Tag: Jobs

  • Ideas for navigating editor-reviewer relationships (opinion)

    Ideas for navigating editor-reviewer relationships (opinion)

    An editor or reviewer can have an outsize impact on the career of a scholar, particularly in the early stages. The stakes can be high for an author. A negative review or edit can set back a research plan by months and harm a scholar’s chances for tenure or promotion. This reality creates a power imbalance between an editor or reviewer and an author that can be abused.

    Graduate schools offer few pointers on how to navigate editor and reviewer relationships. Our goal in this essay is to debunk the process and offer suggestions and observations for editors/reviewers and authors on how to approach the task in a more thoughtful and efficient way.

    Understanding the Reviewer and Editor Roles

    First, it is important to note that while reviewers and editors take part in a similar process—assessing the work of an author—the tasks are different. The editor is rarely an expert in the specific subject of an article and necessarily needs to rely on impartial reviewers to place the work in context. Nevertheless, the editor—and, at times, an editorial board—is the decision-maker in this equation. Having a clear and transparent line of communication between the author and the editor is critical.

    The task of the reviewer is to place the work in its scholarly context and to weigh its merit. Is the work breaking new ground? Is it challenging a long-held interpretation within the academy? Are the sources contemporary and the most relevant? Does the work fit the subject area of the journal or press? Can it be revised to make it suitable for publication?

    It is our strong belief that reviewers need to meet the authors where they are—that is, to understand the goal of the author, determine whether the work is suitable for the journal or press in question and, if so, help them reach the promised land of publication. Simply put: The reviewer should weigh the author’s case against the author’s intent.

    Unfortunately, this does not always happen: It is sometimes the case that reviewers stray from this path and insert suggestions that they would like to see addressed but that are not central to the submitted work. The dreaded “reviewer number 2” has become the bane of many an author’s existence. In this sort of review, the reviewer raises so many questions and objections that an author is left to ponder whether the two are reading the same text. And, it must be said, just as on social media, anonymity can at times lead to incivility. Instead of being helpful, sometimes a reviewer is unkind and cruel.

    The role of the editor is to referee between the goals of the author and the desires of the reviewer. Egos and politics often come into play in this process because reviewers in many cases are colleagues of the editor and contributors to the publication in question. Our experience suggests there are two major types of editors. Authors will need to adjust their approach based on which of these two types best describes their editor:

    • Sympathetic editor: This is the ideal. This editor will work with an author to publish a submission if the research is strong and will allow them to keep their own voice. They do not seek to impose their vision on the book or article. They do not allow their personal politics to influence the decision-making process. They are driven by one central question: Does the author accomplish what they set out to do? This type of editor tries to determine whether a reviewer is acting out of hubris by suggesting tangential and substantial changes or whether they are addressing core issues. On the opposite end of the spectrum, they are alert to the two-paragraph, lackadaisical reviewer who read the work over lunch while answering emails.
    • Visionary editor: It may sound counterintuitive, but an editor with their own vision for someone else’s work can mean frustration and ultimately rejection for an author. This type of editor sees someone else’s work as an opportunity to explore an aspect of a topic that interests them. They impose their own vision on someone else’s work rather than determining whether the author has achieved the goal they set for themselves. This typically takes the form of a lengthy response asking an author to fundamentally rethink their piece. The response contains so many critiques that to adhere to the suggestions would amount to writing a completely different piece of scholarship. This editor also tends to extend and even impede the process almost endlessly.

    As an example, upon the death of Fidel Castro in November 2016, the Latin American historian of this writing duo (Argote-Freyre) was asked by a journal editorial board member to author an article comparing the career of Castro with that of the prior dictator of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista. The resulting piece concluded that the two political figures shared more similarities than differences. The editor, although agreeing to the concept, was unhappy with the conclusions reached by the essay. The editor struck out paragraph after paragraph; a lecture on tone and thesis ensued.

    The editor suggested a piece analyzing the revisionist historiography on Batista—a subject outside the contours of the original assignment and one that would take many months to complete. The author made a rookie mistake in assuming that a member of the editorial board was vested with the authority to make assignments. In retrospect, it seems as if the assignment was foisted upon the working editor, who then wanted to steer the piece in a completely different direction. The author withdrew the piece; the only positive was that only a few months were lost in the process.

    The visionary editor is the type who is never satisfied. They forget that the piece is the author’s, not theirs. Yes, the editor is a gatekeeper for the journal or press, but if it is not a good fit, they should say so and move on. This picky editor sends a revision back to a new third (or fourth) reviewer, who is likely to ask for another, different round of revisions. This is nothing other than moving the goalposts. One of us had this occur with an editor who said, “As you know, we often send articles to several rounds of reviewers.” Well, we did not know, because the journal’s website did not say that. Such a process could go on forever and, to our eyes, makes no sense. The editor should decide on his or her own whether the author has revised sufficiently: It is clear from the reader reports what needed to be done, so just check and see. The editor needs to be decisive.

    At the point a work is about to be sent to an additional set of reviewers, an author needs to withdraw the article or book from consideration. Run as fast as you can in search of another editor and publication. Do not let someone waste your time, especially if your clock is ticking for tenure and promotion.

    How to Make Relationships Work— and When to Walk Away

    The author-editor relationship should be a dance, not a duel. An author is not at the mercy of the process; you are a partner. If you are not clicking with the editor, walk away. A bad first date rarely turns into a good second date. This is particularly true when working on a book project, given the many steps and long timeline involved.

    For a revise-and-resubmit, we suggest strongly that you be professionally assertive. Ask about the review of the resubmission before you do it. If the editor says it will go to new readers, withdraw the piece. This never goes well. Editors should be transparent about the steps involved. It is our experience that some editors are hesitant to divulge their process. If that is the case, the author needs to reassess the integrity of that process.

    Being fully transparent allows you to ask for transparency in return, whether you are an editor or an author. If, as we have experienced, two peer reviews come in that are quite opposed, the editor should get a third before returning to the author. If there are two or three reviews, the editor should synthesize them with a memo attached to the reports. The summary should go something like: “All reviewers agree chapter four needs to be revised with this material, but there is disagreement about chapter six.” There is also nothing wrong with asking the author to make the tough call on a contested point of interpretation. Once again, it is the author’s scholarship, not the editor’s, the journal’s or the press’s.

    For authors: Have a conversation with the editor. If it’s a call, follow up with a written summary. When responding to reader reports, especially when they disagree, say what you will and will not do. Do not say you will revise when you disagree—but don’t be stubborn. Give a little to get what you won’t compromise. If you disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, say why, and ask the editor for approval not to make a specific change suggested in one of the reader reports. Get that approval. If the editor says the revision will go back to one or both original readers instead of making the final call himself, politely insist that the written exchange between the author and editor be sent along, too.

    It may not always work. Recently, one of us did just what we described and the editor said the plan sounded good, only to have the journal reject the revision. The editorial board said a specific change was not made even though the editor agreed that change would not be necessary. Poor communication and coordination between an editor and an editorial board should not penalize an author.

    Finally, we’d like to briefly weigh in on the argument that professors should reject peer reviewing because it is an unpaid task. If you do not want to do it, don’t—but there are compelling reasons to write responsible peer reviews. First, unpaid labor is not without merit. Even if your tenure and promotion committees might not value the task, that does not mean it is not worthwhile. You’re not paid to volunteer at your local food pantry, but you still do it. Second, people do this for you; it is time to be generous in return. Third, reviewing provides insights into the process for your own work. Peer reviewing keeps you current on trends in the field. Editing and peer reviewing make you a better writer and produce better scholarship. Isn’t that what we all want?

    Frank Argote-Freyre and Christopher M. Bellitto are professors of history at Kean University in Union, N.J., with extensive experience with peer review on both sides of the process. Argote-Freyre, a scholar of Latin American history, serves as a frequent peer reviewer and content editor on various book and article projects. Bellitto, a medievalist, is the series editor of Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition and academic editor at large of Paulist Press.

    Source link

  • Academic unions should adopt neutrality (opinion)

    Academic unions should adopt neutrality (opinion)

    Institutional neutrality at universities is having its moment in the aftermath of a year of nationwide campus protests over the Israel-Gaza war. The list of universities that have adopted neutrality has grown over the course of the past 12 months. The concept necessarily is expanding to include conversations around university investments. Yet, academic unions have slipped under the radar as purveyors of positions on political issues. They should not be neglected in the push for neutral stances except for those that directly pertain to an institutional mission. In the case of the union, this should be to promote labor interests. Professors from a range of ideologies should be able to find common cause for collective bargaining purposes without being forced into supporting other political positions.

    The lack of neutrality of professors’ unions on non-labor-related issues is a pernicious problem. Federal law and some state laws that pertain to unions work to compel professors’ speech. Under the federal National Labor Relations Act, if a majority of private sector workers voting in a union election choose to unionize, all workers in that bargaining unit must be exclusively represented by that union. New York’s Taylor Law requires the same for public employees. And, if workers want the benefits of membership, like voting for union leadership and contracts, they must pay dues.

    While public employees could choose not to be union members before the Supreme Court’s 2017 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, that case now guarantees their right to not pay agency fees. But even if workers wish to eschew membership and not pay fees, they cannot dissociate entirely. They are required to be represented by a union that speaks via statements at the local, state and national level on many non-labor-related subjects. Therefore, with their veneer of solidarity, unions quash viewpoint diversity and suppress First Amendment rights. They tie one of the only forms of dissent possible (withdrawing dues) to disenfranchisement from the union, the organization that negotiates their wages and labor conditions.

    Professors who do stop paying their dues are often derided as “free riders.” They risk offending union leadership, who have a say in university processes that can impact their employment, like grievances and denial of reappointment. The union is formally required to provide equal advocacy as their exclusive representative. However, even if one believes biases will never prevail against “free riders,” there is still the suppressive impact of professors’ perception that paying dues and keeping quiet is best for their careers.

    And so, professors are forced into a kind of protection racket, paying unions that may endorse positions with which they may disagree. The National Education Association has opined on everything from ending private prisons to climate change, from promoting women-led businesses to helmets for motorcyclists. They have issued statements on the Israel-Gaza conflict, advocated for codifying Roe v. Wade into law and called for Donald Trump’s ouster. They have adopted progressive ideological lenses throughout such statements, arguing for instance that “white supremacy culture” is prevalent in the current U.S., and that “intersectionality must be … addressed … in order to advance the [NEA’s] social justice work.”

    To be clear, I am not arguing that these positions taken by unions are bad. I am not reflecting my own political preferences. I am not highlighting progressive examples to critique only progressive examples: I could find none that can be considered conservative. I am not saying that it’s not possible that a majority of members agree with the statements. I am also not arguing that workers do not have the right to form associations to advocate for political causes.

    What I am arguing is that due to laws making exclusive representation compulsory, unions should adopt neutrality on political issues that do not impact the primary purpose of academic unions: advocating for professors’ interests as workers. This lets ideological diversity exist and prevents coerced speech and dues payments. This neutrality is of paramount importance with public sector unions, where union leadership activities may receive taxpayer-subsidized administrative benefits.

    This neutrality should extend to political endorsements of individual candidates. While there may be some argument to be made that endorsing a pro-union or pro–higher education candidate over their opponent directly pertains to professors’ interests as workers, this carries with it implicit endorsement of a wide slate of other policies. A better approach would be for unions to support (or critique) candidates’ specific policy proposals or voting records. It would also reduce antagonism between unions and candidates they did not endorse, should those be elected.

    Recent examples show the perils of academic unions not having a neutrality standard. In 2018, a University of Maine professor sued his union, noting his opposition to its stances, like endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. More recently, in 2022, six City University of New York professors filed suit against the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), which passed a pro-Palestinian resolution they viewed as antisemitic. They resigned their memberships, along with approximately 263 other professors. But because of the Taylor Law, they are required to be represented by the PSC, which did not give evidence it could be fair in representing them. The PSC called them free riders, claiming their lawsuit was “meritless … funded by the notoriously right-wing National Right to Work Legal Foundation,” and described the “‘Right to Work’ agenda” as “rooted in white supremacy.”

    After lower courts ruled to dismiss their suit, the CUNY professors appealed to the Supreme Court, which just this month declined to hear their case. Yet, while this case could have been a victory for viewpoint diversity and free speech and an impetus for unions to get on the institutional neutrality bandwagon, future such suits will doubtless arise and reach a court favorable to their claims. Academic unions should get ahead of such a court ruling and make union membership attractive to all who may want to participate based on advocacy for improved working conditions, but not for particular solutions to international wars—or for wearing motorcycle helmets.

    Colleen P. Eren is a professor of sociology and criminal justice at William Paterson University and a research fellow at the Segal Center for Academic Pluralism. Her commentaries on higher ed and other topics can be found across a range of publications, including The New York Times, Discourse, Reason, and the Foundation for Economic Education.

    Source link

  • Q&A with a student success dean, Soka University of America

    Q&A with a student success dean, Soka University of America

    As an undergraduate student, Lisa MacLeod wasn’t sure where her career path would take her. She majored in English literature and international relations with the aspirations of being a journalist or a State Department staffer and found herself back in academia not long after.

    Lisa MacLeod, assistant dean of student success at Soka University of America

    Lisa MacLeod/Soka University of America

    Now, as the inaugural assistant dean of student success at Soka University of America since last fall, MacLeod is charged with breaking institutional silos at the California institution to improve student outcomes after graduation, working collaboratively across campus.

    MacLeod spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her time thus far at the institution, a private liberal arts college, and her aspirations in the long-term.

    Inside Higher Ed: What is your new role at Soka and how does it fit into institutional goals for student success?

    MacLeod: One of the most important things [about my role] is that I am housed under the dean of faculty, so I’m not under the dean of students, which is very different from how a lot of schools have done this.

    My top priority, luckily, isn’t getting students to graduate—because we already are doing that very well as an institution … I’m not just new in the job, the position is new at the university—so there’s some room for me to define what the position is.

    I was asked to look specifically at advising. Right now, our program is all faculty individually advising students for academic advising. Career services and internships is the other side of the house, and historically, the two sides of the house don’t talk to each other very well. So looking at how we advise, but also thinking about, are there ways that we can integrate better, because we have lots of good things happening by different people. But do faculty know about that? Do they know enough about it to recommend it to students? Not so much.

    The other thing is starting to integrate career readiness skills into the curriculum. This year, we are rolling out RATE (Reflect, Articulate, Translate, Evaluate), which was developed by the University of Minnesota for their liberal arts students.

    We’re having our first cohort this coming semester—so beginning in February—of faculty fellows who have pledged to develop the RATE system into their existing course, and we’re supporting them with some training and other kinds of activities so that we’re very specific in the application. We’re not asking you to change your course. What we’re asking is that you make it more evident to students how they are developing career readiness skills in addition to academic and subject area knowledge.

    Inside Higher Ed: You were a double major in college. While interdisciplinary learning can be an asset to students, sometimes academic departments can be more focused on helping students on a specific path within their discipline. Do you have any insights based on your experience as a dual major and helping students find their own path?

    MacLeod: At Soka, we don’t have majors—everyone graduates with a major in liberal arts, and then within that, we have concentrations. Students here do have the opportunity to double concentrate, so they’re not taking as many courses as you would for a major, but there’s still some degree of specialty.

    I encourage them to look at the whole course catalog and say, “Take the classes that really attract you, that are interesting, and you’ll figure out how they connect to each other if you look for it,” and to not worry about double concentrations. Or, you know, force yourself to take courses you wouldn’t otherwise.

    Certainly, I encourage students, depending on what their interests are, if you’re going to go to graduate school, yes, take statistics, take a research methodology course. Do these kinds of courses that are skill building [so] you’ll have that [for] the next level of your education; they will have expected you to have that background.

    But beyond that, I’m really focused on having students maybe try something they wouldn’t otherwise. I wish as an undergraduate I had taken an anthropology class, but it never occurred to me; it just wasn’t on my radar. Explore, because you don’t know what you don’t know, and to really find something that drives them, that they’re really excited about doing the coursework and learning more about that area. Because they’ll put more into it, and as they put more into it, they’re going to develop the liberal arts skills in the process. Whereas, if they’re forcing themselves to take a course because they feel they should take this course, they’re not going to have the same level of motivation. They’re not going to get the same out of it.

    Inside Higher Ed: As you said, one of your priorities is advising, which is so important to the student journey. What does quality advising look like to you?

    MacLeod: I think that quality advising really requires time and listening.

    I always ask students to come in with kind of a worksheet: Where are you [in your progress] toward graduation? Where are you in terms of taking required courses? But I also ask them things like, “OK, this is a required course, but you have a selection of five different faculty members that might be teaching that course, and of course, they bring their skills and expertise and kind of personality in each course. Why did you choose that faculty member? If you’re interested in this, maybe this other faculty member—even though it’s the same requirement—might teach that course in a way that you would find appealing?” And directing them to resources, encouraging them to talk to faculty before they enrolled in the course if they have questions or concerns or if they’re not certain about something.

    Then also asking them very blatant questions that I wish someone had asked me when I was an undergraduate. What are your plans after you graduate? What are you doing to achieve that goal? What information do you need to know, and how are you going to get it moving forward?

    I took time off [after graduating] because I’d never had those conversations. Maybe people at the university thought I was having it with my family. My family may have thought I was having it with people at the university. I’m not sure where I lost the memo, but it just didn’t happen. Before, someone had always come along and said, “Apply for this,” and it was a very structured thing. That’s not how life after graduation works at all. So I ask those questions I wish someone had asked me.

    Inside Higher Ed: What is student success to you?

    MacLeod: It’s not for me to define for someone else what success looks like. I have my own ideas, but I think it’s wrong to impose that on other people, because success can look like so many different things.

    In general, I feel that student success is they graduate from the program, and they feel good about that. That there’s not regret that they should have gone someplace else, but also that we’ve equipped them with the skills in their personal and in their professional life to face the challenges that will inevitably come and to be able to surmount them.

    The first couple years after graduation for everyone is hard—that’s just kind of the nature of the beast—but that they are prepared for, that they can get through it, and know that there’s something on the other side. that they are confident in their skills, that they will figure it out and then end up on the other side in a career that they find fulfilling in some manner, being able to contribute to the community, if that’s their goal, in a way that is meaningful to them. And hopefully happy alumni that are talking to our current students that and sharing their experiences.

    Inside Higher Ed: What are your long-term goals in this new role?

    MacLeod: It feels like so much of academic life is keeping your head above water for now.

    I think that in the long term, I’d really like to see a more collaborative campus culture, where faculty members are supporting each other in their endeavors, maybe a bit more. It’s not that my colleagues are unsupportive, but we don’t always ask each other or are aware of the ways in which our research overlaps and we could actually be doing more—whether it’s with our teaching or where we could be drawing more on each other’s skills and knowledge base.

    I’m still really new at this … so I think right now my priority is still listening, rather than planning for the future.

    Seeking stories from campus leaders, faculty members and staff for our Student Success focus. Share here.

    Source link

  • Ducking and covering is no way to protect higher ed

    Ducking and covering is no way to protect higher ed

    This is one of those times I’m glad I’m in charge of only myself. I can’t imagine the pressure of leading an organization—like a higher ed institution—that is dependent on support from the federal government for its literal day-to-day operations.

    Also, I am aware of the old saw about free advice … it’s worth what you pay for it.

    Nonetheless, I’m going to venture some advice for institutions experiencing the assault of the opening 10 or so days of the second Trump presidency.

    Opinions may differ on exactly what is happening, but I’m convinced that New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie is correct in saying, “Donald Trump is waging war on the American system of government.”

    If you believe this is true, there’s no room for accommodation. Ending democratic governance leaves no room for the kind of higher education that has made the U.S. the envy of the world.

    You’ve got to resist, all of it, actively, with as much countering force as possible. An administration that without notice “pauses” NIH and NSF activities, that even stops disbursement through the Office of Management and Budget, is not merely reorienting the government around the new president’s priorities. It seems clear they either intend to destroy or hobble higher education to make it a vassal state.

    I’ve got myself thinking of a couple of dynamics that I think are important to recognize in the moment.

    One is the problem of “institutional awe,” which I draw from the term “vocational awe,” coined by Fobazi Ettarh from observing the work of librarians such as herself. She calls vocational awe “the set of ideas, values and assumptions librarians have about themselves and the profession that result in notions that libraries as institutions are inherently good, sacred notions, and therefore beyond critique.”

    Ettarh identifies vocational awe as a route to self-exploitation as librarians are called upon to sacrifice their own well-being in order to preserve the operations of the library itself.

    “Institutional awe” is a bit different, and something perpetrated not by the laborers, but by leadership, where it’s judged that the continued operation of the institution is of the utmost importance, no matter the sacrifices required by the individual stakeholders, or the damage to the underlying mission of the institution.

    Under institutional awe, as long as the doors remain open, anything goes.

    There are already some worrying signs of this mentality in terms of some pre-emptive compliance with merely perceived threats from the Trump administration. In some cases, these moves appear to be motivated by a desire for administrations to use Trump policy as a rationale for either seizing more control or silencing dissent that’s causing them headaches. I do not want to think uncharitably of some of the leaders of the nation’s higher education institutions, but “Trump made me do it” appears to be a handy rationale for dodging responsibility.

    In other cases, I think we’re looking at rank cowardice, as in Northeastern University’s decision to purge any public-facing information that even references diversity, equity and inclusion. I suppose this suggests that Northeastern was not particularly committed to these things, as they are setting a land speed record for “obeying in advance.”

    The other big-picture caution I have is something I wrote about recently, to remember that there is always something next, and decisions you make in the present shape what that next thing is going to be.

    It seems clear to me that higher ed institutions are going to be fundamentally different both because of the efforts of Trump and some red state governors to make them over to something that must express fealty to their preferred vision, and simply because we’ve reached an endpoint regarding a prior vision of postsecondary education as something that should be accessible to all.

    A long-standing belief of many conservatives, that too many people go to college—and by too many people they mean women and minority students—that has been simmering under the surface for decades has now come into the open as overt attempts to, in the words of Victor Ray, “resegregate America” under the guise of challenging diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

    I understand the urge to treat what’s going on as perhaps elevated but still normal government functioning in line with what happens during any transition from one party to the other holding the White House. Members of the Democratic Party themselves seem to be acting according to this view.

    But how much evidence is necessary to recognize that this is a delusion and that pre-emptive appeasement or ducking and covering while hoping the blows land elsewhere is not going to work?

    While public trust in higher education has declined in recent years—mostly along partisan lines—it does not follow that most Americans would like to see the important work of teaching and research be utterly destroyed.

    As much as possible, institutions should act in solidarity with each other, considering an attack on one institution an attack on all, given that your institution will be next at some point.

    In the words of Alexander Hamilton, as imagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda, “If you stand for nothing, what will you fall for?”

    Source link

  • Grant reviews at NSF and NIH still paused

    Grant reviews at NSF and NIH still paused

    Some of President Donald Trump’s executive orders ban funding to diversity, equity and inclusion programs or activities as well as the promotion of so-called gender ideology.

    Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    The Trump administration on Wednesday walked back its plan to freeze trillions in federal grants and loans, though a review of thousands of federal programs continues, along with a pause on grant reviews at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health.

    A federal judge blocked the plan from taking effect Tuesday night, but the proposal, outlined in a two-page memo, raised a number of questions and concerns from higher ed leaders who warned of devastating consequences. Had the order taken effect, it could have cut off millions in federal aid to colleges, though not federal student loans or Pell Grants. Congressional Democrats and others called the decision to rescind the memo a victory but criticized the Trump administration for causing chaos and confusion.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on social media that rescinding the memo was “not a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” adding that “the president’s [executive orders] on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.”

    So, the White House is still moving forward with plans to stop funding programs that are at odds with the president’s executive orders. In the last week, President Trump has issued executive orders that banned funding for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and “gender ideology” as well as cracked down on illegal immigration, among other issues.

    In order to comply with those orders, the National Science Foundation halted grant reviews this week, even before the memo from the Office of Management and Budget. The National Institutes of Health also canceled meetings key to reviewing research grant applications.

    The disruption to federal research funding has set university researchers and scientists on edge, and the grant reviews are still on hold, according to numerous sources within the academic research community. On Wednesday, the National Science Foundation said its top priority was to resume funding actions.

    “We are working expeditiously to conduct a comprehensive review of our projects, programs and activities to be compliant with the existing executive orders,” a statement posted online reads.

    NSF said that all grantees must comply with the orders and cease “all non-compliant grant and award activities.”

    “In particular, this may include, but is not limited to conferences, trainings, workshops, considerations for staffing and participant selection, and any other grant activity that uses or promotes the use of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) principles and frameworks or violates federal anti-discrimination laws,” the statement said. “Please work with your institutional research office to assist you in complying with the executive orders.”

    In addition to the temporary pause, the Office of Management and Budget ordered federal agencies to review more than 2,600 programs by Feb. 7 to ensure they comply with the executive orders. It’s unclear whether that deadline remains now that OMB rescinded the memo.

    At the Education Department, programs subject to review include TRIO, Pell Grants, student loans and grants for childcare on campus, as well as those that support students with disabilities and minority-serving institutions. Currently, neither the $229 million fund for Hispanic-serving institutions nor the $400 million grant program for historically Black colleges and universities is included in the review.

    As part of the review, agencies will have to answer a series of questions for each program, including whether the programs fund DEI, support “illegal aliens” or promote “gender ideology.”

    For programs that might not comply with the executive orders, OMB officials wrote in further guidance sent Tuesday that agency leaders could consult the office “to begin to unwind these objectionable policies without a pause in the payments.”

    Kathryn Palmer contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • The battle for authority and children’s autonomy

    The battle for authority and children’s autonomy

    Parental rights have emerged as a central battleground in the culture wars, debated in school board meetings, courtrooms and legislative chambers across the country. As conflicts intensify over what children should be taught, how medical decisions should be made and who has the authority to shape their identity, parental rights have taken on heightened significance.

    This debate is more than a struggle between parents and the state—it reflects deeper societal anxieties about identity, autonomy and control. Whether it’s school policies, medical decisions or the family’s role in public life, parental rights have become a lens through which broader cultural and political struggles are waged.

    Why have parental rights become such a cultural and political flashpoint? What do these debates reveal about shifting power dynamics between families, the state and society? How has this issue become a proxy for larger battles over authority, freedom and the future of societal norms?

    Exploring the historical roots, political significance, human meaning and contemporary implications of the parental rights debate reveals how this seemingly private issue mirrors larger societal tensions between individual freedom, state oversight and evolving social values.

    The humanities can offer critical insights into the rise of parental rights as a flashpoint in the culture wars and provide values to guide this debate. Let me suggest how:

    • Historical context: The humanities reveal how parental rights have evolved, shaped by shifts in family, authority and the state’s role. In ancient times, parental authority was nearly absolute, but by the 19th and 20th centuries, the modern state began intervening in child welfare. This historical perspective explains current tensions between family autonomy and state oversight, driven by changes in social structures like the welfare state and education.
    • Philosophical inquiry into authority and autonomy: Moral and political philosophy helps address the tension between parental control, children’s autonomy and state responsibility. This field can provide frameworks for exploring when parental rights should yield to children’s rights or the state’s duty to protect. This philosophical lens allows for deeper, more sophisticated debates on issues such as identity, health care and education.
    • Cultural analysis of identity and norms: Cultural studies examine how parental rights intersect with identity and societal values. Issues like school curricula on race and gender reflect larger cultural anxieties. The humanities can help unpack these tensions, offering insight into how public perceptions of parenting, authority and the state shape political and cultural conflicts.
    • Ethical frameworks: The humanities offer ethical guidance, balancing parental rights with the best interests of the child. They emphasize pluralism, empathy and dialogue in navigating contentious issues, encouraging solutions that respect diverse perspectives while upholding justice and equality.
    • Critical thinking and civic engagement: The humanities foster critical thinking, teaching us to analyze complex issues, consider multiple viewpoints and engage in reasoned debate. This is essential for moving beyond superficial culture wars and fostering informed civic engagement in debates on education, health care and family authority.

    Several contemporary literary works explore the tension between parental rights, children’s autonomy and the role of the state, offering thought-provoking perspectives on these issues.

    Ashley Audrain’s The Push examines the fraught relationship between a mother and her daughter, raising unsettling questions about parental responsibility, nature versus nurture and the state’s role in protecting children from harmful environments. The portrayal of maternal mental health and a child’s disturbing behavior highlights issues of child protection and parental rights, questioning whether the state should intervene in dysfunctional family dynamics.

    Robin Benway’s Far From the Tree explores adoption, biological parenthood and the foster care system, raising questions about the rights of birth parents versus adoptive parents and the state’s role in determining a child’s best interests. Through the lives of three siblings, the novel examines the competing influences of biological family ties and state-structured family systems, revealing the tensions between personal autonomy and state intervention.

    Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go explores the rights of individuals—particularly children—within a society that controls their fate for the benefit of others. The children in this dystopian world are raised for organ donation, raising ethical questions about autonomy, state control and the violation of human rights. The story poignantly depicts state authority overriding individual autonomy, with children treated as resources rather than individuals with rights.

    Celeste Ng’s Everything I Never Told You examines parental expectations and the pressures parents place on children through the lenses of race, gender and societal norms. The tension between parental control and a child’s autonomy is central to the story, as the parents’ unfulfilled dreams for their daughter ultimately alienate her, with tragic consequences.

    In Ng’s Little Fires Everywhere, a custody battle between an affluent white couple and a Chinese immigrant mother explores themes of race, privilege and the rights of biological versus adoptive parents. The novel raises profound questions about who decides what is in a child’s best interest and the state’s role in such decisions.

    Ann Patchett’s The Dutch House revolves around the inheritance of a family estate, creating a bitter conflict that pits parental rights, sibling loyalty and children’s autonomy against one another. The novel grapples with how much control parents should have over their children’s future, especially when material wealth is at stake, revealing the tension between parental decisions and children’s right to shape their own lives.

    Jodi Picoult’s My Sister’s Keeper addresses parental authority and medical ethics as Anna Fitzgerald sues for medical emancipation after being conceived as a bone marrow donor for her sister, Kate, who has leukemia. The novel explores the conflict between parental rights in making medical decisions and the child’s right to bodily autonomy.

    Jill Santopolo’s The Light We Lost depicts a mother’s fight to retain custody of her child amid state intervention due to her lifestyle choices. The story raises critical questions about how much authority the state should have in determining a child’s best interests and when it is appropriate to intervene in private family matters.

    Lisa Wingate’s Before We Were Yours, based on a real-life adoption scandal, highlights the state’s complicity in forcibly removing children from poor families and placing them with wealthy ones. The novel underscores the tension between parental rights, children’s autonomy and state intervention, particularly when class and privilege influence the state’s decision-making process.

    These works provide valuable insights into the ongoing debates over parental authority, children’s autonomy and the state’s role in deciding what is best for the child. They serve as powerful reflections of contemporary social and legal dilemmas and offer students excellent opportunities to engage with these issues in a thoughtful and nuanced manner.

    Historically, parental rights were rooted in the idea that parents should have control over their children’s education and upbringing, shaping their values, beliefs and development. Today, however, this concept has become a flashpoint in broader debates about autonomy, social norms, children’s rights and state power, highlighting the shifting dynamics of authority and freedom in the public sphere.

    Conservatives often advocate for parental rights as a way to preserve traditional values, emphasizing that parents should have the final say in decisions about their children’s education, medical treatment and social identity. These advocates argue that parents are best suited to determine what their children learn in school, how they are treated medically and how they are recognized by society.

    On the other hand, liberals at times defend parental rights when they clash with state restrictions, such as when states prohibit gender-affirming care or impose rules on dress codes or political expression in schools. In these instances, parental autonomy is framed as a defense against government overreach into personal and familial decisions.

    Certain issues also cut across partisan lines, such as when parents oppose vaccine mandates, seek alternatives like homeschooling or advocate for charter schools and school vouchers. These instances demonstrate that the debate over parental rights transcends simple ideological boundaries, touching on deeper concerns about individual choice and state authority.

    Ultimately, the modern fight over parental rights reflects a long-standing tension between family autonomy and state intervention. As societal norms around identity, health care and education evolve, the debate over parental rights reveals the complexities of balancing the needs of the child, the authority of the parent and the responsibilities of the state. This tension has made parental rights a defining issue in today’s political and cultural landscape, influencing not only how children are raised but also how society is structured.

    The outcome of this debate will have profound implications for the future of education, health care and social policy, shaping how society balances individual freedoms with collective responsibilities. The struggle over parental rights serves as a microcosm of larger societal challenges, making it a pivotal issue in the ongoing evolution of modern governance and cultural norms.

    The debate over parental rights reveals significant shifts in the power dynamics between families, the state and society, as well as changing views on authority, autonomy and social norms.

    At its core, the issue of parental rights centers on who gets to make critical decisions regarding a child’s upbringing, education and medical care. Historically, parental authority—especially for middle-class parents—was paramount, with families largely insulated from external intervention, particularly by the state. Parents were viewed as the primary custodians of their children’s moral, educational and physical well-being. This emphasis on family privacy often limited public intervention, even in cases of abuse or neglect.

    However, the state’s role has evolved, particularly in areas like public education, health-care regulation and child protection laws. Starting as early as the 1830s, several legal doctrines increased the state’s ability to intervene within families:

    • Parens patriae is a legal principle granting the state the authority to act as the guardian of individuals who cannot care for themselves, such as minors, the mentally ill or incapacitated individuals. This doctrine, meaning “parent of the country,” allows the state to step in when a child’s welfare is at risk, such as in cases of abuse, neglect or custody disputes. While it justifies state intervention to protect children’s health, safety and education, it also raises tension between family autonomy and state authority.
    • The best interests of the child doctrine guides decision-making in child-related cases like custody disputes, adoption and child welfare. This principle prioritizes a child’s well-being, safety and development over the rights of parents or guardians. In determining a child’s best interests, courts typically consider factors such as the child’s emotional and physical well-being, the stability of their living environment, parental capacity to provide care, and the child’s own preferences, especially as they grow older. Judges, along with social workers and child welfare agencies, use these criteria to make decisions that promote the child’s overall welfare.

    These doctrines reflect broader societal changes in how we view the state’s role in family matters. The shift from a model of near-total parental control to one where the state has the authority to intervene has been driven by the need to protect children’s rights and welfare. However, it also exposes the ongoing tension between parental autonomy and the state’s duty to protect vulnerable children.

    The evolving role of the state in matters of parental rights highlights the delicate balance between protecting children’s welfare and respecting family authority. As societal norms continue to shift, so too will the boundaries between parental rights and state intervention, making this an enduring and complex issue in legal and cultural debates.

    In the late 19th and much of the 20th century, the idea that the state had both the right and duty to intervene in children’s lives to protect their best interests was often applied selectively, disproportionately targeting marginalized and impoverished families. These interventions reflected broader societal prejudices about poverty, class and race and often extended beyond cases of extreme abuse or exploitation to situations of neglect—neglect that frequently resulted from the pressures on single parents or low-income families to work.

    Families in poverty faced heightened scrutiny from the state, as poverty itself was often equated with neglect. Children from poor families were regularly removed from their homes under the assumption that their parents could not adequately meet their material needs. Wealthier families, by contrast, were largely spared such interference, while poor, urban families were subjected to visits from social workers and child protection services, who monitored their living conditions.

    These families were seen as morally deficient, prone to vice and incapable of instilling proper values in their children, according to middle-class reformers. Their child-rearing practices were often deemed inadequate, not based on actual harm but on the biases of those overseeing them.

    While state interventions were intended to protect children’s welfare, they frequently resulted in the disruption of families, severing the bonds between parents and children. For many poor families, the threat of losing their children loomed, not due to abuse or neglect but because of their financial struggles.

    The state’s duty to protect children’s best interests also intersected with racial inequalities. Indigenous and African American families were especially vulnerable to intervention, as white authorities often deemed their cultural practices and parenting styles as inferior or harmful. Black children were disproportionately placed in foster care or removed from their families, reinforcing racial inequality. Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their families, placed in boarding schools or adopted by white families under the pretext of protecting their welfare, with the goal of erasing Indigenous identities through assimilation.

    While many of these interventions were motivated by genuine concern for child welfare, they were also deeply influenced by classist, racist and moralistic attitudes that viewed poverty and cultural differences as threats to children’s well-being. As a result, state intervention often reinforced social inequalities by punishing families for their economic status rather than addressing the root causes of poverty.

    This historical context illuminates the ongoing tensions between the state, family autonomy and social inequality in child welfare today. The legacy of these selective interventions continues to shape modern debates about the role of the state in protecting children and the impact on marginalized communities.

    The contemporary battle over parental rights stems from the increasing involvement of state institutions in areas once considered the sole domain of the family, such as school curricula, health-care decisions (especially around vaccines and gender-affirming care), and the balance between children’s autonomy and parental authority. The state often frames these interventions as efforts to promote the public good, protect children’s welfare or enforce social standards, but they can clash with individual parental preferences.

    This conflict has turned parental rights into a proxy for larger societal debates about authority and freedom. Conservatives, in particular, push back against what they see as government overreach, advocating for greater parental control over education—especially regarding how schools address race, gender and sexuality. They argue that such state involvement undermines the family’s role in shaping children’s values. On the other hand, progressives contend that the state has a duty to protect children from harmful ideologies or practices, such as religiously motivated science denial, intolerance of gender diversity or a lack of comprehensive sex education.

    Parental rights also tap into broader questions of individual autonomy, especially concerning children’s identity and health care. Debates over whether parents should be informed if a child requests a different gender identity at school or whether they should have the final say in health-care decisions for transgender children highlight tensions between children’s emerging autonomy and parental control. In these cases, parental rights are weighed against the belief that children have independent rights, particularly concerning their identity and well-being.

    This debate reflects shifting societal norms around family structures and authority. As traditional family models evolve to include single-parent households, same-sex parents and cohabiting families, the definition of parental rights is being reconsidered. These shifts complicate long-held assumptions about family authority and the state’s role in regulating or supporting diverse family forms.

    The politicization of parental rights reveals broader anxieties about control and autonomy in a rapidly changing society. For conservatives, defending parental rights often serves as a defense of traditional values, viewing the family as a safeguard against progressive cultural changes. For liberals, advocating for state intervention or children’s autonomy is framed as advancing social justice and protecting vulnerable populations from harmful practices.

    In a diverse, politically divided society, addressing the issue of parental rights requires carefully balancing family autonomy, children’s well-being and societal values like equality and justice. Because parental rights touch on deeply personal matters such as education, health care and identity, navigating this debate demands a thoughtful approach that accounts for differing worldviews, cultural values and ethical considerations.

    To best address parental rights, society should adhere to certain moral and ethical principles:

    • The best interests of the child: The child’s well-being must be at the heart of any discussion on parental rights. While parents play a crucial role, their authority is not absolute. Decisions around education, health care and identity should prioritize the child’s physical, emotional and psychological welfare. This principle, widely accepted in legal and ethical frameworks, underscores the understanding that children deserve protection, care and the opportunity to thrive. In health care, for example, choices such as vaccinations or gender-affirming care should center on the child’s long-term health, rather than parental ideologies.
    • Respect for parental autonomy: Parents are central in shaping their children’s values and upbringing, and their autonomy should be respected within reasonable limits. Families vary in their cultural, religious and philosophical beliefs, and a pluralistic society must allow room for those differences. However, this respect must be tempered by recognizing that children are not the property of their parents—they are individuals with rights. As children grow, their autonomy, especially regarding identity and health care, must be increasingly respected.
    • Balance between individual rights and state responsibilities: The tension between family authority and the state’s role in protecting children is a key challenge. The state has a legitimate interest in safeguarding children from harm and ensuring access to quality education and health care. State intervention is justified when parental decisions put a child’s well-being at risk. However, in areas like educational curricula, the state’s role is more nuanced, needing to balance parental preferences with society’s responsibility to provide a broad-based education that fosters critical thinking and prepares children for a diverse world.
    • Protection of children’s emerging autonomy: As children mature, their ability to make decisions grows. The debate over parental rights often involves how much autonomy children should be granted, particularly in personal matters such as gender identity or health care. Ethical considerations demand that as children approach adolescence, their voices and autonomy be increasingly respected, especially in cases where parental rejection could cause harm.
    • Commitment to pluralism and mutual respect: A diverse society must allow families to raise their children according to their cultural and moral values, as long as these do not violate basic human rights or endanger the child. In a politically divided environment, dialogue and mutual respect are essential. The goal should not be to impose a uniform set of values but to find common ground in safeguarding children’s well-being while respecting diversity in parenting styles.
    • Ensuring equality and justice: The debate over parental rights must be informed by a commitment to equality and justice. Marginalized families often face greater scrutiny and state intervention than more privileged families. Policies must ensure that all families are treated fairly and that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately targeted or penalized. This is crucial in areas like education, where equal access to resources must be guaranteed regardless of a family’s background.
    • Transparent decision-making and public accountability: When the state intervenes in parental matters, transparency and accountability are critical. Parents and communities need clear information about why decisions are being made, how rights are being balanced and how they can engage with or challenge these processes. This is especially important in contentious areas like child protection services and educational policies.

    Grounding the debate in these principles—pluralism, justice and mutual respect—will allow society to navigate these complex tensions and create a framework for parental rights that promotes both family autonomy and children’s well-being in an increasingly diverse world.

    The debate over parental rights is not just about the authority of parents—it’s a broader struggle over the future of societal norms, values, children’s autonomy and the balance of power between families and the state. This issue cuts to the core of how we understand freedom, responsibility and the rights of children, revealing deep cultural and political divides.

    The stakes are high. On one side is the preservation of parental authority and family autonomy, rooted in the belief that parents should have primary control over their children’s upbringing, education and health care. On the other side is the state’s responsibility to protect and empower children, ensuring their rights and well-being, especially when parental choices may conflict with broader social values or the child’s best interests.

    In a pluralistic society, navigating these conflicts requires a careful balancing act. Respecting family autonomy is crucial, but so are children’s rights and the state’s role in upholding justice, equality and the well-being of all citizens, particularly the most vulnerable. How we resolve this debate will shape not only the future of parental rights but also the evolving relationship between family authority, child autonomy and the state’s role in safeguarding the interests of its youngest members. This conversation will ultimately define how we balance personal freedoms with collective responsibilities in the fabric of modern society.

    Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author, most recently, of The Learning-Centered University: Making College a More Developmental, Transformational and Equitable Experience.

    Source link

  • Survey gauges whom college students trust most

    Survey gauges whom college students trust most

    Undergraduates’ level of trust in their institution has been positively linked to individual student outcomes, as well as the broader institutional culture and reputation. So trust matters. And a new analysis of data from Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab shows which groups of campus employees students trust the most—and least—to promote an enriching experience.

    Asked to rate their level of trust in the people in various roles across campus to ensure that they and other students have a positive college experience, nearly all students have some (43 percent) or a lot (44 percent) of trust in professors. This is consistent across institution size, classification (both two-year and four-year) and sector, though students at private nonprofit institutions are somewhat more likely than their peers at public institutions to say they have the highest level of trust in their professors (51 percent versus 42 percent, respectively).

    Methodology

    Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May 2024 in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

    Other highlights from the full survey and from follow-up student polls on key issues can be found here, while the full main survey data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. In addition to questions about academic life, the main annual survey asked questions on health and wellness, the college experience, and preparation for life after college.

    Trust in professors is also relatively consistent across a swath of student characteristics, including gender, household income level and even political affiliation, with 47 percent and 44 percent of Democratic- and Republican-identifying students, respectively, having a lot of trust in them. By race, however, Black students (32 percent) are less likely to say they have a lot of trust in professors than are white (47 percent), Asian American and Pacific Islander (42 percent), and Hispanic students (41 percent).

    Academic advisers come next in the list of which groups students trust a lot (36 percent), followed by campus safety and security officers (32 percent). The trust in security is perhaps surprising, giving heightened concerns about overpolicing in the U.S., but some general public opinion polling—including this 2024 study by Gallup—indicates that confidence in policing is up year over year. That’s as confidence in other institutions (including higher education) remains at a low. In a 2022 Student Voice survey, undergraduates were about equally likely to have a lot of trust in campus safety officers.

    Toward the bottom of the list of campus groups students trust a lot is financial aid staff (23 percent). This finding may be influenced by the tenor of national conversations about college costs and value, as well as last year’s chaotic Free Application for Federal Student Aid overhaul. Revised national data suggests that the FAFSA mess did not have the negative impact on enrollment that was feared. But another Inside Higher Ed/Generation Lab flash survey in 2024 found that a third of students disapproved of the way their institution communicated with them about the changes, with lower-income students especially likely to say this communication had been poor.

    Victoria Nguyen, a teaching fellow at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education and a program coordinator in the Office for Community Conduct at the university, recalls worrying about the financial aid process during her undergraduate years. “The issue is transparency and understanding … Did my scholarship go through? Are they going to reimburse me [for tuition paid]? … It’s not a lack of trust, but since there’s no transparency it feels as though financial aid staff does not have that care,” says Nguyen, who earned her bachelor of science degree in 2023.

    At the very bottom of the trust hierarchy are presidents and other executive-level college and university leaders, with just 18 percent of students expressing a lot of trust in this group. It’s been a tough few semesters for college leaders, with presidents, in particular, in the hot seat—including before Congress—over their responses to campus dynamics surrounding the war in Gaza. And those current tensions aside, the presidency appears to be getting harder and harder to hold on to, with average tenures shrinking.

    In any case, the newly released Student Voice data shows that students, too, may be losing faith in presidents and other senior leaders. These findings are relatively consistent across institution and student type.

    Closing the Presidential Trust Gap

    One recent study that sought to identify essential competencies for any modern college president ranked trust-building No. 1 in a list of seven that emerged from focus groups and surveys of presidents themselves: Some 96 percent emphasized that presidents need to behave “in a way that is trustworthy, consistent and accountable.”

    Jorge Burmicky, assistant professor of higher education leaders and policy studies at Howard University and co-author of that study, says that while this particular survey item on trust-building was drafted without a specific population in mind, presidents in focus groups emphasized the importance of building trust with students, as well as with faculty members. Participants’ ideas for building trust included bringing campus stakeholders into decision-making processes, minimizing surprises, supporting shared governance and showing consistency by aligning actions with personal and institutional values. Respondents also identified listening to and understanding the needs of various campus groups as a related, critical skill.

    Presidents “shared that it was important for them to maintain visibility on campus and that they often took time to visit with students as a way of staying connected to their campus,” Burmicky notes. He also encourages further study on what students—not just presidents—think about core competencies for presidents and means of building trust, including and perhaps especially around communication. Some presidents in his study shared feelings of frustration that students were not reading weekly or monthly presidential newsletters, and he advises that presidents develop trust in a way that works for their campus. Town hall–style gatherings might work in smaller settings, but not others, for instance.

    “There is clearly a perception gap between students and presidents on important issues such as trust-building and feeling heard,” he says. “Presidents ought to reach students where they’re at by using outlets that are relevant to their day-to-day lives,” such as social media or athletic events.

    Nguyen of Harvard would like to see college presidents showing care by attending more events where they can listen to students’ concerns, such as student organization meetings and workshops, or meetings of task forces that include students. Leaders’ “presence in the room matters so much more than they think,” she says.

    Tone and authenticity are additional considerations: Generic messages “do not resonate with most people as they lack empathy, as expressed by our participants,” says Burmicky.

    Nguyen adds that campus leaders should assess their communication to ensure they’re not “using tactics from 20 years ago that don’t match our student population anymore.”

    Faculty ‘Trust Moves’

    Another study published last month shed new light on the concept of student-faculty trust, seeking to better understand how students perceive its value. The study, involving hundreds of engineering students in Sweden, identified showing care and concern as the most important trust-building approach for professors. Teaching skills also mattered.

    Co-author Rachel Forsyth, of Lund University, explains that students “seem to want to have confidence that the teacher knows what they are talking about, is able to communicate their ideas and will attempt to build an effective relationship with them.” Student participants indicated that they could learn without trust, “but that the process felt more effective if it were present and that they had more options in terms of supporting that learning and extending their engagement with the materials.”

    The question of faculty trust is only gaining urgency with the rise of artificial intelligence–powered teaching tools, she adds.

    Peter Felten, executive director of the Center for Engaged Learning, professor of history and assistant provost for teaching and learning at Elon University, notes that prior research in this area has defined trust as both “students’ willingness to take risks based on their judgment that the teacher is committed to student success” (original study here) and as “the perception that the instructor understands the challenges facing students as they progress through the course, accepts students for who they are and cares about the educational welfare of students.”

    Felten says that his own research—completed with Forsyth and involving experienced faculty members teaching large science, engineering, technology and math courses—found there are four categories of “trust moves” faculty can make in their teaching:

    1. Cognition, or showing knowledge, skill and competence
    2. Affect, or showing care and concern for students
    3. Identity, or showing sensitivity to how identities influence learning and teaching
    4. Values, showing that they are acting on professional or cultural principles

    These trust moves, Felton says, include “not only what instructors do and say, but how they design their courses, how they assess students and more.”

    What do you do to build trust in your classroom or on your campus? Let us know by sharing your ideas here.

    Source link

  • We need new ways to protect academic freedom (opinion)

    We need new ways to protect academic freedom (opinion)

    Katherine Franke, formerly a law professor at Columbia University, is just the latest of many academics who have found themselves in hot water because of something they said outside the classroom. Others have been fired or resigned under pressure for what they posted online or said in other off-campus venues.

    In each of those cases, the “offending party” invoked academic freedom or freedom of speech as a defense to pressures brought on them, or procedures initiated against them, by university administrators. The traditional discourse of academic freedom or free speech on campus has focused on threats from inside the academy of the kind that led Franke and others to leave their positions.

    Today, threats to academic freedom and free speech are being mounted from the outside by governments or advocacy groups intent on policing colleges and universities and exposing what they see as a suffocating orthodoxy. As Darrell M. West wrote in 2022, “In recent years, we have seen a number of cases where political leaders upset about criticism have challenged professors and sought to intimidate them into silence.”

    We have seen this act before, and the record of universities is not pretty.

    During the 1940s and 1950s, an anticommunist crusade swept the nation, and universities were prime targets. In that period, “faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning across the country experienced increased scrutiny from college administrators and trustees, as well as Congress and the FBI, for their speech, their academic work, and their political activities.”

    And many universities put up no resistance.

    Today, some believe, as Nina Jankowicz puts it, that we are entering “an era of real censorship the likes of which the United States has never seen. How will universities respond?”

    If academic freedom and freedom of expression are to be meaningful, colleges and universities must not only resist the temptation to punish or purge people whose speech they and others may find offensive; they must provide new protections against external threats, especially when it comes to extramural speech by members of their faculties.

    They must become active protectors and allies of faculty who are targeted.

    As has long been recognized, academic freedom and free speech are not identical. In 2007, Rachel Levinson, then the AAUP senior counsel, wrote, “It can … be difficult to explain the distinction between ‘academic freedom’ and ‘free speech rights under the First Amendment’—two related but analytically distinct legal concepts.”

    Levinson explained, “Academic freedom … addresses rights within the educational contexts of teaching, learning, and research both in and outside the classroom.” Free speech requires that there be no regulation of expression on “all sorts of topics and in all sorts of settings.”

    Ten years after Levinson, Stanley Fish made a splash when he argued, “Freedom of speech is not an academic value.” As Fish explained, “Accuracy of speech is an academic value … [because of] the goal of academic inquiry: getting a matter of fact right.” Free speech, in contrast, means “something like a Hyde Park corner or a town-hall meeting where people take turns offering their opinions on pressing social matters.”

    But as Keith Whittington observes, the boundaries that Levinson and Fish think can be drawn between academic freedom and free speech are not always recognized, even by organizations like the AAUP. “In its foundational 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure,” Whittington writes, “the AAUP asserted that academic freedom consists of three elements: freedom of research, freedom of teaching, and ‘freedom of extramural utterance and action.’”

    In 1940, Whittington explains, “the organization reemphasized its position that ‘when they speak or write as citizens,’ professors ‘should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.’”

    Like the AAUP, Whittington opposes “institutional censorship” for extramural speech. That is crucially important.

    But in the era in which academics now live and work, is it enough?

    We know that academics report a decrease in their sense of academic freedom. A fall 2024 survey by Inside Higher Ed found that 49 percent of professors experienced a decline over the prior year in their sense of academic freedom as it pertains to extramural speech.

    To foster academic freedom and free speech on campus or in the world beyond the campus, colleges and universities need to move from merely tolerating the expression of unpopular ideas to a more affirmative stance in which they take responsibility for fostering it. It is not enough to tell faculty that the university will respect academic freedom and free expression if they are afraid to exercise those very rights.

    Faculty may be fearful that saying the “wrong” thing will result in being ostracized or shunned. John Stuart Mill, one of the great advocates for free expression, warned about what he called “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.” That tyranny could chill the expression of unpopular ideas.

    In 1952, during the McCarthy era, Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter also worried about efforts to intimidate academics that had “an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice.”

    Beyond the campus, faculty may rightly fear that if they say things that offend powerful people or government officials, they will be quickly caught up in an online frenzy or will be targeted. If they think their academic institutions will not have their back, they may choose the safety of silence over the risk of saying what they think.

    Whittington gets it right when he argues that “Colleges and universities should encourage faculty to bring their expertise to bear on matters of public concern and express their informed judgments to public audiences when doing so might be relevant to ongoing public debates.” The public interest is served when we “design institutions and practices that facilitate the diffusion of that knowledge.”

    Those institutions and practices need to be adapted to the political environment in which we live. That is why it is so important that colleges and universities examine their policies and practices and develop new ways of supporting their faculty if extramural speech gets them in trouble. This may mean providing financial resources as well as making public statements in defense of those faculty members.

    Colleges and universities should also consider making their legal counsel available to offer advice and representation and using whatever political influence they wield on behalf of a faculty member who is under attack.

    Without those things, academics may be “free from” the kind of university action that led Franke to leave Columbia but still not be “free to” use their academic freedom and right of free expression for the benefit of their students, their professions and the society at large.

    Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

    Source link

  • Saint Augustine’s U faces ticking clock to fix finances

    Saint Augustine’s U faces ticking clock to fix finances

    Approaching a critical vote on its accreditation status next month, Saint Augustine’s University has made controversial moves in recent months to stabilize its shaky financial position, but so far none have paid off, putting the beleaguered institution in a more precarious position.

    First, the historically Black university in North Carolina took out a $7 million loan last fall that many critics have described as predatory given its 24 percent interest rate and 2 percent management fee. The university also put real estate up as collateral in case of a loan default.

    Then, in November, SAU officials also struck a $70 million deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, a fledgling Florida company, to lease its campus and develop university property for 99 years. The deal would have provided a much-needed financial lifeline for the cash-strapped university that needs to urgently fix its finances before the accreditation review. (The college was previously stripped of accreditation due to university financial and governance issues but appealed.)

    But that lifeline is in legal limbo after the North Carolina attorney general declined to sign off on the deal Monday.

    The North Carolina attorney general’s office, which reviewed the deal due to state law on the transfer of assets from a nonprofit, announced it would not approve the arrangement with 50 Plus 1 Sports as written due to a lack of “sufficient documentation to support the proposal” and concerns that the payout “is too low to justify transfer of the lease rights” for SAU’s campus, which is appraised at $198 million. The attorney general’s Office also expressed concerns about SAU’s “ability to continue to operate.”

    Ongoing Financial Struggles

    Saint Augustine’s has faced rising pressures since December 2023 when it fired then-president Christine McPhail, who subsequently lodged a gender-based discrimination complaint against the board. That same week the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges announced it had voted to strip SAU’s accreditation due to board and finance issues.

    (SAU lost an appeal to that decision but won a reprieve in court in July before SACSCOC voted again in December to strip accreditation. The accreditor will vote on SAU’s appeal next month.)

    Since early 2024—under the guidance of interim president Marcus Burgess—SAU has navigated a series of challenges in a bid to stay afloat. In February, it was hit with a $7.9 million tax lien. That same month, local officials encouraged SAU to explore a merger with nearby Shaw University, another HBCU. Months later, SAU board chair Brian Boulware cast the proposal as an aggressive effort to ramrod a partnership. (Local officials have denied his account.) In May, a group called the Save SAU Coalition sued Boulware and other trustees, alleging malfeasance and self-dealing by the board.

    That case was later dismissed due to a lack of standing.

    Enrollment has also plummeted, falling from more than 1,100 students in fall 2022 to a head count of around 200 students last fall, according to recent estimates. SAU has also announced major staff reductions.

    As its financial pressures added up, Saint Augustine’s borrowed $7 million from Gothic Ventures, an investment firm, and secured a $30 million line of credit. The deal, which came with a 24 percent interest rate and a 2 percent loan management fee, sparked alumni protests in the fall.

    Mark DeFusco, a senior consultant with Higher Ed Consolidation Solutions and sector finance expert, told Inside Higher Ed the terms of the Gothic Ventures loan were “crazy” and “irresponsible.” DeFusco agreed with the description of the loan as “predatory.”

    SAU officials have defended the agreement, writing that the deal is “crucial for maintaining educational services” and securing the loan contradicted “claims of irresponsibility in financial dealings” leveled by critics. SAU has cast criticism of the deal as a “smear campaign.”

    Earlier this month, two local publications, INDY Week and The Assembly, reported that last fall SAU turned down a more favorable loan offer of $19.5 million with a 9 percent interest rate. That offer, from Self-Help Credit Union, stipulated that two board members, including Boulware, resign, and would have included purchasing the existing Gothic Ventures loan. The university balked at the attached conditions.

    To DeFusco, the board resignations as part of the loan conditions were a reasonable request.

    “There are provisions in leadership for all kinds of lending. And with all due respect, it was a wise provision, because you have a board that’s allowed [financial issues] to go on for several years now. This isn’t something new,” DeFusco said. “They haven’t broken even for at least five years from what I could see in their records, and their accrediting body was going to close them down, except for that arbitration. And now they’re about to close them down again.”

    Continued financial struggles ultimately led SAU to a deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, which describes itself on its website as a financing and development firm. That agreement, according to a university statement, would “generate a $70 million upfront investment” from the company.

    But the North Carolina attorney general’s office shut down that proposed deal.

    Beyond the lack of documentation on the proposal and the low payout, Assistant Attorney General Kunal Choksi also raised questions about the university’s due diligence of the deal.

    “SAU’s board and trustees were obligated to perform due diligence on whether 50+ can meet its obligations under the transaction and has the experience to develop revenue-generating property on the leased land,” Choksi wrote in a letter shared with Inside Higher Ed.

    Choksi added that the attorney general’s office had requested “sufficient proof that 50+ has the financial ability to comply with its obligations to SAU and avoid default with its financiers” and “details about similar deals 50+ has developed, including deals with other universities, or the company’s audited financial statements.” Choksi indicated in his letter that SAU had not yet provided those details on the proposal.

    In a Tuesday statement, SAU officials said little about the concerns raised by the attorney general about the 50 Plus 1 Sports deal or its ability to operate. Instead, university officials took aim at Self-Help Credit Union.

    SAU noted concerns “about the process that led to the recent rejection” of the agreement. Specifically, they pointed to a meeting between Marin Eakes of Self-Help Credit Union and alleged that the attorney general’s letter reflected comments made by Eakes in unspecified media coverage and alleged the 50 Plus 1 Sports proposal was shared without SAU’s consent.

    SAU officials wrote in the statement that they “suspect that the Attorney General’s Office used Mr. Eakes’ counsel and input to subsequently influence their decision. Such interference by Self-Help raises significant concerns about fairness. It suggests their attempt to weaponize the NC Attorney General’s Office to obstruct the approval process for the 50 Plus 1 Sports deal.”

    An Unknown Partner

    With the North Carolina attorney general’s office shutting down the 50 Plus 1 deal, SAU has little time to fix its finances ahead of a looming vote on its accreditation status in late February.

    And questions about both the deal and the company linger.

    Information on 50 Plus 1 Sports is sparse and it is unclear, as noted by the attorney general’s office, whether the nascent company has the resources to back the deal. Little is known about 50 Plus 1 Sports, which unsuccessfully big on a $800 million stadium development deal in St. Petersburg, Fla., in early 2023. The firm was not selected for the project amid questions from local officials about how it would finance the deal and a lack of experience as a lead developer.

    In its St. Petersburg proposal, 50 Plus Sports listed a $1.4 billion deal to develop a sports and entertainment district for the University of New Orleans among its reference projects. However, a UNO spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed by email it is not “moving forward with the project.”

    Monti Valrie, founder and CEO of 50 Plus 1 Sports, did not respond to a request for comment.

    What’s Next for SAU?

    The attorney general’s office did leave the door open to reconsider the deal. But the university would have to provide more details to the office, including evidence that SAU conducted due diligence on 50 Plus 1 Sports and its finances.

    SAU officials noted in their statement that “despite these challenges, SAU remains committed to working collaboratively with the Attorney General’s Office. We believe transparency and open dialogue are essential in securing the funding for our university’s sustainability and growth.”

    But SAU is facing a ticking clock to get that information to the attorney general or rework the deal. University officials have said that the deal needed to close by Jan. 31. Otherwise, “SAU risks failing to demonstrate financial sustainability” before its appeal hearing next month, according to a university statement.

    But DeFusco wonders if SAU’s finances are too far gone to fix.

    “Their finances are so bad they may be criminal,” he said, pointing to payroll and tax issues. (The university also allegedly failed to maintain worker’s compensation for employees recently.)

    As pressure mounts, DeFusco believes the board needs more scrutiny for SAU’s financial problems, arguing “they missed it for years” as the university slipped deeper into the red.

    “Now the question is, is the board acting as a fiduciary?” DeFusco said.

    Source link

  • Trump’s federal funding freeze concerns colleges

    Trump’s federal funding freeze concerns colleges

    President Trump’s plan to temporarily freeze federal grants and loans set off a wave of confusion and concerns across higher ed Tuesday. But just minutes before it was set to take effect, a federal judge blocked the order.

    It is now on hold until next Monday, at least.

    College leaders worried they would lose access to a wide variety of federal funds, though the specific programs affected by the pause remained in flux throughout the day. Education Department officials said Pell Grants, student loans and Federal Work-Study would not be subject to the pause. But critical STEM research and student success initiatives were among the thousands of programs whose funding would have been paused until at least Feb. 10, according to the original White House directive released late Monday night.

    University lobbyists and administrators predicted earlier Tuesday that the president’s unprecedented action would be blocked in the courts, but they warned of significant consequences as they worked to gather more information about the order. Comparable to a government shutdown, they said, the impact of a freeze, if it ever comes to pass, would largely depend on how long it lasts. 

    “Obviously it’s of great concern,” said Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday morning. “Most of us are finding the memo to be so broad and so incomprehensible that we don’t even quite know what the long-term impact is … But it makes no sense. Rather than helping ‘make America great again,’ it absolutely debilitates America.”

    Conservative policy experts say Trump’s actions are necessary to combat years of misguided spending and argue that institutions shouldn’t run budgets so razor-thin that a short-term loss of federal funds empties their coffers. But McGuire and other higher ed representatives say the proposed freeze along with other executive actions raises questions about whether they can count on stable federal funding in the long run.

    Universities have already seen some disruptions to research funding since Trump took office eight days ago, as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation canceled meetings to review grant applications last week. Before the federal court released its ruling, the proposed extension of that freeze had only further fueled academics’ initial concerns.

    The White House Office of Management and Budget had directed all federal agencies to pause any grants and loans they supervised in order to ensure that federal spending aligns with the president’s priorities, such as cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and illegal immigration. OMB specifically said it is aiming to cease any funding to activities that “may be implicated by the executive orders, including but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” according to the memo.

    The two-page directive specifically exempted Social Security, Medicare and other programs that provide direct financial assistance to individuals. But colleges and universities would still lose access to grants that are targeted at minority-serving institutions, college preparation programs, childcare for student parents, food banks, student retention and graduation initiatives, campus hospital systems, and more. Over all, more than 2,600 grant programs are up for consideration across dozens of agencies, Bloomberg reported.

    A follow-up memo was published Tuesday in an attempt to help clarify the president’s orders, but higher ed stakeholders said much uncertainty remains.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said early Tuesday afternoon that the freeze would not be “a blanket pause on federal assistance and grant programs,” and she repeatedly said that direct federal assistance to individuals wouldn’t be affected. But she didn’t have a clear answer about what would happen to federal money that goes to states, organizations or colleges that support individuals. She also pushed back on questions about the legality of the pause and said the move was aimed at ensuring that federal spending aligns with the president’s priorities.

    “No more funding for illegal DEI programs,” she said. “No more funding for transgenderism and wokeness.”

    Leavitt was asked about funding for minority-serving institutions and said she hadn’t “seen the entire list” of programs either affected or exempted from the pause.

    Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said concerns remain despite the legal injunction.

    In the initial memo, OMB instructed agencies to conduct a comprehensive review by Feb. 7 of federal programs to ensure they comply with Trump’s executive orders. White House officials offered more guidance Tuesday about what that would entail. Agencies will have to answer a series of questions for each program listed on the 52-page document by Feb. 7. Those questions include whether the programs fund DEI or support “illegal aliens,” the promotion of “gender ideology” or “activities overseas.”

    It’s just going to cause a lot of chaos when it comes to planning. It is definitely a developing story.”

    —Sarah Spreitzer, American Council on Education

    It’s unclear whether the judge’s order affects the broader review.

    To Spreitzer and others, that broader review could threaten more federal programs, as those considered unaligned with the president’s agenda could be altered or cut back entirely.

    “If there’s an injunction within a week and everything can start up again, I think that the impact is minimal,” Spreitzer said. But “there’s so much in that [memo] about the examination of all grants going forward … that go beyond just the pause that I think I’d have to see the further implementation instructions to understand the complete impact on the scientific and education enterprise.”

    ‘Unnecessary and Damaging’

    Higher ed officials and student advocacy groups warned throughout the day that the pause, in addition to a recent flurry of executive orders, would cause unnecessary disruption to the primary goals and functions of American colleges and universities and could jeopardize crucial scientific research. The National Association of College and University Business Officers said in a statement that the pause could cause “unnecessary disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of students and families at colleges and universities across the country.”

    “The overall impact to programs … could be both significant and chaotic,” NACUBO president Kara D. Freeman said. “College and university chief business officers will be front and center with their presidents, boards, and executive leadership in developing plans to mitigate immediate exposure and impacts. We urge the Trump administration to reconsider and rescind this misguided policy.”

    Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, called the memo’s orders “unnecessary and damaging.”

    “While we understand the Trump administration wants to review programs to ensure consistency with its priorities, it is imperative that the reviews not interfere with American innovation and competitiveness,” Becker said. “It will have far-reaching impacts in every corner of the country and hamper American innovation at a moment when it’s being fiercely challenged on a global stage.”

    Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement that she hopes Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill will see how the pause could hurt American citizens and address the gap by resuming grant distribution.

    “Federal programs need to be more efficient, but no one voted for a president to halt their services—services that were appropriated, authorized and extended by Congress,” she said in a statement. “Americans need a federal government that works for them, not against them.”

    Democratic lawmakers have also raised the red flag, responding with outrage and “extreme alarm,” warning that the pause would undermine Congress’s authority and have “devastating consequences across the country.”

    Reactions from professors and student advocacy groups were swift late Monday and early Tuesday.

    “I don’t see how any Democrat can get away with voting to confirm Linda McMahon after this memo. The entire hearing should be focused on how the U.S. government is tearing apart everyday life for regular people,” Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, wrote on X.

    Jody Freedman, a professor at Harvard Law School, took to BlueSky. “What is going on here?” she wrote. “I think what’s going on here is that Russell Vought (perhaps others in the administration too, but certainly him) … are testing the Republicans in Congress on this issue to see if they spring to life.”

    “It’s like Hey, the door’s open, no one’s home, let’s rob the place. And by rob I mean, let’s take all the power Congress thinks it has over the appropriations,” she added.

    ‘Extremely Widespread’ Abuse

    Congressional Republicans have said little in response to the pause, and conservative policy experts say the freeze is a necessary step to address years of “illegal spending” by Democrats to advance their political motives.

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to both Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy and Representative Tim Walberg, chairs of the congressional committees that handle education policy, but neither responded with comment.

    Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, said that the Trump administration’s actions—though “aggressive”—are justified decisions aimed to restore the rule of law and ensure that government money “isn’t being set on fire at every turn.”

    “What you’re seeing overall across the administration is an attempt to get a handle on the waste and the abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Brickman said.

    He went on to say that though it would be ideal to only freeze certain programs and limit the consequences of stalled grants, breadth was a necessity in this scenario.

    “We saw during the Biden administration, brazen attempts again and again to ignore the law” when utilizing federal funds, Brickman said. “Why let good money continue to go out the door when we know for the last four years that so much of it has been wasted … I wish it were narrow and targeted, but unfortunately, the abuse is extremely widespread.”

    And if colleges don’t have a contingency plan in place for any kind of budgetary disruption, “that’s malpractice on their part,” he added.

    ‘Plan for the Worst’

    McGuire, from Trinity, said the pause would likely affect grants for predominantly Black institutions, which her university uses to provide student advising, new lab materials and certification programs in high-demand areas of the workforce.

    Trinity has already received its $250,000 in such grants for the current academic year, so no programs will have to shut down immediately if the freeze is reinstated, she said. But she worries about the reliability of federal funds moving forward. She explained that uncertainty about grants could mean cuts and amendments to the budget for fiscal year 2026. 

    “We hope for the best but plan for the worst,” she said. “We’re going into budget season right now, so we will probably have to plan alternative support for the programs funded through the PBI [grants].”

    Spreitzer, from ACE, echoed the future impact but also noted that certain colleges could pay the price more immediately. Many large research universities require billions of dollars in federal grants to keep their labs and hospitals running every day, she said, and there’s variation in when grant funds are dispersed, so many may have yet to receive the dollars needed to keep the lights on.

    “It’s going to depend on whether institutions have existing grants and whether they’re waiting for disbursements. It’s just going to cause a lot of chaos when it comes to planning,” she said. “It is definitely a developing story.” 

    Source link