at schools, churches and colleges; and signed the Laken Riley Act into law, potentially putting the approval of some U.S. visas into the hands of state attorneys general.

    The first executive action might have impacted some students’ access to in-state tuition or financial aid but would have had no direct implication on the colleges themselves. But the latter two could force university administrators to decide whether they will assist in deportation efforts and may impact the enrollment and hiring of international students and scholars.

    Funding Freeze

    Perhaps the most direct cause of chaos and concern among colleges, however, was the product of an internal Office of Management and Budget memo leaked Monday, which directed all federal agencies to pause thousands of grants and loans in order to conduct a “comprehensive analysis” and ensure they align with the president’s priorities.

    The unprecedented guidance specifically exempted Social Security, Medicare and other programs that provide direct financial assistance to individuals. But initially many institutions feared the mandate would strip students of access to the Pell Grant and federal loans. The White House clarified that was not the case in a press conference and in follow-up memos, but colleges, universities and higher education nonprofit groups were still concerned.

    Policy experts warned that even if temporary, lack of access to grants could impact minority-serving institutions, college preparation programs, childcare for student parents, food banks, student retention and graduation initiatives, campus hospital systems, and more. Multiple legal challenges quickly followed, and on Tuesday afternoon a federal judge in Washington blocked the freeze, just hours before it was scheduled to take effect.

    Since then, the Trump administration has rescinded the original memo, although it has criticized news organizations for saying the freeze was reversed entirely. Instead, officials argued in a news release—titled “Another Day, More Lies”—that the analysis of all programs is ongoing and Trump’s order remains “in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented as the administration works to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.”

    Pauses on research grant applications through the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation that started prior to the OMB memo remain in place. The agencies are responsible for billions of dollars in research funding at universities across the country, and faculty members are still largely concerned that the stoppage will interfere with critical STEM research projects, including those that have advanced treatments for common diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s.



    Source link

  • Harvard lays off staff at its Slavery Remembrance Program

    Harvard lays off staff at its Slavery Remembrance Program

    Harvard University last week laid off the staff of the Harvard Slavery Remembrance Program, who were tasked with identifying the direct descendants of those enslaved by Harvard-affiliated administrators, faculty and staff, The Boston Globe reported.

    The work, which was part of the university’s $100 million Legacy of Slavery initiative, will now fall entirely to American Ancestors, a national genealogical nonprofit that Harvard was already partnering with, according to a news release.

    A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment on the layoffs to the Globe.

    The Harvard Crimson first reported the news, noting that the HSRP staff were terminated without warning Jan. 23.

    Protesting the move, Harvard history professor Vincent Brown resigned from the Legacy of Slavery Memorial Project Committee, which was assigned the task of designing a memorial to those enslaved by members of the Harvard community.

    Brown wrote in his resignation letter, which he shared with Inside Higher Ed, that he had recently returned from a productive research trip to Antigua and Barbuda when he “learned that the entire [HSRP] team had been laid off in sudden telephone calls with an officer in Harvard’s human resources department.” He called the terminations “vindictive as well as wasteful.”

    “I hope and expect that the H&LS initiative will weather this latest controversy,” Brown wrote. “I only regret that I cannot formally be a part of that effort.”

    Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative has repeatedly come under fire since it was announced in 2022. Critics assailed its lack of progress last year. The two professors who co-chaired the memorial committee resigned last May, citing frustration with administrators; the executive director of the initiative, Roeshana Moore-Evans, followed them out the door. Then HSRP founding director Richard Cellini told the Crimson last fall that vice provost Sara Bleich had instructed him “‘not to find too many descendants.’”

    A university spokesperson denied that charge, telling the Crimson, “There is no directive to limit the number of direct descendants to be identified through this work.”

    Cellini was among those fired from the HSRP last week.

    Source link

  • Judge reinstates professor LSU suspended after Trump remarks

    Judge reinstates professor LSU suspended after Trump remarks

    A judge has ordered Louisiana State University to return to the classroom a tenured law professor who says the institution suspended him from teaching after he made comments about Donald Trump and Louisiana governor Jeff Landry in a lecture.

    Donald R. Johnson, a state district court judge, signed a one-page order Thursday putting Ken Levy back in the classroom. The return might be short-lived; Johnson set a hearing for Feb. 10, during or after which he could decide that Levy should again be barred from teaching. The Louisiana Illuminator reported the ruling earlier.

    On Jan. 14, Levy was explaining his course rules to students—including a ban on recording the class. A recording was made nevertheless.

    Levy referenced Landry’s public calls in November for LSU to punish Nicholas Bryner, one of Levy’s fellow law professors, for Bryner’s alleged in-class comments about students who support Trump. Levy said he himself “would love to become a national celebrity [student laughter drowns out a moment of the recording] based on what I said in this class, like, ‘Fuck the governor!’”

    Levy also referenced Trump. “You probably heard I’m a big lefty, I’m a big Democrat, I was devastated by— I couldn’t believe that fucker won, and those of you who like him, I don’t give a shit, you’re already getting ready to say in your evaluations, ‘I don’t need his political commentary,’” Levy said. “No, you need my political commentary, you above all others.”

    Levy’s attorney, Jill Craft, said the university suspended Levy from teaching pending an investigation, though it hasn’t specified which comments allegedly generated student complaints.

    “When people try and censor academic freedom and free speech because they may not like the opinion or the thought, then we no longer have those freedoms,” Craft said.

    LSU spokespeople didn’t return requests for comment Thursday.

    Source link

  • What would a TikTok ban mean for higher ed?

    What would a TikTok ban mean for higher ed?

    Less than two weeks into President Donald Trump’s second term, he’s already testing the limits of executive power.

    As one of his first actions in office, he wielded that power to resume Americans’ access to TikTok—the popular Chinese-owned short-form video app 47 percent of college students use on a daily basis—after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law banning it.

    Last April, Congress banned companies from distributing, maintaining or updating a “foreign adversary controlled application,” specifically those “operated, directly or indirectly” by TikTok or its parent company, ByteDance Ltd. As a result, TikTok went dark for about 12 hours two days before Trump, who had previously supported the idea of a TikTok ban, took office. Almost immediately after his inauguration, he issued an executive order halting enforcement of the ban for 75 days, while the administration determines “the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown” of TikTok.

    Some experts say Trump’s order falls into murky legal territory, and TikTok’s fate in the U.S. remains unclear. But banning a social media app that 170 million Americans use as a tool for self-expression and self-promotion would have numerous implications for both college students and their institutions. A 2022 study found two-thirds of teenagers were using TikTok to consume a wide range of information, including news, tutorials, entertainment and advertisements, making it a vital recruiting tool for colleges.

    “TikTok represents a pivotal transition point between what was the social media–driven higher ed of the last 15 years and now the artificial intelligence–powered, immersive digital future that’s going to define the next decade,” said J. Israel Balderas, an assistant professor of journalism at Elon University and a lawyer specializing in First Amendment cases. “TikTok isn’t just a social media platform somehow caught in this geopolitical battle. It represents a transition point in digital history.”

    Last week, Inside Higher Ed asked Balderas five questions about what a TikTok ban would mean for students, faculty and institutions. The interview has been edited for concision and clarity.

    1. What are the implications of a TikTok ban for the culture of higher education?

    TikTok has become a dominant space for student expression, activism and social engagement. For professors, it also has become a place of research and AI literacy. Losing the platform means that student organizers would lose a mobilization tool. TikTok has played a critical role, not just in campus activism—from political movements to social justice campaigns—but it has also been a way for others to communicate and play a role in the marketplace of ideas.

    What’s most concerning to me is the potential chilling effect on student expression. Students will start to question whether other digital spaces will face similar crackdowns. For example, if TikTok can be banned under the guise of national security, what will happen to other foreign-owned or politically sensitive platforms? Will they be next?

    Universities would also lose a primary storytelling platform. You have campus life blogs; you have student-run media accounts. TikTok allows institutions and students to shape their narrative in a way that no other platform currently allows.

    2. Do you think there’s justification for a TikTok ban?

    It depends on how you weigh national security risks versus free speech rights. The Chinese government could potentially use TikTok’s recommendation engine to shape political discourse, suppress content or even promote certain narratives. But we’ve been here before with that. We were here in 1919 with Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States that questioned influence from socialists and communists. What we discovered is that the marketplace of ideas theory works and the truth rises.

    While the national security argument is valid, why is TikTok being singled out when U.S.-based platforms with equally invasive data practices, like Meta, Google and X, remain untouched? The First Amendment doesn’t protect the companies from regulation, but it does protect Americans’ right to access information.

    Headshot of man with dark hair in a blue suit

    J. Israel Balderas is a journalism professor at Elon University and a First Amendment lawyer.

    3. Could such a ban really be enforced? What might college students do to get around it?

    Banning a social media app in a free society is incredibly difficult.

    Big tech being so powerful and so close to power in Washington also creates a very gray legal area, because Apple and Google control access to mobile apps. If they refuse to reinstate TikTok, then enforcement becomes a de facto reality even without the government directly blocking access. But what we saw earlier this month, with Trump’s intervention to reinstate TikTok, shows that enforcement can be overridden by executive power. So, it’s unclear how consistently a ban could be applied, but enforcement of a ban is far more complicated than either the courts or Congress can anticipate.

    College students are digital natives, and they adapt to these things by bypassing restrictions. They can use VPNs [virtual private networks], which are already widely used in countries with restricted internet laws, like China. Students could also download it from unofficial sources, instead of the traditional app stores. They can also use alternative apps, like the other, increasingly popular Chinese-owned app, RedNote.

    Somebody will find an emerging app, especially now in the world of AI, where AI is open source. You can take the backbone of TikTok, and with AI and proper coding you can create the same kind of environment as TikTok. So how many more clones out there would that be, right?

    4. How would a TikTok ban shape colleges’ digital literacy efforts in the age of AI?

    A TikTok ban would be a blow to digital literacy and AI education. This is the moment when we need to be talking about AI education and what it means for the workforce, students and us as faculty members, who are teaching that it’s not just about facts and knowledge. It’s about teaching students how to ask the right questions and how to connect the dots.

    TikTok opens the door to asking students what it is the algorithm knows about you, if that’s an ethical thing and if they want it. It’s not about shaming students for their choices. It’s about teaching them to think critically about what they’re doing and then letting them decide what it means for their lives and relationships.

    If the government can decide what content is good or bad for the population, we’d have to rethink what it means to have AI literacy in the curriculum.

    5. TikTok is caught in a geopolitical crossfire. Is there a teachable moment in all of this?

    The fact that we are having these conversations is the best part of this entire fiasco. Because students are questioning if the government can really do these things. What about the future? What about AI? Will the government be able to say that it’s not suppressing speech, but just suppressing the person who’s writing these codes or the person who’s putting these algorithms into the marketplace? Students are at least trying to figure out what is the role the government will play going forward when it comes to ideas that are not popular.

    If they’re being more critical about those things, then as a professor, I’ve done my job.

    Source link