Tag: Jobs

Online Course Gives College Students a Foundation on GenAI

As more employers identify uses for generative artificial intelligence in the workplace, colleges are embedding tech skills into the curriculum to best prepare students for their careers.

But identifying how and when to deliver that content has been a challenge, particularly given the varying perspectives different disciplines have on generative AI and when its use should be allowed. A June report from Tyton Partners found that 42 percent of students use generative AI tools at least weekly, and two-thirds of students use a singular generative AI tool like ChatGPT. A survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 85 percent of students had used generative AI for coursework in the past year, most often for brainstorming or asking questions.

The University of Mary Washington developed an asynchronous one-credit course to give all students enrolled this fall a baseline foundation of AI knowledge. The optional class, which was offered over the summer at no cost to students, introduced them to AI ethics, tools, copyright concerns and potential career impacts.

The goal is to help students use the tools thoughtfully and intelligently, said Anand Rao, director of Mary Washington’s center for AI and the liberal arts. Initial results show most students learned something from the course, and they want more teaching on how AI applies to their majors and future careers.

How it works: The course, IDIS 300: Introduction to AI, was offered to any new or returning UMW student to be completed any time between June and August. Students who opted in were added to a digital classroom with eight modules, each containing a short video, assigned readings, a discussion board and a quiz assignment. The class was for credit, graded as pass-fail, but didn’t fulfill any general education requirements.

Course content ranged from how to use AI tools and prompt generative AI output to academic integrity, as well as professional development and how to critically evaluate AI responses.

“I thought those were all really important as a starting point, and that still just scratches the surface,” Rao said.

The course is not designed to make everyone an AI user, Rao said, “but I do want them to be able to speak thoughtfully and intelligently about the use of tools, the application of tools and when and how they make decisions in which they’ll be able to use those tools.”

At the end of the course, students submitted a short paper analyzing an AI tool used in their field or discipline—its output, use cases and ways the tool could be improved.

Rao developed most of the content, but he collaborated with campus stakeholders who could provide additional insight, such as the Honor Council, to lay out how AI use is articulated in the honor code.

The impact: In total, the first class enrolled 249 students from a variety of majors and disciplines, or about 6 percent of the university’s total undergrad population. A significant number of the course enrollees were incoming freshmen. Eighty-eight percent of students passed the course, and most had positive feedback on the class content and structure.

In postcourse surveys, 68 percent of participants indicated IDIS 300 should be a mandatory course or highly recommended for all students.

“If you know nothing about AI, then this course is a great place to start,” said one junior, noting that the content builds from the basics to direct career applications.

What’s next: Rao is exploring ways to scale the course in the future, including by developing intermediate or advanced classes or creating discipline-specific offerings. He’s also hoping to recruit additional instructors, because the course had some challenges given its large size, such as conducting meaningful exchanges on the discussion board.

The center will continue to host educational and discussion-based events throughout the year to continue critical conversations regarding generative AI. The first debate, centered on AI and the environment, aims to evaluate whether AI’s impact will be a net positive or negative over the next decade, Rao said.

The university is also considering ways to engage the wider campus community and those outside the institution with basic AI knowledge. IDIS 300 content will be made available to nonstudents this year as a Canvas page. Some teachers in the local school district said they’d like to teach the class as a dual-enrollment course in the future.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

Source link

September 22, 2025
Advocates Worry About McNair Scholars Program

Delays in the distribution of federal grants for undergraduates involved with TRIO, a series of college-access programs, combined with an ongoing lawsuit have raised concerns among proponents for the McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program—a TRIO grant designed specifically for those pursuing graduate school.

Legally, grants don’t have to be awarded for either the TRIO undergraduate programs or McNair until the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. But in most years prior, the Department of Education has notified institutions about the status of awards in late August or mid-September.

That has not been the case so far this year.

Award notifications started to trickle out after Sept. 15 for the undergraduate programs that started Sept. 1, but according to a TRIO advocacy group, most of the college staff members who lead McNair are still waiting to hear from the department, though at least one program got approval Friday.

As with the other TRIO programs, the Education Department says it will issue notices by the end of the month. But with a lawsuit filed last year arguing McNair is discriminatory and President Trump calling to slash TRIO altogether in his recent budget proposal, uncertainty remains rampant.

“All of a sudden, we’re in sort of this panic mode,” one assistant program director said on condition of anonymity, fearing that speaking out could harm the students she serves. “That stress and panic has certainly been building since January, but this definitely accelerated it.”

And while the anonymous director said her program has yet to receive a status update, for some the fear of cancellation has already become a reality.

So far, the Council for Opportunity in Education, a TRIO advocacy group, has tallied 18 grant cancellations out of the more than 200 McNair programs. Collectively, McNair serves more than 6,000 first-generation, low-income and underrepresented students each year.

ED deputy press secretary Ellen Keast said in a statement, “The department plans to issue continuation awards for the McNair Scholars program by the end of the fiscal year,” while also continuing to “evaluate the underlying legal issues raised in litigation.” In an email obtained by Inside Higher Ed, a legislative affairs officer at the department reinforced this statement to a staffer on Capitol Hill, saying that any grantees facing a cancellation would have been notified by Sept. 16.

Still, the director said she is scrambling to devise a backup plan.

“We have less than three weeks to figure out what’s going on, talk to our institutions and make a plan,” she said. “Jobs are going to be lost and students aren’t going to have services.”

‘Unacceptable Delays’

Worries about McNair have existed for months, but they kicked into a higher gear at a COE conference earlier this month.

The program director and COE president Kimberly Jones, both of whom attended the conference, say that Christopher McCaghren, ED’s deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs, spoke about the future of McNair on Sept. 10. And according to both of their recollections, when the secretary was asked if and when grant awards would be allocated, he said the department needed to wait on further rulings from the court before it could administer this year’s awards. (Jones noted that the session was not recorded, at the request of the department.)

Keast said the account of McCaghren’s comments was “unsubstantiated fake news” and reinforced that the department is committed to issuing McNair awards by Sept. 30. She declined, however, to provide a transcript or recording of his remarks.

The lawsuit McCaghren was likely referring to was filed last year by the Young America’s Foundation, a national conservative student group. It alleged the criteria for McNair eligibility was race-based and argued that in order to be constitutional, the program should be open to all students. The case was dismissed by a federal district court, but the plaintiffs have since appealed.

If the government is delaying grant allocation because of the lawsuit, Jones said, it would be an “absolutely unacceptable” practice.

“If the government couldn’t move on something every time they were sued, then they wouldn’t do anything,” she added. “I believe that this is an opportunity they’re taking advantage of to undermine the program and attempt to eliminate it.”

Amanda Fuchs Miller, the Biden administration appointee who previously filled McCaghren’s role, made similar comments.

“Just because there’s pending litigation doesn’t mean that you don’t fund a program that Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for,” she said. “That’s not the role of the executive branch.”

Both Jones and Fuchs Miller pointed to the department’s recent decision to end funding for grant programs that support minority-serving institutions as another reason they are worried about McNair’s future.

The MSI decision stemmed from a similar lawsuit that argued the criteria for Hispanic-serving institutions was illegal. And while no court ruling had been issued, a Justice Department official agreed with the plaintiffs and so did Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who expanded the determination to include similar grant programs.

‘Tapping Into Talent’

Named after Ronald McNair, a first-generation college student and astrophysicist who died during the launch of NASA’s space shuttle Challenger in 1986, the McNair Scholars program started in 1989 and receives about $60 million per year from Congress.

As with other TRIO programs, at least two-thirds of the students served under McNair must be first-generation and low-income. But what has sparked the legal scrutiny of the graduate program is a provision that allows up to one-third of the participating students to be admitted because they are “a member of a group that is underrepresented.”

Proponents for McNair say that this may include characteristics like race or sexuality, but aspects like gender and field of study often play a role as well. In many instances a student will tick all three boxes—first-gen, low-income and underrepresented—at once.

“There’s a perspective that McNair is only for students of color, which it is not,” said Jones. “It particularly looks for a demographic that is not usually sought after in postgraduate education … We’re tapping into talent that we would not have otherwise.”

For example, a white woman from a low-income household who is pursuing a career in STEM could be a prime candidate under the current regulatory statute.

But advocates worry that because of current political tensions, many eligible students of all races could lose access to this critical service.

The program leader who spoke with Inside Higher Ed said that until grant awards are sent out, her rural institution will lack $278,000. As a result, she will likely have to tell 27 students that the classes they have already signed up for, the workshops they were promised and the conferences they planned to attend will not be possible.

“This is the semester that our seniors’ grad applications are due, so to just yank the rug out from underneath them and say, ‘You’re on your own’ in this critical time is just cruel,” she said. “It’s also, in my opinion, a really shortsighted way of the administration understanding national security and participating in the global economy.”

Tara Ruttley, a McNair alumna who studied neuroscience and now works in the space industry, always knew she wanted a Ph.D. but wasn’t sure how to get there before she saw a poster advertising the grant program at Colorado State University. Through McNair she was able to pursue a paid research internship, present her findings at conferences, receive guidance on application essays and then give back to younger students. If funding were to be cut, Ruttley said, other aspiring graduate students won’t be so lucky.

“I’m kind of a scrapper, so I might have figured it out, but it definitely would have been delayed. The entire package wouldn’t have been as strong and it probably would have taken me a lot longer to get to where I was going,” she explained. “There’s a whole generation of scientists we may never see from varied backgrounds across the country.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
What’s Next for Texas A&M?

When Texas A&M University president Mark Welsh resigned amid an academic freedom controversy last week, he became the institution’s second leader to step down due to scandal in two years.

Unlike his predecessor, Kathy Banks, who retired in 2023 after she was caught lying about a hiring scandal, Welsh remained popular on campus; faculty sent the Board of Regents letters of support last week following a controversy that prompted him to fire an instructor, and students rallied on his behalf. But he seemed to lose the support of the deep-red Texas Legislature: Several Republican lawmakers called for his dismissal after a discussion over gender identity between a student and a professor in a children’s literature class was captured on video and quickly went viral.

In the short video, which has racked up more than five million views, a student questions whether an instructor is legally allowed to teach that there is more than one gender, which she suggests is “against our president’s laws.” Welsh initially defended the professor but quickly folded under considerable pressure from lawmakers, firing her and removing two administrators from their duties because they “approved plans to continue teaching course content that was not consistent” with the course’s description, he said in a Sept. 9 statement.

Amid the fallout, the American Association of University Professors and free speech groups accused Texas A&M of stifling academic freedom and bending to conservative political pressure. (Welsh countered that the case wasn’t about academic freedom but “academic responsibility.”)

But the incident also raises questions about what comes next for Texas A&M after legislators accused Welsh—a retired four-star general and former chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force—of spreading “leftist [diversity, equity and inclusion] and transgender indoctrination.”

A Mixed Reaction

Welsh largely skirted the controversy in a statement released Friday, his last day on the job.

“When I was first appointed as President of Texas A&M University, I told then Chancellor John Sharp and our Board of Regents that I would serve as well as I possibly could until it was time for someone else to take over,” he wrote. “Over the past few days, it’s become clear that now is that time.”

He added that serving as president for two years had been “an incredible privilege” and a “remarkable gift” and praised Texas A&M faculty, staff and students in his parting statement. On campus Friday, hundreds of supporters greeted Welsh outside an administrative building, according to social media and local coverage. The Texas A&M Student Government Association encouraged students and others to gather to “express gratitude” for Welsh’s service.

While Welsh’s parting remarks were restrained, state legislators and faculty members have been more passionate—and outraged—as both groups look ahead to the coming presidential search.

Leonard Bright, interim president of the Texas A&M AAUP chapter, told Inside Higher Ed that many faculty members had mixed feelings about Welsh. On the one hand, many professors viewed him as a stable leader who had served the university well since his time as dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, which he led from 2016 until he was appointed interim president in July 2023, before being given the permanent job later that year.

On the other hand, Welsh’s dismissal of English instructor Melissa McCoul, the professor caught up in the gender ideology flap, raised questions about whether he would protect academic freedom. As Bright sees it, when Welsh’s job was threatened, he failed to stand up for academic freedom.

Bright added that he was somewhat surprised by Welsh’s resignation, arguing that “as horrible” as the president’s recent actions were, he thought they had appeased the conservative critics and that “the board did not want to create further upheaval” given recent turnover at the top.

But ultimately, only Welsh’s resignation would satisfy his fiercest critics.

Brian Harrison, a Republican lawmaker and Texas A&M graduate, noted in posts on X following Welsh’s resignation that he had been calling for the board to fire the president for nine months.

“Proud and honored to be the voice for millions of Texans who are fed up with being taxed out of their homes so their government can weaponize their money against them, their values, and their children by funding DEI and transgender indoctrination,” Harrison wrote on X on Friday.

An LGBTQ+ Crackdown?

Like all institutions in the state, Texas A&M has backed away from DEI as instructed by state law. But Welsh’s removal of McCoul for discussing gender identity in class is part of a broader retreat by Texas A&M from LGBTQ+ topics. That effort dates back to at least 2021, according to one anonymous source who previously told Inside Higher Ed they were discouraged from promoting LGBTQ+ materials in the university library’s collection when Banks was president.

Last year Texas A&M cut its LGBTQ studies minor, alongside other low-enrollment programs, after Harrison led a charge against the program, calling it “liberal indoctrination.”

Both the flagship and the Texas A&M system have also taken aim at drag shows.

Texas A&M defunded an annual student drag show without explanation in 2022. West Texas A&M University president Walter Wendler canceled a student drag show in 2023, claiming it was demeaning to women. Earlier this year, the Texas A&M University system Board of Regents passed a resolution banning drag shows across all 11 campuses, only to get hit with a First Amendment lawsuit; a judge ruled against the system in March on free speech grounds.

(Neither Texas A&M University or system officials responded to a request for comment.)

Texas Hiring Trends

With Welsh out of office, Texas A&M will soon begin a search for its next president. Chancellor Glenn Hegar announced Friday that an interim president will be named shortly, and in the meantime, James Hallmark, vice chancellor for academic affairs, will serve as acting president.

Hegar, who has only been on the job since July, is a former Republican politician, one of several hired to lead a Texas system or university in recent months in what is shaping up to be a trend.

Elsewhere in the state, the Texas Tech University system named Republican lawmaker Brandon Creighton as the sole finalist for the chancellor position. During his time in the Legislature, Creighton championed bills to crack down on DEI, restrict free speech at public institutions by banning expressive activities at night and undercut the power of faculty senates.

The University of Texas at Austin also opted for a politico, hiring as president Jim Davis, former Texas deputy attorney general, who had worked in UT Austin’s legal division since 2018. Davis was promoted to the top job after a stint as interim president, a role he had held since February. Similarly, the UT system tapped former GOP lawmaker John Zerwas as its next chancellor.

Recent hiring trends in Texas are beginning to mirror Florida, which has hired multiple former Republican lawmakers and other political figures with connections to Governor Ron DeSantis.

As Texas A&M prepares to launch its search, faculty are calling for an open process.

“The search should be transparent. It shouldn’t be primarily behind closed doors,” Bright said. “The faculty need to be involved. This is academia—this is about teaching, research and service.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

Harvard had a financial responsibility score of 2.8, well over the passing 1.5 required by the Education Department, in fiscal year 2023.

John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

The Education Department announced Friday that it placed Harvard University on heightened cash monitoring, a designation that allows greater federal oversight of institutional finances and is typically reserved for colleges in dire financial straits.

By all accounts, Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, is not.

“It’s harassment,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “Harvard has the money, yes, but it is adding a headache. It’s adding staff. It’s interfering with students’ ability to access federal financial aid … The government’s making it harder for Harvard to support low-income students, which speaks to exactly what the administration’s goals are here—they’re not to help students, they’re not to improve education, they’re not even to address what they see as concerns at Harvard—they’re just to attack Harvard.”

Institutions placed on heightened cash monitoring are asked to put up a letter of credit that serves as collateral for the Education Department if the institution closes, or to award federal financial aid from their own coffers before being reimbursed by the department, explained Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Harvard has been asked to do both.

According to a Friday news release from the Education Department, Harvard must put up a $36 million irrevocable letter of credit or “provide other financial protection that is acceptable to the Department,” department officials wrote.

“Students will continue to have access to federal funding, but Harvard will be required to cover the initial disbursements as a guardrail to ensure Harvard is spending taxpayer funds responsibly,” officials wrote.

The federal government froze $2.7 billion in federal grants for Harvard after the university rejected its sweeping demands in April. Harvard sued, and a judge ruled earlier this month that the freeze was illegal. The university has reportedly received some of the frozen funds, but the Trump administration says it’s still hoping to cut a deal with Harvard.

The release says three events triggered Harvard’s heightened cash monitoring designation: a determination by the Department of Health and Human Services that Harvard violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly allowing antisemitism on campus, accusations that the university isn’t complying with an ongoing investigation by the Office for Civil Rights, and the $1 billion in bonds Harvard has issued to make up for pulled federal funding. Harvard did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Friday.

“Today’s actions follow Harvard’s own admission that there are material concerns about its financial health. As a result, Harvard must now seek reimbursement after distributing federal student aid and post financial protection so that the Department can ensure taxpayer funds are not at risk,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “While Harvard remains eligible to participate in the federal student aid program for now, these actions are necessary to protect taxpayers.”

The department also pointed to layoffs at Harvard and a hiring freeze instituted in the spring. Several other wealthy colleges have frozen hiring and shed staff this year, in part because of the administration’s actions related to federal funding. A few other universities have either issued bonds or taken out loans to get immediate cash. But so far, the department has made no public mention about putting those colleges on heightened cash monitoring.

As of June 1, 538 colleges and universities were on heightened cash monitoring, federal data showed. About one-third of those colleges are private nonprofits, while about 42 percent are for-profit institutions. Most of the institutions—464 of them—are based in the U.S.

Many on the list are private institutions that have low financial responsibility composite scores, Kelchen said. This test assigns institutions a score between -1.0 and 3.0 based on the institution’s primary reserve ratio, equity ratio and net income ratio. To be considered financially responsible, an institution must score at least a 1.5, which Harvard does.

During fiscal year 2023, the latest for which data is publicly available, Harvard’s financial responsibility composite score was 2.8. Harvard’s estimated primary reserve ratio in fiscal year 2023 was 7.6, meaning that the university could operate for about seven and a half years by spending only its existing assets. By comparison, Hampshire College, another private, nonprofit college placed on heightened cash monitoring with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, had an estimated primary reserve ratio of 0.3, meaning it could continue operations for about four months before running out of expendable assets. Drew University, another institution on heightened cash monitoring and also with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, has a primary reserve ratio of -1.06.

But beyond the financial responsibility score, there are plenty of reasons an institution can end up on heightened cash monitoring. Some institutions, including Hampshire and Arkansas Baptist College, were put on the list due to a late or missing compliance audit. Others have been put on the list while the department reviews their programs, or because their accreditation was revoked. But, “the department can also just specify that an institution is not financially responsible,” Kelchen said.

The political motivation behind the move is clear, Fansmith said.

“To the extent that there is a problem—and to be clear, there are real problems—it’s not Harvard’s ability to pay their bills or meet their obligations. That’s a problem this administration has created,” he said. “They caused a situation, and then they are blaming Harvard for taking reasonable steps to address that situation. It’s also ironic when they send letters to Harvard using terms like ‘enormous’ and ‘massive’ and ‘colossal’ to describe Harvard’s endowment, and now they’re suddenly determining that they’re worried that Harvard is at financial risk … It is absolutely Orwellian.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
ED Wants Grants to Advance “Patriotic Education”

The Trump administration has made another move that historians say is an attempt to sanitize American history, but one the administration argued is necessary to ensure students have respect for the country.

On Wednesday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon outlined a new plan for how her department would promote “patriotic education” by adding it to the list of priorities that can drive decisions for discretionary grants, including those that support programs at colleges and universities.

“It is imperative to promote an education system that teaches future generations honestly about America’s Founding principles, political institutions, and rich history,” McMahon said in a statement about the new proposal. “To truly understand American values, the tireless work it has taken to live up to them, and this country’s exceptional place in world history is the best way to inspire an informed patriotism and love of country.”

According to the proposal, which is open for public comment until Oct. 17, “patriotic education” refers to “a presentation of the history of America grounded in an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of the American founding and foundational principles”; examines “how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history”; and advances the “concept that commitment to America’s aspirations is beneficial and justified.”

McMahon’s other priorities for grant funding include evidence-based literacy, expanding education choice, returning education to the states and advancing AI in education.

With this latest proposal, the department wants to focus “grant funds on programs that promote a patriotic education that cultivates citizen competency and informed patriotism among and communicates the American political tradition to students at all levels.” That could include projects geared toward helping students understand the “founding documents and primary sources of the American political tradition, in a manner consistent with the principles of a patriotic education,” according to the proposal.

‘Narrow Conception of Patriotism’

However, professional historians who have read the proposal told Inside Higher Ed that the department’s patriotic education push is a politically motivated power grab.

“I agree that American history should be presented with accuracy and honesty, based on solid historical evidence, and doing so does inspire people,” said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. “But the department’s priority statement has a narrow conception of patriotism and patriotic education.”

She said that’s especially evident given the Trump administration’s numerous other policy changes aimed at presenting a version of American history that downplays or ignores the darkest parts of the country’s past, such as race-based slavery, the disenfranchisement of women and African Americans, and codified racial segregation.

“That context tells us that the administration is interested in telling an uncomplicated celebration of American greatness,” Weicksel said. “Doing that flattens the past into a set of platitudes that are not rooted in the broader historical context, conflicts, contingencies and change over time that are central to historical thinking.”

In March, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” prohibiting federal funding for exhibits or programs that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.” That prompted a review of all exhibits hosted by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service, both of which have since removed multiple artifacts that don’t support Trump’s patriotic history push, including several that underscore the brutality of slavery.

And as the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding approaches, the government is in the process of planning commemorative civic education initiatives that advance its definition of patriotic history. To make that happen, it’s largely drawing on the input and expertise of conservative scholars and groups.

The Education Department recently awarded $160 million in American history and civics grants for seminars for K–12 educators and students related to the Declaration of Independence anniversary next year. The agency didn’t specify which institutions got the money but previously said it would give priority to colleges and universities with “independent academic units dedicated to civic thought, constitutional studies, American history, leadership, and economic liberty,” which critics describe as conservative centers.

In remarks at an event hosted by the Federalist Society and the Defense of Freedom Institute on Wednesday, McMahon criticized the state of civics education for students, citing a statistic that only 41 percent of young people say they love America.

“That means the balance doesn’t love America,” she said. “Why don’t they love America? Why aren’t they proud to be Americans? It’s because they don’t know America. They don’t know the foundations, they don’t know the real history of our country … It’s really important that we teach respect for our flag, that we teach respect for our country.”

While she did acknowledge that the Education Department can’t directly control curriculum, she noted that the department can use funding to encourage the types of education or programs it wants to see.

The Education Department also announced Wednesday that it’s launching a coalition of 40 groups—including the conservative Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA, Hillsdale College and the American First Policy Institute—to spearhead the America 250 Civics Education Coalition, which is “dedicated to renewing patriotism.” (McMahon chaired the American First Policy Institute before she became secretary.)

“We celebrate Lincoln for his greatness in recalling the nation to the principles of its birth, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the most beautiful political document in history,” Hillsdale president Larry Arnn said in a statement about the coalition. “It is time to repeat his work and the work of Jefferson and the Founders. We will work together to learn those principles, and for the love of them we will have a grand celebration.”

‘Pure Politics’

But Weicksel with AHA said the government’s directives to omit parts of American history in classrooms, museums and other public spaces will undermine the public’s agency. “If citizens don’t have access to a historically accurate understanding of the past, how will they use that past to chart a new path for the future?”

David Blight, a professor of history and Black studies at Yale University, said he interprets the department’s emphasis on patriotic education as “pure politics.”

“It’s the politics of trying to use history to control people, including children, young people, the people who teach it, the people who write curriculum and the state legislatures that will design this stuff,” he said. “The government is trying to be a truth ministry.”

While there have been other movements to control how the country remembers its history—including by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s and the United Daughters of the Confederacy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—Blight said these moves by the Trump administration are more powerful.

“We’ve never had this come right from the White House, with the power of the executive branch and their control over so much money,” he said, urging educators to voice their opposition. “When federal money depends on pure ideology, we’re in very deep trouble, and that’s what they’re saying. That’s not even close to a democratic society.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
Creighton Receives $100M Gift for Athletics Facilities

Creighton University has received a $100 million gift from the Heider Family Foundation to launch a nearly $300 million campaign for a sprawling recreational and athletic development on the east side of the Omaha campus.

Creighton’s Fly Together plan will establish or upgrade athletic facilities and outdoor spaces covering 12 blocks and roughly 700,000 square feet. It includes a new student fitness center, a pedestrian walkway connecting the private Jesuit campus to a downtown business district and a new sports performance center for Creighton’s student athletes.

“Fly Together will serve students and student-athletes, but importantly, it will serve the Omaha community itself,” said Scott Heider, a university trustee as well as a trustee of the Heider Family Foundation, which was established by his parents, Charles and Mary.

“We are incredibly grateful to the Heider family and the additional donors who are making this moment possible,” said Creighton president Daniel Hendrickson. “This gift … benefits everyone. It enhances student life, intramurals, premier club sports and intercollegiate athletics. It also strengthens Creighton’s connection to downtown and the broader Omaha community.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
Censorship Is the Authoritarian’s Dream

On Wednesday ABC announced that it had taken Kimmel’s late-night show off the air “indefinitely.”

More professors in the United States have been fired for controversial views in the past week than any other week in all of American history. The violations of academic freedom, free speech and due process on campuses in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination have been extraordinary and indefensible.

The campus firings are too numerous to describe in full, but consider the case of Darren Michael, professor of theater at Austin Peay State University, who was fired because he reposted on social media a 2023 Newsweek headline: “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth It to Keep 2nd Amendment.” Tennessee’s U.S. senator Marsha Blackburn reposted Michael’s view on X, asking the university to take action.

Austin Peay administrators declared, “A faculty member of Austin Peay State University reshared a post on social media that was insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death. Such actions do not align with Austin Peay’s commitment to mutual respect and human dignity. The university deems these actions unacceptable and has terminated the faculty member.”

This is an utterly appalling excuse to punish anyone, and certainly not an adequate reason for a university to terminate a professor without any due process. There is absolutely no rule at Austin Peay banning people from being insensitive or disrespectful, since any rule like that would clearly violate the First Amendment. And the idea that posting a headline quoting Kirk’s views would somehow justify his murder is insane. It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize anyone for favoring or opposing gun control. This critique of Kirk is anything but pro-murder.

The violations of due process involved in these arbitrary firings, with no opportunity for a hearing or a defense, are terrible in themselves. But the justifications for the firings are so insubstantial that they cannot merit any kind of penalty, let alone an immediate dismissal.

It is perfectly legitimate to criticize and even insult both the dead and the living. Any conservative who thinks Charlie Kirk hated free speech so much that he would want his critics purged from campuses is making a far worse insult against Kirk than what any offensive leftist has written or said.

Of course, the suppression of free speech goes far beyond academia.

The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel by ABC on Sept. 17 following FCC chair Brendan Carr’s demands for his removal and threats against broadcast licenses represent an alarming repression of free speech, with the combination of corporate censorship and government suppression.

On his Sept. 15 show, Kimmel said, “We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.” What Kimmel said was, in fact, technically true: Conservatives were doing everything they could to claim that Kirk’s murderer was not one of them. And the murderer was, in fact, a white male college dropout from a Republican family in Utah that taught him to shoot and provided him with guns.

Of course, conservatives are probably correct to call the murderer a leftist with political motives, and if Kimmel was trying to invoke theories that the killer was actually a right-winger, that seems unlikely now based on evidence released after Kimmel’s show aired. But even if Kimmel was trying to make a dubious claim that has now been discredited, that’s protected by the First Amendment and principles of free speech.

The second part of Kimmel’s claim—that conservatives were using Kirk’s murder to “score political points”—was never in doubt and has been proven yet again by his removal from the airwaves.

Kimmel didn’t celebrate any violence or say anything bad about Charlie Kirk. The glorification of Kirk is a cover for an authoritarian agenda to suppress political enemies. Donald Trump immediately celebrated Kimmel’s banishment and called for NBC hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers to also be fired.

This is the slippery slope of censorship: First they come for those who celebrate murder, then they come for anyone who questions the hagiography of the victim, then they go after anyone who quotes the victim’s own words, then they silence anyone who objects to the repression itself. This is why even offensive and stupid comments about Charlie Kirk must not be punished.

But when Vice President JD Vance urges everyone to “call their employer” in response to offensive comments, that’s not critique or argument: That’s cancel culture, pure and simple. That’s government-mandated repression.

The right to free expression must include the right to say horrible and evil things. It protects all of the conservatives (including Donald Trump, his son and Charlie Kirk) who joked about the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi. It protects the Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, who urged mass executions of homeless people.

As David Letterman noted about Kimmel, “You can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian criminal administration in the Oval Office.”

Less than two years ago, before he began issuing government commands to silence the media, Carr posted on X, “Free speech is the counterweight—it is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.”

We are living in the authoritarian’s dream, and it’s a nightmare for free speech and democracy.

Source link

September 19, 2025
7 Tips to Keep You Safe From Online Doxing

Over the past 10 days, dozens of faculty and staff members have had their personal contact information, photos and sometimes addresses broadcast online by anonymous right-wing social media accounts seeking to punish them for comments they allegedly made about the death of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk. This public campaign of online harassment and intimidation, known as doxing, is “off the charts” right now, said Heather Steffen, an adjunct professor of humanities at Georgetown University.

Steffen is also the director of Faculty First Responders, a group created by the American Association of University Professors in 2020 to track and help faculty members targeted by right-wing media. Doxing has been on the rise since protests over the Israel-Hamas war fractured campuses in 2023, but educators are increasingly coming under attack in “ideologically motivated efforts” to silence dissent, according to an August report from the National Association of Attorneys General. “This shift signals the evolution of doxxing from isolated conduct to a more coordinated form of digital persecution,” the report said.

While the attacks are becoming more frequent and sophisticated, higher ed employees can take steps to minimize the risk of doxing, as well as the damage incurred if it does happen.

1. Keep your personal and work accounts separate.

Remove employers’ names from all of your personal social media accounts—if it’s in your bio, take it out, Steffen advised. “You can state in your bio on social media that your views do not represent your employer, and you don’t need to name the employer in order to do that,” she said.

In many cases, work may demand that you list some contact information publicly, but don’t use that information for personal business, said Rob Shavell, CEO and co-founder of DeleteMe, a service that will find and try to wipe members’ personal information from the web. “The data brokers are getting very good at correlating [work and personal] data and putting them into one dossier,” he said. These days, when DeleteMe’s privacy advisers scan the web for members’ information, they return an average of 750 pieces of personally identifying information per person, up from 225 pieces four years ago.

Also, be aware of what devices, accounts and Wi-Fi networks you’re using, and be sure not to use work-provided equipment or resources for anything other than work, Steffen added.

2. Scrub your information from data-broker websites.

Data brokers collect and sell personal information. Companies like DeleteMe and Incogni will remove your personal information from data-broker websites for a fee; DeleteMe charges $129 per member annually. But for anyone who wants to take a do-it-yourself approach, DeleteMe has published free opt-out guides that walk readers through removing their information from the sites, including Experian, TransUnion and CoreLogic. Steffen also suggests following the steps outlined in the Big Ass Data Broker Opt-Out List, a Github project that explains how to scrub your information from data brokers.

3. Use an email mask or alias when possible.

“Masked emails or phone numbers or even credit cards allow you to sign up for things or make calls or buy things without revealing to every counterparty your real personal information,” Shavell said. DeleteMe offers masking, as do companies like Apple and NordPass. These services create a faux address that will then forward emails to your real account. Google also offers free alias phone numbers through Google Voice that will forward calls to your personal phone. In addition to better security, masking also decreases spam and phishing risks.

4. Breathe before you post (and remember the risk of screenshots).

Even if you’re posting to a private account—say, a “close friends” story on your personal Instagram—anything you put online can still be screenshotted and shared widely, Steffen warned. “Anytime you’re posting or reposting something, a good tool can be to pause and think: Would I be comfortable with my employer, my students and my community knowing that I hold this view, and would I be comfortable with them seeing it expressed in this way?” she said.

5. Protect your accounts with complex passwords and two-factor authentication.

It’s boring, but it’s important, said Viktorya Vilk, director for digital safety and free expression at the nonprofit PEN America, which offers digital safety training to colleges and universities and has created a “what to do” resource for people who have been doxed. “If someone hacks into your Facebook or your email, it’s so hard to get that account back. And it’s also incredibly intrusive and unsettling,” she said. “Having a long, secure password and two-factor authentication makes it almost impossible for someone to be able to hack into your account.”

6. In the event you are doxed: Center yourself, and then secure your physical safety.

“People often have a fight, flight or freeze response. It can be incredibly traumatizing and so very difficult to take steps or use your judgment about what to do when you’re being doxed,” Vilk said. “And so, counterintuitively, the very first thing to do is to take a minute and try to center yourself. For some people that’s taking some deep breaths. For other people, it’s just, like, moving around, wiggling around.”

After that, make sure you’re physically safe, she advised. If your address has been shared, consider staying at a hotel or with friends or family until the storm passes. Consider contacting law enforcement to report the threats, file a police report and let them know you’re at increased risk for swatting—a harassment tactic that involves making a false emergency call in order to dispatch law enforcement to a specific location.

7. Once you are physically safe, document the harassment and lock down your accounts.

Set your social accounts to private mode if they’re not already, and take any steps to limit visibility of your posts, Vilk said. “That’s very easy to switch back after the storm dies down,” she added. Be careful communicating with unfamiliar accounts, emails or phone numbers, and document any threats or harassment you receive. Don’t download attachments or click on links from unknown senders, and do a quick search online to find out more about them before responding.

“Take screenshots when you receive them and then report them to the platform where they’re happening. That can be really stressful, so we really recommend that people recruit friends or family or trusted colleagues to help them do that so that they’re not doing it alone,” Vilk said.

Your cellphone number can also be stolen. “If it starts to circulate online, people will call your cellphone company and pretend to be you and try to reroute traffic,” she said. Protect your number by calling the company and placing a PIN on your account.

Source link

September 19, 2025
Right-Wing Doxing Campaign Endangers Faculty and Free Speech

Faculty and staff members at Auburn University, Eastern New Mexico University–Roswell and Coastal Carolina University are among those who have been punished for their comments on Charlie Kirk’s death.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images | Nordin Catic/Getty Images/The Cambridge Union | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

College faculty and staff members have become popular targets of the right-wing doxing firestorm that ignited in the hours after Charlie Kirk was shot and killed last week during an event at Utah Valley University. As of Thursday afternoon, Inside Higher Ed had identified 37 faculty and staff members who are being harassed online for allegedly critical or insensitive social media posts about Kirk. So far, at least 24 of those employees have been terminated, suspended or put on administrative leave, including employees at Auburn University, Eastern New Mexico University–Roswell and Coastal Carolina University.

The force and scale of the doxing campaigns—and the speed with which institutions have moved to suspend or terminate their targets—paints a grim picture of free speech rights on public college campuses. Widespread doxing as a political tool to punish universities and academics is not a new phenomenon, but right now it’s particularly virulent, explained Keith Whittington, a professor at Yale Law School and an expert on free speech. “The size of the activity, the pressure campaign and the … short period of time is highly unusual,” he said. “Universities feel like they’re under intense pressure to mollify right-wing activists and try not to draw negative attention from the [Trump] administration.”

Most of the higher education targets of doxing campaigns have been identified first by users on X, Facebook or other social media sites. Then anonymous accounts broadcast their name, employer, photo and contact information, along with calls for their firing. A group that calls itself the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation has also asked the public to submit via email or online the names, identifying information and screenshots of any person who has criticized Kirk or appeared to celebrate his death. On Sunday, the group claimed to have received more than 63,000 unique names.

The first call-outs that gained traction were particularly inflammatory. For example, a University of Toronto professor—who has since been placed on leave—posted in a comment on X, “shooting is honestly too good for so many of you fascist cunts.” This type of speech is often “universally condemned,” but it should still be protected by universities committed to First Amendment values, Whittington said. (Or Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.) Now, doxers are attacking even those who engage in mild criticism of Kirk or his supporters, as well as those who merely quote Kirk’s own views on gun control and other topics in juxtaposition to the news of his death.

“We do seem to see a pattern in which activists are very quickly moving beyond [more egregious] instances to much more marginal cases, where … we might not think that these particular examples of speech violated any widespread view that it is inappropriate or beyond the pale,” Whittington said.

A staff member at Wake Forest University in North Carolina was doxed and later terminated after posting on social media the lyrics, “He had it coming, he had it coming” from the Chicago song “Cell Block Tango.” One University of South Carolina professor was targeted by doxers for a critical Facebook comment about a state representative who supported Kirk and was later relieved of teaching duties because of it. A faculty member at East Tennessee State University was put on administrative leave after posting, “You can’t be upset if one of those deaths in [sic] yours #charliekirk” in response to a news headline that quoted Kirk saying, “It’s worth [it] to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Inside Higher Ed has opted not to name employees that haven’t been confirmed by their university in order to prevent further harassment.

The number of doxing campaigns targeting educators is on the rise. Experts say higher ed employees can stay safe by keeping work and personal accounts separate, using email masks, and removing personal information from data broker sites. For more tips, see our story here.

So far no higher ed institution has faced as swift and fierce a condemnation from conservatives online as Clemson University, which, in response to the political pressure, has now terminated two faculty members and one staff member over their social media posts about Kirk. An assistant professor at Clemson was among the first to be named and shamed. On Sept. 10, the day Kirk was shot and killed, they posted, “Today was one of the most beautiful days ever. The weather was perfect, sunny with a light breeze. This was such a beautiful day.” Kirk’s supporters interpreted this comment as a celebration of his death. The Clemson professor also reposted jokes about the killing—including “no one mourns the Wicked” and “[N-word] worried about DEI and DIED instead.”

From there, the doxing machine roared to life. The student group Clemson College Republicans was the first to identify the professor and share their posts, according to U.S. representative Russell Fry, whose Sept. 11 post on X about the professor garnered 1.2 million views. The post was amplified by hundreds of right-wing accounts and other politicians, including U.S. representative Nancy Mace, who has commented on and reposted dozens of similar call-outs. Clemson officials issued a statement on Sept. 12, writing that “the deeply inappropriate remarks made on social media in response to the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk are reprehensible and do not reflect the University values and principles that define our University community.” They made no mention of disciplining the employees involved and noted only that the university will “take appropriate action for speech that constitutes a genuine threat which is not protected by the Constitution.”

The pressure campaign continued. Two other employees of the public university—a staff member and another professor—were also targeted for their posts about Kirk’s death, and Republican politicians called for their firing, too. Clemson officials issued another statement a day later, stating that an employee had been suspended and reiterating that officials would take action “in cases where speech is not protected under the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.”

The university did not name any employees or say what the suspended employee posted. However, the posts circulating online from the three Clemson employees in question appear to be protected speech, according to the way most First Amendment scholars interpret it.

Over the weekend, U.S. representative Ralph Norman, the X account for the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary Republicans and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined in the calls for the employees’ firing, and some politicians called for the State Legislature to defund Clemson. So did President Donald Trump, who reposted a Truth Social post from South Carolina state representative Jordan Pace that said, “Now Clemson faculty is inciting violence against conservatives. It’s time for a special session to end this. Defund Clemson. End Tenure at State colleges.”

Clemson officials did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. The university’s academic freedom policy for faculty states, “When they speak or write as private persons, faculty shall be free from institutional censorship or disciplinary action, but they shall avoid creating an impression that they are speaking or acting for the University.” The Faculty Handbook doesn’t outline any clear exceptions to this rule but does note that “as professional educators and academic officers, they are aware that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, faculty members should endeavor to be accurate, to exercise due restraint, to show respect for the utterances of others, and, when appropriate, to indicate that they are not officially representing Clemson University.”

On Monday, Clemson announced it had terminated the staff member and removed both faculty members from their teaching duties. By Tuesday, all three employees had been terminated. South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson told Clemson’s president he had the “full legal authority” to terminate the employees, writing in a statement, “The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not shield threats, glorification of violence, or behavior that undermines the mission of our state institutions.” This contradicts what experts at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and other free speech experts have said in recent days: that speech, even if it’s poorly timed, tasteless, inappropriate, controversial or a nonspecific endorsement of violence, is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

While these name-and-shame campaigns constitute a particularly harsh attack on campus speech, they are nothing new. In fact, they’ve increased in frequency since 2023, when many pro-Palestinian academics were targeted, said Heather Steffen, a humanities professor at Georgetown University and director of the American Association of University Professors’ Faculty First Responders group.

“Faculty who speak about certain issues have been more vulnerable to doxing for a long time,” Steffen said. “So anyone who talks about issues of race or racism, gender and sexuality, or Palestine tends to be more likely to be doxed or somehow otherwise attacked in a politically motivated fashion, as do academics who are faculty of color, or queer faculty, or trans faculty or pro-Palestinian faculty.”

Ultimately, it’s not about what the employees said, Whittington explained. It’s about the political outcomes.

“This is primarily about exercising political power and trying to silence and suppress people who disagree with you politically,” he said. “It doesn’t matter that the offense is trivial … What matters is you’re identifying people that you politically disagree with and you have a moment in which you can exercise power over those people. And there are lots of people willing to take advantage of those opportunities.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
What Happens to Dual Enrollment Credits After High School?
Dual enrollment is often described to high school students and their families as a way to get an early college experience at a significantly reduced cost. These students will earn college credit—sometimes even an associate degree or other college credential—before graduating high school, potentially reducing the time and cost of earning a bachelor’s degree.

At least that’s the promise. But what happens when the path after high school isn’t so clear?

For us, both former DE students (or, as we call ourselves, “stealth transfers”), transferring to a bachelor’s program after high school wasn’t straightforward. And our stories aren’t uncommon. Too often, DE students leave high school without guidance on transfer pathways, and even fewer understand the complexities of credit transfer or the financial implications of their DE choices in high school. What happens to former DE students’ credits after high school? What challenges do these students face? How can we better support them?

Stealth Transfers: Unforeseen Challenges With Credit Mobility

As dual-enrollment students, we assumed transfer would be a simple handoff: The credits we earned in high school would transfer to any college or university we planned to attend, apply directly to our program of study and help us graduate sooner while saving money. In reality, it isn’t always this seamless. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Students may not be aware, or advised on, whether their DE courses will be accepted for credit toward a bachelor’s or other credential in their major field of interest. Among the more than 4,000 DE students from 17 colleges who participated in the pilot of the Dual Enrollment Survey of Student Engagement (DESSE), fewer than half reported ever interacting with a college adviser, and 88 percent reported never having utilized the college’s transfer credit services.
2. Researchers have used national data to track transfer outcomes generally; however, there is still limited research on the extent of the challenges of DE credit transfer and how colleges and K–12 partners can ensure that DE credits are seamlessly transferred and applied to students’ degree programs. Community college students face challenges in transferring credits toward a major field of interest—challenges that could be compounded for DE students due to a lack of understanding of credit transfer and infrequent use of transfer supports.
3. After enrolling in a university, former DE students may feel poorly supported because they are right out of high school, yet have advanced academic standing, so they don’t fall so neatly into first-year or transfer student populations (and the support services designed for them). As such, stealth transfers may miss out on dedicated advising, scholarships and clear information on how to advocate for themselves during the credit-evaluation process.
The Support That Traveled With Me: Akilah’s Story

As a double transfer—first through DE in high school, then from community college to a private university—I always knew my path was right, even when others doubted it. While DE wasn’t as heavily promoted by my high school as other academic programs, I knew it was a valuable and accessible opportunity to prepare me for college and my future goals. However, the guidance from my high school and community college advisers wasn’t always clear and often felt generic. Instead, I leaned on the support from my faith and family. Thanks to my father’s research, I was aware of which credits would and wouldn’t transfer, helping me make informed decisions. After transferring to my university, it was affirming to have the university adviser recognize the effort my family and I put into mapping out my plan. In the end, 57 of my 65 credits transferred.

Many students like me turn to faith, family and community to bridge gaps in information and support. My story urges colleges to recognize the supports and resources transfer students draw on while providing clear pathways and dedicated advising for them.

Racing Through College Without a Road Map: Aurely’s Story

When I graduated high school with an associate degree and 68 college credits, I thought being ahead of my peers would be an advantage, especially since I couldn’t afford to pay for college. I only applied to one in-state university because it accepted 60 college credits and had a scholarship for former DE students. DE prepared me for the rigor of college coursework, but not what it would feel like to be a junior-level student at 18 years old. My focus was graduating quickly to start making an income, so I met with my adviser monthly to stay on track—but I didn’t take advantage of internships or networking opportunities because I wasn’t advised of their importance and had little time left after balancing a heavy course load with part-time jobs.

Like many low-income students, I had the encouragement to pursue a higher education, but not the guidance on how to leverage it for my goals or career. Looking back, a dedicated community for stealth transfers could have helped me catch up on the social, professional and developmental experiences that typically occur over several years in college.

What Can We Do to Support the DE Transfer Experience?

The growth of DE nationally means more students will arrive on college and university campuses as stealth transfers. When these students’ transfer journeys are hidden, they may miss out on dedicated advising, strategies to reduce the cost of completing their degree and guidance on how to advocate for themselves in higher education and beyond. As former DE students who now research DE and transfer, we offer recommendations below grounded in both our lived experiences and national research.
1. Collect data on credit transfer and experiences of former DE students. Too little information is available on what happens to DE credits after high school. Educators can better support stealth transfers by participating in surveys, like the DESSE, and tracking outcomes for former DE students, including how many credits are lost and which courses are often not transferable. These data should be disaggregated to identify gaps (e.g., race, income) and discussed with K–12, community college and university partners during professional development and planning meetings to improve transfer outcomes.
2. Provide clear major-specific pathways and guidance for stealth transfers. Many former DE students transfer more than once after high school, yet information on these pathways is not always accessible (or understandable) to students and their families. Educators should publish clear guidance on K–12, community college and university websites for students who attend a community college after DE. In high school, students should be informed if they are taking DE courses from multiple institutions and to save their DE course syllabi so they can be better equipped in advocating for the transferability of their coursework in the future.
3. Improve financial guidance for former DE students. Former DE students may be unfamiliar with the costs of attending college after DE. Educators can ensure that scholarship opportunities at various transfer destinations are available to former DE students and deadlines are communicated during their senior year in high school.
4. Support stealth transfer experiences as part of college transfer support services. As dual-enrollment programs expand nationally, there will be more stealth transfer students entering higher education after high school. Educators can make transfer support services, like transfer centers, more inclusive by surveying stealth transfers to understand their needs, creating former DE affinity groups, providing dedicated supports for former DE students, fostering peer connections and hosting events or networking opportunities for this population.
As dual enrollment continues to grow, college and university leaders must recognize that more students will arrive as stealth transfers. By making stealth transfers visible, we can ensure that the promise of DE is fulfilled—not lost in transition.
Source link
September 19, 2025