Charlie Kirk: Hero of ‘Civil Discourse’ or Fount of Division?
Ryan Quinn
Mon, 09/29/2025 – 03:00 AM
Pointing to the slain activist’s inflammatory statements about minority groups, some are pushing back—at their own peril—against the right’s framing of him as an emblem of quality discourse.
Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.
Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy that struck at the heart of American democracy. As the faculty adviser for Turning Point USA at Georgia College & State University, I took on that role despite significant ideological disagreements with the organization Kirk founded because I believe so fervently in the value of political discourse—even when that discourse makes us uncomfortable.
Kirk and I disagreed on virtually every policy issue. His rhetoric often struck me as divisive, and his positions frequently ran counter to my own deeply held beliefs. Nevertheless, I advised the campus chapter of his organization because I passionately believe that universities must be places where competing ideas can clash, where students can hear from voices across the political spectrum and where the marketplace of ideas remains vibrant and open.
The wave of faculty terminations sweeping across American institutions in response to Kirk’s death represents a dangerous moment for academic freedom and constitutional principles. Educators across the nation have been fired or suspended for social media posts that ranged from celebrating Kirk’s death to making pointed observations about the irony of his rhetoric regarding gun violence being an acceptable price to pay to maintain the Second Amendment. While these comments were often distasteful and insensitive, the rush to punish people for them reveals a troubling disregard for the First Amendment protections that should shield government employees—particularly university faculty—from exactly this kind of viewpoint-based retaliation.
I’m not defending the wisdom or sensitivity of the statements made about Kirk by those being fired. In point of fact, I believe that most if not all were ill-timed, crude, callous and deeply hurtful to those mourning Kirk’s death. But constitutional principles protect speech that offends, disturbs and challenges our sensibilities.
For example, in 1987, the Supreme Court decided Rankin v. McPherson in response to a government employee being fired after expressing hope that a potential future assassin would succeed in killing President Reagan. Even though this despicable comment was said in the immediate aftermath of an assassination attempt against the president, the court nevertheless held that it was protected speech. If such an extreme statement merits protection, surely the same is true for similar statements about Kirk in the wake of his assassination.
The irony here is particularly acute. Conservative activists and politicians who claim to champion free speech principles are now leading coordinated campaigns to silence critics through organized pressure and doxing efforts. Meanwhile, university administrators—those who should be the staunchest defenders of academic freedom—are capitulating to political pressure rather than standing up for constitutional principles. The result is a chilling effect that extends far beyond these specific cases, sending a clear message to faculty everywhere that certain political viewpoints will no longer be tolerated.
For public university professors like me, this represents an especially troubling erosion of academic freedom. The Supreme Court has long recognized that universities occupy a special place in our constitutional framework as centers of free inquiry and debate. The Pickering balancing test that governs government employee speech also typically weighs heavily in favor of faculty members discussing matters of public policy, precisely because such discourse is central to the university’s educational mission.
We’re witnessing universities abandon their constitutional obligations to appease a political pressure campaign, one often led by Republican members of government. Universities and school districts are making hasty decisions based on social media pressure rather than carefully considering their legal duties and educational responsibilities. This institutional cowardice not only violates the constitutional rights of individual employees but also undermines the very principles that make American higher education a global leader in research and innovation.
The legal precedent here is clear, and many of these terminations will likely be reversed through costly litigation. Even so, the damage to academic freedom and democratic discourse has already been done. The message being sent is that political speech—even on matters of clear public concern—can be punished if it offends the right people with sufficient political power.
This is precisely the moment when our institutions must demonstrate courage in defending constitutional principles. University presidents, school board members and other educational leaders must resist the pressure to sacrifice employees on the altar of political expedience. They must remember that their obligation is not to popular opinion or political movements, but to the Constitution and the principles of free inquiry that make education possible.
The death of Charlie Kirk was a senseless tragedy that robbed America of a young voice in our political discourse. But if we allow that tragedy to justify the systematic erosion of free speech protections, we will have compounded the damage immeasurably. The best way to honor Kirk’s memory is not through ideological purges, but by recommitting ourselves to the principles of free expression and open debate that he claimed to champion.
Philanthropist MacKenzie Scott donated $70 million to the United Negro College Fund last week. The funds will be distributed to private historically Black colleges and universities that are UNCF members.
The $70 million will be spread across 37 member institutions.
Scott’s donation contributes to UNCF’s goal of raising $370 million (as part of a larger $1 billion capital campaign) for a pooled endowment to be split across its membership. UNCF plans to distribute $5 million to each member and work with universities to raise matching funds, in the hopes of “creating a $10 million stake per institution,” with annual distributions of 4 percent.
“This extraordinary gift is a powerful vote of confidence in HBCUs and in the work of UNCF,” said Michael L. Lomax, president and CEO of UNCF, in a news release announcing the donation last week. “It provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity for our member institutions to build permanent assets that will support students and campuses for decades to come.”
Scott’s donation follows a $10 million gift to UNCF in 2020. Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, also donated heavily to HBCUs and tribal colleges in 2020, giving away tens of millions of dollars to individual institutions, many of which have historically been underfunded.
Two in three community college students in California lack reliable access to food or housing, according to a new study.
The 2025 Real College CA Student Survey, led by the Community College League of California, found that 46 percent of students are food insecure and 58 percent are housing insecure, which is higher than national estimates: The most recent study from the Hope Center at Temple University found that 41 percent of all college students are food insecure and 48 percent indicated housing insecurity.
Community college students in California reported slightly lower rates of basic needs insecurity in this survey than in 2023, but the number of students needing help remains high.
“It is important to highlight when trends are moving in the right direction, but also that there’s still a lot of work to do,” Katie Brohawn, director of research, evaluation and development at the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges, said in a Sept. 24 webinar.
Over 76,000 community college students responded to the survey, 3,300 of whom completed it in Spanish. The respondents represented 102 of the 116 institutions in the California Community College system.
The background: For many community college students, financial and mental health concerns can be among the top barriers to completion.
“Before students can thrive academically, their basic needs must be met,” said Tammeil Gilkerson, chancellor of the Peralta Community College District in Oakland, during the webinar.
A fall 2023 study from EdSights found that students at public two-year institutions report the highest levels of financial distress, even though those are among the most affordable institutions across sectors.
One recent study from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that nearly 41 percent of community college students experienced food insecurity and 60 percent reported housing insecurity.
Compared to their four-year peers, community college students are also more likely to be from low-income families, racially minoritized, first-generation, immigrant and adult learners. Each of these groups faces unique challenges in their persistence and retention in higher education.
The previous Real College CA survey, administered in 2023, helped college leaders and others in the state identify the role basic needs insecurity plays in students’ academic progress and overall success, particularly as the state was recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, Gilkerson said.
“While we are no longer in the height of the pandemic, its ripple effects remain and they collide with record housing costs, persistent inflation in food and basic goods, and continued debates about the role of higher education, equity and access in our society,” Gilkerson said.
The data: The latest survey found that only 38 percent of students had high food security, while 46 percent had low or very low food security. The most common concerns students identified were worrying about food running out before they can afford to purchase more (52 percent) or being unable to afford balanced meals (49 percent).
Nearly three in five students said they experienced some level of housing insecurity, and one in five reported being homeless in the past 12 months. While only 8 percent of respondents self-identified as homeless, more said they were couch-surfing (16 percent) or staying at a hotel or motel without a permanent home to return to (6 percent).
Basic needs insecurity also varied by region and institution across the state, with the highest reported rates of food and housing insecurity at 70 percent and 78 percent, respectively. The report did not identify which colleges had the highest and lowest rates of basic need insecurity.
Basic needs insecurities disproportionately impact African American and Black students as well as American Indian or Alaska Native students, compared to their peers. Older students (ages 26 to 30), LGBTQ+ students, independent students, Pell Grant recipients, single parents, former foster youth and those with a history of incarceration were also more likely to indicate food or housing insecurity.
The data also points to a correlation between students’ grades and their rates of basic needs insecurity. While students at all levels had some degree of food or housing insecurity, those earning grades lower than B’s were much more likely to indicate they lacked essential resources.
“If we really are dedicated to improving the academic success of students in our colleges, it’s the basic means that we need to meet. Because if we don’t do that, it doesn’t matter how wonderful a student you are, you’re not going to be able to succeed at the rate that you would otherwise,” Brohawn said.
Not every student is aware of or utilizing campus resources that could address these challenges; over one-third of respondents said they were unaware of basic needs supports at their college, and only 25 percent had accessed the Basic Needs Center. Among students who used resources, most did so to obtain food.
Identifying solutions: Over the past five years, California has made strides to better support learners with basic needs insecurity, recognizing housing challenges as a significant barrier to student success.
The state launched a rapid rehousing program to support learners at public institutions including the CCC, California State University and University of California systems. A 2022 bill began requiring colleges to stock discounted health supplies, such as toiletries and birth control, addressing students’ basic needs in a new way.
A pilot program also provides cash to financially vulnerable students at California colleges, including those who were formerly incarcerated, former foster youth and parents.
The report’s authors recommended providing targeted interventions for vulnerable populations and enhancing accessibility and awareness of supports, as well as advocating for systemic changes, such as increased funding for basic needs initiatives or policies that provide living wages and affordable housing for students.
For years, Black students gathered at the University of Cincinnati’s African American Cultural and Resource Center for its traditions, including the Tyehimba Black Graduation Celebration and Akwaaba, a welcome event for new students, among other programs. This year, the AACRC, at least as it once existed, is gone. It’s been rebranded “the Cultural Center” after an Ohio law banned diversity, equity and inclusion activities at public colleges and universities in March.
But Black students and alumni wouldn’t let the center’s traditions and resources die. Black seniors celebrated their graduations at an event held off campus. Freshmen gathered for Akwaaba, organized by students and funded by alumni, who created a foundation to sustain the AACRC’s programming. The United Black Student Association and other student groups have committed to putting on programs throughout the year that were previously handled by AACRC staff.
“Regardless of these changes, there is no policy that can be written that can outlaw OUR spirit, OUR ability to mobilize, OUR right to congregate,” the United Black Student Association wrote on Instagram. “They cannot outlaw our ability to gather, to build, to resist, and to love. Our legacy is not theirs to give or take.”
Amid an escalating anti-DEI movement, students, alumni and off-campus advocates are hustling to fill the gaps left by shuttered and rebranded identity centers, DEI offices and programs across the country. Students and outside organizations, like the Native Forward Scholars Fund, hosted their own affinity group graduations this year as campuses started to cancel such events. Three student clubs broke off from the University of Utah to avoid the state’s limits on public university programs, forgoing university funding. Some students and alumni involved in these efforts say they feel a renewed pressure and responsibility to provide the services colleges are shedding as institutions are caught in the crosshairs of state DEI bans and the Trump administration’s sweeping anti-DEI campaign.
How do we make lemonade out of a lemon?”
—Harlan Jackson, president of the Cincy Cultural Resource Center Foundation
The Cincy Cultural Resource Center Foundation, the nonprofit founded to continue Black student programming at University of Cincinnati, was born out of that sense of duty among alumni. Some graduates involved in the effort spent years pushing for the creation of the African American Cultural and Resource Center and took pride in watching its programs expand and flourish.
“We can’t just stand idly by and just allow something this negative and something this backward to happen at the university,” said Harlan Jackson, president of the foundation and former president of the United Black Association in the late 1980s. “I’m really proud of the diverse community that’s showing up and acknowledging that we’re going to take this on.”
The foundation now has weekly meetings with Black student leaders to determine how best to support their needs, and alumni leaders plan to put three students on the foundation’s board. Students emphasized to alumni that continuing the center’s events and traditions is their top priority, so the foundation is funding these programs, with hopes to also fund student scholarships in the future.
So far, alumni have raised “well over” the roughly $5,000 needed to run Akwaaba and parents’ weekend, with plans to raise half a million dollars within the academic year, said Byron Stallworth, the foundation’s secretary.
Stallworth, who was president of the United Black Association in 1991 when the AACRC opened, said the idea of alumni and students taking the reins is catching on beyond University of Cincinnati as well—three University of Cincinnati alumni, parents of students at other colleges and universities, have asked him questions about how they could start similar efforts to sustain Black student life on their children’s campuses.
“This is a universal problem,” he said, and alumni elsewhere “are aware of what we’re doing.”
Jackson noted that while the rebranding of the AACRC hits close to home, programs and centers dedicated to supports for women and LGBTQ+ students have also suffered cuts because of the Ohio anti-DEI legislation.
He hopes other Ohioans “can look to this model, and we can determine … How do we connect? How do we share? How do we learn? How do we build bridges and partnerships to continue to support the young people developing themselves in the state of Ohio?” he said. “That’s what it’s all about.”
Even with such support, students fighting to keep programs alive without university backing hasn’t necessarily been easy.
Isaac Makanda, co-head of the juvenile justice and political action committee for University of Cincinnati’s NAACP chapter, said students and alumni can’t completely make up for the loss of the African American Cultural and Resource Center. He described running into a Black first-year on campus who didn’t know about Akwaaba or other events happening for Black students on campus. He believes that’s because the new students are without a hub.
When Makanda was a freshman, the AACRC sent out emails telling incoming Black students about events and programs, he said. This student “had no idea about any of these things that were going on because those resources were taken away from him.”
Some student groups have also had to hustle for funding to keep their events running. The Pacific Islander Student Association, which cut ties with the University of Utah alongside the Black Student Union, lost its student group funding in the separation. PISA used to receive at least $5,000 annually from the university, so that loss was a “major hit,” said Mayette Pahulu, vice president of the group.
But she and other student leaders felt it was worth it to have full control over their programming after Utah’s anti-DEI bill became law last year. They didn’t want to be limited by the new strictures on public universities, “whether that be talking about certain subjects, encouraging our members to have their own rights … to host socials that are specific to our heritage, cultures and ethnicities,” Pahulu said. “We would rather lose the funding than our members lose a safe space.”
Now the group raises its own money. PISA student leaders have an ongoing GoFundMe campaign and seek out sponsors for event costs, including the nominal fees required for outside groups to host programs on campuses.
We would rather lose the funding than our members lose a safe space.”
—Mayette Pahulu, vice president of the Pacific Islander Student Association at the University of Utah
Pahulu said the students’ new responsibilities have pros and cons. On one hand, she and other student leaders find themselves pushing hard, with less support, to engage students who are feeling unwelcome on campus amid changes wrought by Utah’s anti-DEI legislation. On the other hand, she believes the new connections they’ve had to make with other student groups, community organizations and businesses to sustain their work could bode well for PISA’s future.
“Even though we’ve taken kind of the short end of the stick, having to scramble around to find these organizations, we’ve honestly started to build a bigger community and network,” she said. “I think in the long run, it will benefit us … We’re working with representatives to get these supports put in place so that the longevity and the sustainability of our organizations can outlast—no matter how drastic the changes may be politically.”
Jackson, the University of Cincinnati alum, said in a similar vein that he’s proud to see students and alumni making the best of the raw deal they’ve been given.
As universities strip away programs at the behest of state lawmakers, “all they’ve done is put more burden on the students,” Harlan said. At the same time, “it gives them opportunity to network with the community, more opportunity to do planning and budgeting, more opportunity to lead in terms of putting together programs and executing programs.” The question is “How do we make lemonade out of a lemon?”
Keisha Bross, director of race and justice at the NAACP, said student organizations—like Black student unions, NAACP chapters and the group of Black sororities and fraternities known as the Divine Nine—have always provided supports and programming for Black students in areas where universities have failed to do so. These groups “stepping in” to fill unmet needs is their “legacy,” she said. But she doesn’t believe the work students are doing, and have historically done, should allow universities to “get off easy” for cutting back programs dedicated to their success.
“We cannot allow colleges to make these really traumatic decisions that are hurting student populations and their leadership, and then just say, ‘Oh well,’” Bross said. “We need to continue to hold universities accountable, because they have a responsibility to the students that they serve. Universities have and should be providing these resources to their students, 100 percent.”
The Texas Tech University System has ordered all faculty to refrain from classroom discussions of transgender identity, The Texas Tribune reported.
In a letter to the leaders of the five universities in the system, Texas Tech Chancellor Tedd Mitchell wrote that the institutions must comply with “current state and federal law,” which “recognize only two human sexes: male and female.“ He cited Texas House Bill 229, which defines sex strictly as determined by reproductive organs, a letter from Texas governor Greg Abbott directing agencies to “reject woke gender ideologies,” and President Trump’s January executive order—which is not a federal law—declaring the existence of just two genders.
“While recognizing the First Amendment rights of employees in their personal capacity, faculty must comply with these laws in the instruction of students, within the course and scope of their employment,” Mitchell wrote.
The move follows a confusing week at Angelo State University—part of the Texas Tech System—where a new set of policies first seemed to prohibit faculty from engaging in any sort of pride displays but ultimately limited discussion and content only related to trans identity.
Mitchell’s letter provided little guidance for faculty about how to implement the new policy, suggesting it presents certain challenges.
“This is a developing area of law, and we acknowledge that questions remain and adjustments may be necessary as new guidance is issued at both the state and federal levels,” he wrote. “We fully expect discussions will be ongoing.”
A new report from the Center for American Progress and the Thurgood Marshall College Fund shows that historically Black colleges and universities receive a disproportionately low percentage of federal research and development funding.
While HBCUs make up roughly 3 percent of all four-year higher ed institutions, they’ve received less than 3 percent of R&D funding since at least 2010, according to the report. In recent years, between 2018 and 2023, they were awarded less than 1 percent of R&D expenditures.
Some agencies have given HBCUs a relatively high proportion of R&D funding, including the Department of Education, the Small Business Administration and the Department of Agriculture, which has required allotments for land-grant HBCUs. But the two federal agencies that award the most R&D funding annually, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense, have doled out especially low shares of those funds to HBCUs; in 2023, they awarded 0.54 percent and 0.40 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, 17 of the 43 federal agencies that supply research funding didn’t give HBCUs any R&D funds at all that year.
Sara Partridge, associate director of higher education policy at CAP and co-author of the report, said both Republicans and Democrats have sought to address inequities in R&D funding, but their efforts have been insufficient.
“In order to support these key drivers of scientific achievement and upward mobility, we need federal policymakers to commit to measurable benchmarks for the share of funds awarded to these institutions,” she said in a press release.
Hook is one of dozens of faculty members who have been punished for their comments about Kirk’s death.
Photo illustration by Inside Higher Ed | LeoPatrizi/E+/Getty Images
A South Dakota district court judge ordered the University of South Dakota on Wednesday to reinstate Michael Hook, a tenured professor of art who was put on leave with an “intent to terminate” after he posted comments on his personal Facebook page about Charlie Kirk.
“The court concludes that Hook spoke as a citizen and his speech was on a matter of public concern,” district court judge Karen Schreier wrote. “Defendants note that Hook’s Facebook page identified himself as a professor at the University of South Dakota … but this alone does not show that a post made on his personal Facebook account is speech that arises from Hook’s duties as a professor.”
Hook is one of dozens of faculty and staff members who have been punished for their comments about Kirk’s death. He was put on leave two days after posting, “Okay. I don’t give a flying fuck about this Kirk person,” on his Facebook page on Sept. 10, the day Kirk was shot and killed in Utah.
“Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was,” Hook continued. “I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better. Maybe good people could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe.”
Hook later deleted the post and posted an apology.
Hook was informed in a letter from Bruce Kelley, dean of the University of South Dakota College of Fine Arts, that in posting the comment on Facebook he’d violated two university policies. The first dealt with “neglect of duty, misconduct, incompetence and abuse of power,” and the second detailed that when employees speak publicly “they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, show respect for the opinions of others and make every effort to indicate when they are not speaking for the institution.”
As part of the temporary restraining order, Schreier ordered that the university may not proceed with a disciplinary meeting between Hook and university officials scheduled for Sept. 29. The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until a preliminary injunction hearing on Oct. 8.
Forty-seven percent of Americans have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, according to a new poll.
Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
Despite the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on colleges and universities, American confidence in higher education is growing.
According to a poll the Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy published Thursday, 47 percent of 1,030 Americans surveyed said they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education institutions, with a net positive rating of 33—up 13 percentage points since 2023. Survey respondents reported more confidence in higher education than in the police (44 percent), the medical system (38 percent) and large tech companies (25 percent).
Those findings echo the results of two recent polls—one by New America and another by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation. The latter showed that 42 percent of Americans said they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, compared to a low of 36 percent in 2024 and 2023.
But like those polls, Vanderbilt’s showed partisan divides.
While 69 percent of Democrats said they were confident in higher education, only 35 percent of Republicans said the same; just 24 percent of respondents who identify with Trump’s Make America Great Again movement expressed confidence. However, the vast majority (78 percent) of people surveyed said a college education is “very” or “somewhat” important for a young person to succeed, including 87 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans.
“While the conventional wisdom may suggest that support for colleges and universities is low, it’s important to highlight that most Americans view higher education as a net positive for society, and its support has actually increased from the low levels we saw in 2023 and 2024,” Josh Clinton, co-director of the Vanderbilt poll, said in a news release. “Yes, there are real concerns—most people think affordability is a major problem, and many perceive colleges and universities as having a partisan slant—but that’s very different from widespread opposition to the idea of higher education itself.”
Fifty-six percent of people surveyed believe that colleges and universities conduct scientific and medical research that saves lives, but only 14 percent said they remain as affordable as possible. The majority (67 percent) also cited political bias on campuses as a serious problem, though Democrats (54 percent) were less likely to agree than Republicans (79 percent), especially those who identified with the MAGA movement (91 percent).
Nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of respondents said universities should refrain from taking official stances on political issues, including 83 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Democrats.
The University of Arizona is quietly shutting down its four microcampuses in China at the end of this semester, in response to a government report released earlier this month that criticizes branch campuses of U.S. institutions in China.
The report, by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, said American college and university branch campuses in China can “facilitate technology transfer and pose national security risks.” It follows a similar report from a year ago that the new report said led to the closure of eight U.S. branch campuses in China.
The report, “Joint Institutes, Divided Loyalties,” highlights programs at 13 institutions deemed to be “high risk”—including one UA microcampus, the Arizona College of Technology at Hebei University of Technology, which awards students a B.S. in applied physics—and calls on the universities to sever those partnerships. (It also highlights a former partnership between UA and the Harbin Institute of Technology, a Chinese university affiliated with the country’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, but the university told Inside Higher Ed that partnership ended in 2023.) It’s unclear if any of the other 12 institutions have taken steps toward ending their programs at Chinese institutions.
Though the report only referenced one current UA microcampus, the university said it will close all four of its campuses in China.
“Acknowledging a congressional directive, the University of Arizona immediately terminated its China-based microcampus agreements. We have communicated directly with those affected and are working with enrolled students to help them continue their education,” a university spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed via email.
In total, 2,200 students, 36 faculty and four staff will be impacted by the closures, the spokesperson said. UA will provide funds to help employees relocate back to the U.S.; the university is also working to help students figure out next steps.
The university has a total of 18 microcampuses across the globe—programs that are housed at another university, in which students are taught by a mix of professors from UA and the partner institution and earn degrees from both institutions. The first such program was a bachelor’s program in law at Ocean University of China, in which students study both Chinese and U.S. law.
University officials told Inside Higher Ed in 2017 that the main goals of the microcampuses were to increase the university’s internationalization, provide students with affordable international pathways and earn revenue. They also said they hoped to eventually launch 25 microcampuses worldwide and reach 25,000 students.
In a post on X, the Committee on Education and the Workforce lauded UA’s move.
“@uarizona is making the right decision to end its China-based campus agreements. The CCP uses these programs to steal cutting-edge research for its own military buildup and promote communist ideology,” the post reads. “These programs are a direct threat to U.S. national security. Every American school should follow suit and end agreements with the CCP.”
Ken Smith, who leads the environmental science dual-degree program at UA’s microcampus at the Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University in China’s Shaanxi province, said he was informed the program would be shuttering just a week ago.
Now in its fifth year, the program has been incredibly successful, Smith said. It had recently completed a yearlong federal and provincial review process and had received exceptional marks. Student outcomes were also strong, with many going on to top-tier graduate programs in the U.S. and Europe. Others were able to find careers in China, despite environmental science being a low-demand degree in the country, because they held degrees from a well-regarded U.S. university.
“Things were really going super well, and, boom, we shut down,” he said.
Rong Qian, who graduated in the program’s second class this past spring, told Inside Higher Ed he was “shocked” to hear the program was ending. He credited the UA professors for boosting his confidence and inspiring him to apply to graduate school in the U.K., where he is now studying at Imperial College London. He also noted that UA’s reputation has helped him and his classmates get into such good programs.
“I want to express my gratitude for those professors, especially those from [UA] … not only for their patience and time [with] me and my studies, but also for their encouragement, their support and their easygoing characteristics,” he said.
Smith said that current seniors in the program will still be able to graduate with their UA degrees, and he’s working with both UA and NWAFU to try to find a way for the third-year students to finish out their programs as well. However, he’s doubtful that newer students will be able to get a degree from UA; they could study online or come to the U.S. to finish, but he doesn’t think the former option will hold much appeal, while the latter is prohibitively expensive for most.
In the university’s email to students at the affected campuses sent earlier this week, which the university shared with Inside Higher Ed, Jenny Lee, dean of international education, wrote, “The U of A is committed to supporting you in the completion of your degree. We welcome you to join us at our main campus, in Tucson, Arizona, under an extended Study Arizona Program for up to 4 semesters (usually during the junior and senior years). The U of A will follow up soon with further guidance regarding Study Arizona and other possible options for your degree completion pathway.”
The closure of the program is not just a loss for UA, Smith said, but also for the nation as a whole.
“Living in China for the past four years and watching the U.S. news, I think a lot of political figures don’t know much about China … It’s a major modern economic power, a major military power,” he said. “I think it’s in everyone’s best interest that people in the U.S. and people in China understand each other. The kind of program I was involved with was a major educational success, but it was also a diplomatic success. It got the University of Arizona’s name out there. People wanted us there. They enjoyed learning about the American education system, and, unfortunately, now, that’s all over.”