Tag: lead

  • Richey confirmed to lead Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights

    Richey confirmed to lead Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The Senate confirmed Kimberly Richey as the next assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education in a 51-47 vote along party lines late Tuesday afternoon. The approval came as part of a resolution allowing senators to consider for confirmation Richey and over 100 other federal nominees at once. 

    Richey served as acting assistant secretary at the Education Department under the first Trump administration — first for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and then for the Office for Civil Rights — and also worked at OCR under the George W. Bush administration. 

    Her approval had been nothing short of expected, considering the slight Republican majority in the Senate and President Donald Trump’s nomination in February to head the Education Department’s civil rights arm.

    As assistant secretary of OCR, Richey will be responsible for overseeing investigations into alleged civil rights complaints, protecting all students’ civil rights, and drafting and implementing civil rights regulations, including but not limited to Title IX, Title VI and Section 504. 

    She was confirmed to steer a ship that is functioning at half of its previous capacity, with OCR down to five out of 12 of its offices. She faces a backlog of over 12,000 open investigations and more than 25,000 complaints, and a pared down staff as a result of Trump and U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s efforts to wind down the department. 

    She’s also entering the office as the Education Department is embroiled in a lawsuit that, until recently, required OCR be restored to its previous capacity by returning laid off workers to their jobs. Just as the Education Department began returning OCR staffers back to the job in waves, the federal district court order requiring its restoration was overturned in September by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The Education Department, most of whose staff is furloughed as part of the government shutdown, has not responded to K-12 Dive’s requests about what that means for the over 80 staffers who had already returned to their old posts.

    Before the Senate’s Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee confirmed Richey’s nomination in June, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., shared that attorneys at OCR are juggling on average 115 cases, more than double the previously reported caseload of 42 cases per person. 

    Richey said she would “always advocate for OCR to have the resources to do its job.” However, she dodged questions about whether OCR, under Trump’s first administration, had enough resources to do its job.  

    “I’m going to have to be really strategic if I’m confirmed, stepping into this role, helping come up with a plan where we can address these challenges,” she said about OCR’s reduced resources under the current administration. 

    Among her first steps, Richey said, would be to evaluate the current caseload and determine where complaints stand in their investigative timelines. She would also examine the staff distribution and organizational structure of OCR, she said. 

    Richey said that rather than put certain investigations on pause, as has been the case under the second Trump administration, she would prioritize all complaints that fall at OCR’s footsteps.

    After the mass layoffs at the agency that left OCR gutted along with other department offices, the Education Department told K-12 Dive in March that OCR was undergoing organizational changes and said it would deliver on its statutory responsibilities. 

    Source link

  • Higher Education must help shape how students learn, lead and build the skills employers want most

    Higher Education must help shape how students learn, lead and build the skills employers want most

    For the first time in more than a decade, confidence in the nation’s colleges and universities is rising. Forty-two percent of Americans now say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, up from 36 percent last year.  

    It’s a welcome shift, but it’s certainly not time for institutions to take a victory lap. 

    For years, persistent concerns about rising tuition, student debt and an uncertain job market have led many to question whether college was still worth the cost. Headlines have routinely spotlighted graduates who are underemployed, overwhelmed or unsure how to translate their degrees into careers.  

    With the rapid rise of AI reshaping entry-level hiring, those doubts are only going to intensify. Politicians, pundits and anxious parents are already asking: Why aren’t students better prepared for the real world?  

    But the conversation is broken, and the framing is far too simplistic. The real question isn’t whether college prepares students for careers. It’s how. And the “how” is more complex, personal and misunderstood than most people realize.  

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    What’s missing from this conversation is a clearer understanding of where career preparation actually happens. It’s not confined to the classroom or the career center. It unfolds in the everyday often overlooked experiences that shape how students learn, lead and build confidence.  

    While earning a degree is important, it’s not enough. Students need a better map for navigating college. They need to know from day one that half the value of their experience will come from what they do outside the classroom.  

    To rebuild America’s trust, colleges must point beyond course catalogs and job placement rates. They need to understand how students actually spend their time in college. And they need to understand what those experiences teach them. 

    Ask someone thriving in their career which part of college most shaped their success, and their answer might surprise you. (I had this experience recently at a dinner with a dozen impressive philanthropic, tech and advocacy leaders.) You might expect them to name a major, a key class or an internship. But they’re more likely to mention running the student newspaper, leading a sorority, conducting undergraduate research, serving in student government or joining the debate team.  

    Such activities aren’t extracurriculars. They are career-curriculars. They’re the proving grounds where students build real-world skills, grow professional networks and gain confidence to navigate complexity. But most people don’t discuss these experiences until they’re asked about them.  

    Over time, institutions have created a false divide. The classroom is seen as the domain of learning, and career services is seen as the domain of workforce preparation. But this overlooks an important part of the undergraduate experience: everything in between.  

    The vast middle of campus life — clubs, competitions, mentorship, leadership roles, part-time jobs and collaborative projects — is where learning becomes doing. It’s where students take risks, test ideas and develop the communication, teamwork and problem-solving skills that employers need.  

    This oversight has made career services a stand-in for something much bigger. Career services should serve as an essential safety net for students who didn’t or couldn’t fully engage in campus life, but not as the launchpad we often imagine it to be. 

    Related: OPINION: College is worth it for most students, but its benefits are not equitable 

    We also need to confront a harder truth: Many students enter college assuming success after college is a given. Students are often told that going to college leads to success. They are rarely told, however, what that journey actually requires. They believe knowledge will be poured into them and that jobs will magically appear once the diploma is in hand. And for good reason, we’ve told them as much. 

    But college isn’t a vending machine. You can’t insert tuition and expect a job to roll out. Instead, it’s a platform, a laboratory and a proving ground. It requires students to extract value through effort, initiative and exploration, especially outside the classroom.  

    The credential matters, but it’s not the whole story. A degree can open doors, but it won’t define a career. It’s the skills students build, the relationships they form and the challenges they take on along the way to graduation that shape their future. 

    As more college leaders rightfully focus on the college-to-career transition, colleges must broadcast that while career services plays a helpful role, students themselves are the primary drivers of their future. But to be clear, colleges bear a grave responsibility here. It’s on us to reinforce the idea that learning occurs everywhere on campus, that the most powerful career preparation comes from doing, not just studying. It’s also on us to address college affordability, so that students have the time to participate in campus life, and to ensure that on-campus jobs are meaningful learning experiences.  

    Higher education can’t afford public confidence to dip again. The value of college isn’t missing. We’re just not looking in the right place. 

    Bridget Burns is the founding CEO of the University Innovation Alliance (UIA), a nationally recognized consortium of 19 public research universities driving student success innovation for nearly 600,000 students. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about college experiences was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Mike Gavin Resigns to Lead DEI Defense Coalition

    Mike Gavin Resigns to Lead DEI Defense Coalition

    Mike Gavin, the founder of Education for All, a grassroots group of community college administrators fighting legislative attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion, will step down as president of Delta College in January. He has been in the post since 2021. 

    Gavin informed the Delta College Board of Trustees last week that he would resign to lead a national coalition focused on defending equity in higher ed. 

    “My whole career has been focused on equity and how higher ed is situated in the democratic experiment, so when I was asked to do the next thing, I felt compelled to do it,” Gavin told Inside Higher Ed. 

    “I was not looking for a job. Delta has been amazing. The faculty and staff are some of the most insightful and student-centered I’ve ever seen,” he said. 

    More information about the coalition, including its priorities and funding model, will be released soon, he added. 

    Since the early days of the second Trump administration, Gavin has been a leading voice in defending DEI work in higher ed, especially at community colleges. Participation in Education for All surged at the beginning of the year as college leaders sought advice on protecting programs and navigating compliance with Trump administration mandates. 

    “My scholarship rests on the great thinkers of our past, from Benjamin Franklin to James Baldwin. It is also grounded in the belief that our country depends on a higher education sector that must be free from partisan interference, in order to democratize higher education for all,” Gavin wrote in a letter to the Delta College community.  

    Delta College trustees said they will begin the process of appointing Gavin’s successor in the coming weeks. 

    Source link

  • How Higher Education Can Lead the AI Shift – Campus Review

    How Higher Education Can Lead the AI Shift – Campus Review

    Artificial intelligence is no longer a fringe experiment in education; it is reshaping how institutions design learning, support students, and organise academic work. Although pilot programs and experimentation environments are becoming more common, few institutions have successfully scaled AI to achieve real transformation.

    The new white paper, From Pilots to Transformation: Scaling AI for Student Success in Higher Education, produced by Ellucian and Nous Group, offers research-based recommendations for moving from experimentation to institutional-scale impact.

    Drawing on insights from sector leaders, global references, and lessons from neighbouring industries, the paper explores the need for deep cultural and strategic alignment in scaling AI initiatives.

    It emphasises the importance of incorporating equity, ethics, and student trust into AI projects from the start, while also examining how AI is profoundly reshaping academic work, learning experiences, and governance.

    Additionally, the paper provides practical steps that institutions can take to move beyond isolated pilot programs toward sustainable, sector-wide transformation.

    Zac Ashkanasy, Principal at Nous Group, frames the challenge clearly: “The real transformation lies in how institutions prepare their people, redesign their roles, and embed AI responsibly into their operating models,” he says.

    For institutions across Australia, the message is clear: students are adopting AI faster than staff. Institutions that lead with purpose today will shape the future of the sector, while those that hesitate risk falling behind.

    Find out more and download the white paper to discover the strategies and actions that will help your institution scale AI responsibly and unlock the next era of student success.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Charlie Kirk was a free speech advocate. His death shouldn’t lead to suppression.

    Charlie Kirk was a free speech advocate. His death shouldn’t lead to suppression.

    This article originally appeared in USA Today on Sept. 21, 2025.

    If you’re a believer in free speech, the past two weeks have been one of the longest years of your life. In fact, this might have been the worst fortnight for free expression in recent memory.

    It started Sept. 9, when the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), where I work, released its sixth annual College Free Speech Rankings. The rankings revealed that a record 1 out of 3 students is open to the idea of using violence to stop campus speech.

    This sentiment was then frighteningly made flesh the next day, when conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University. 

    The fact that Kirk was killed while engaging in open debate on a college campus is a cruel irony. If the first person to hurl an insult rather than a spear birthed civilization, then anyone resorting to violence in response to speech is attempting to abort it.

    The free speech principles that are foundational to our democracy have been a candle in the dark – not just here at home, but across a world in the grip of a terrifying resurgence of authoritarianism.

    The difference between words and violence – and the civilizational importance of free speech – couldn’t have been more stark in that moment. No matter how hurtful, hateful or wrong, there is no comparing words to a bullet.

    To preserve that distinction, we must have the highest possible tolerance for even the ugliest speech. But that notion has landed on largely deaf ears, because what followed was a cacophony of cancellations.

    Charlie Kirk was a free speech advocate. His death led to stifled speech.

    Scores of college professors, for example, have either been investigated, suspended or fired for comments they made regarding Kirk’s assassination. Even wildlife conservationists, comic book writers, retail workers and restaurant employees have been targeted for their speech.

    There are many more, and Vice President JD Vance, while stepping in to guest-host “The Charlie Kirk Show,” endorsed these efforts. 

    In some cases, the targeted speech was a criticism of Kirk and his views. In others, it was a celebration of his fate. In all cases, however, it has been First Amendment-protected speech – and far from violence.

    The government pressure didn’t end there, either. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins called for “a legal and rational crackdown on the forces that are desperately trying to annihilate our nation.”

    Carr’s threats to ABC are jawboning any way you slice it

    ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel hours after FCC Chair Brendan Carr suggested they could face consequences for remarks Kimmel made in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder.


    Read More

    On Sept. 15, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi went on “The Katie Miller Podcast” and threatened, “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. . . . We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

    Given that there is no First Amendment exception or legal definition for “hate speech,” this can mean just about anything Bondi and President Donald Trump‘s administration consider “hateful.” Bondi walked back her comments after public outcry, notably from conservatives.

    The president, however, ran with it, threatening an ABC News reporter for having covered him “unfairly.” “You have a lot of hate in your heart,” Trump said Sept. 16. “Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech. So maybe they’ll have to go after you.”

    Then Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr publicly threatened action against host Jimmy Kimmel and ABC for “really sick” comments Kimmel made during his opening monologue. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said.

    Hours later, ABC suspended Kimmel’s show indefinitely, prompting celebration from Trump, Carr and others – and driving us from a free speech nightmare into a full-on hellscape.

    Social discourse needs a reset in America

    This is unsustainable.

    In the past two weeks alone, the state of free speech in our country has been battered almost beyond recognition.

    For years now, we have had a cultural climate where growing numbers of people are so intolerant of opposing viewpoints that they will resort to violence, threats and cancellation against their adversaries. Now we’re seeing the Trump administration flagrantly abusing its power and authority to punish criticism and enforce ideological conformity. 

    Yes, plenty of previous administrations have violated the First Amendment. But rather than repudiating those violations, the Trump administration’s actions over the past week have dramatically escalated how openly and aggressively that constitutional line is crossed.

    The core American belief that power is achieved through persuasion and the ballot box, and that bad ideas are beaten by better ones – not by bullets or bullying – is in serious danger.

    As former federal Judge Learned Hand once put it: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”

    That’s what’s at stake here: The free speech principles that are foundational to our democracy have been a candle in the dark – not just here at home, but across a world in the grip of a terrifying resurgence of authoritarianism.

    The ultimate tragedy would be if we extinguished them in our own hearts and by our own hands.

    Source link

  • US takes the lead on student satisfaction, survey finds

    US takes the lead on student satisfaction, survey finds

    Global student satisfaction has remained steady in 2025, but pressures on inclusivity, affordability and the quality of student life are beginning to show, according to the Global Student Satisfaction Awards: Summary Report 2025.

    Studyportals’ 2025 Student Satisfaction survey tracked responses from over 102,000 students around the world, with the US, Belgium and Austria leading the charge in overall satisfaction, ranked at 4.32, 4.29 and 4.28 stars out of five respectively.

    The biannual survey looked at reviews from students of 180 nationalities studying at institutions in 124 countries, recording an average satisfaction score of 4.18 out of 5. While stable compared to 2023 (when the last survey was published), this represents a slight dip of 0.71%.

    Meanwhile Pakistan, France, Ireland and Türkiye saw some of the steepest declines in satisfaction. The UK and India bucked the trend with improved scores, both climbing above the global average.

    Pakistan recorded the most significant drop since 2023’s survey (-11.3%), moving significantly further below the global benchmark. France also fell by -3.2%, Ireland by -2.4%, and Türkiye by -1.2%.

    By contrast, Finland (+3.3%) and the Netherlands (+0.2%) registered modest improvements, though both remain below the global average. The report warns that unless these downward trends are addressed, strong challengers like India and the UK could capture greater student interest.

    Students are more confident about career prospects, but increasingly concerned about diversity and their quality of life
    Edwin van Rest, Studyportals

    The report also tracked other factors such as admissions processes, career development, student diversity and student life.

    Winners were honoured across seven categories at an awards ceremony hosted by Studyportals in collaboration with Uni-Life and IELTS at a fringe event during last week’s European Association for International Education (EAIE) conference in Gothenburg.

    Key indicators revealed a mixed picture. Student diversity (-5.03%) and student life (-4.39%) suffered the largest declines, reflecting growing concerns around integration, housing shortages and rising costs in popular destinations. Admissions processes also weakened (-3.85%), with students calling for clearer communication, smoother transitions and more user-friendly digital systems.

    On the positive side, career development (+1.23%) recorded notable gains, with the US, India and Switzerland leading thanks to stronger links with employers, internships and industry engagement. Online classroom experience, long the weakest category, also improved modestly (+1.30%), particularly in the US, India and South Africa.

    Studyportals said the findings underline shifting student priorities. Employability outcomes and structured cross-cultural experiences are increasingly valued, while inclusivity and transparency remain pressing challenges.

    “These results show where universities are winning student trust, and where they risk losing it,” noted Edwin van Rest, CEO & co-founder of Studyportals. “Students are more confident about career prospects, but increasingly concerned about diversity and their quality of life.”

    Source link

  • Student AI Use on the Rise: Why Universities Must Lead with Ethical Support

    Student AI Use on the Rise: Why Universities Must Lead with Ethical Support

    Title: 2025 U.S. Student Wellbeing Survey

    Source: Studiosity in partnership with YouGov

    The higher education landscape is undergoing a profound transformation shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting student expectations. The 2025 U.S. Student Wellbeing Survey, conducted by Studiosity in partnership with YouGov, offers in-depth insights into student behavior, particularly their growing reliance on AI tools for academic support.

    The report states that 82 percent of U.S. students have used AI for assignments or study tasks. This trend is even more pronounced among international students, with 40 percent reporting regular AI use compared with 24 percent of domestic students. The findings make clear: AI is no longer emerging—it’s central to the student academic experience.

    While student use of AI is high, only 58 percent of respondents feel their universities are adapting quickly enough to provide institution-approved AI tools, a figure that shows minimal improvement from 2024 (57 percent). Furthermore, 55 percent of students now expect their institution to provide AI support, reflecting shifting priorities among students. This year, “confidence” overtook “speed” as the main reason students prefer institution-provided AI tools, underscoring the demand for reliable and ethical solutions.

    The data also highlight heightened stress levels linked to AI use, with 66 percent of students reporting some level of anxiety about incorporating AI into their studies. Students voiced concerns about academic integrity, accidental plagiarism, and cognitive offloading. One student said, “AI tools usually need a well-detailed prompt. Most times AI gets outdated data. Most importantly, the more reliable AI tools require payment, which makes things unnecessarily hard.” This highlights an equity issue in AI use, as some students reported paying for a premium AI tool to get better results. Those experiencing constant academic stress were more likely to report regular AI use, suggesting a need for support systems that integrate human connection with technological assistance.

    The research emphasizes actionable strategies for universities:

    • Develop or purchase institution-backed AI tools with clear ethical guidelines.
    • Provide transparent and consistent policies to help students understand how to use AI responsibly.
    • Integrate AI support with existing academic services to preserve human interaction and peer engagement.
    • Ensure equitable, affordable access to AI technologies to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities.

    As students navigate an increasingly AI-driven academic environment, universities must step into a leadership role. Providing ethical, institution-approved AI tools isn’t just about keeping pace with technology; it’s about safeguarding learning, reducing stress, and fostering confidence in academic outcomes. The 2025 survey makes one thing clear: students are ready for universities to meet them where they are in their AI use, but they are asking for guidance and assurance in doing so.

    To download a copy of the USA report, click here. For global reports and surveys, including cross-institutional meta-analyses and educator surveys, click here.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • HBCUs Await Trump’s Pick to Lead White House Initiative

    HBCUs Await Trump’s Pick to Lead White House Initiative

    President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April promising to “elevate the value and impact” of the country’s historically Black colleges and universities—in part by selecting an executive director for the White House Initiative on HBCUs and a President’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs.

    But four months later, eight months into his second term, these roles remain unfilled.

    Some HBCU advocates say months-long waits are business as usual for these positions, and they remain confident in Trump’s support for HBCUs. Others worry that HBCUs lack their most direct line of communication to the White House at a time of rapid-fire higher ed policy changes.

    Since the 1980s, the executive director of the HBCUs initiative, established by President Jimmy Carter, has been responsible for advocating for HBCUs’ federal policy interests. The President’s Board of Advisors offers guidance to government officials about how to better support and strengthen these institutions.

    Appointees serve as HBCUs’ “in-house advocates,” said Ivory A. Toldson, a professor of counseling psychology at Howard University and editor in chief of The Journal of Negro Education. He served as deputy director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs from 2013 to 2015 and as executive director from 2015 to 2016 under former president Barack Obama. The director and board have historically sought out federal funding and partnership opportunities for these institutions and “made sure that executive-level priorities were shaped in a way that understood the needs of HBCUs.”

    Toldson said there are likely to be “missed opportunities” for HBCUs during the limbo period before an executive director is chosen. He said it’s easy for federal agencies, like the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health, to overlook smaller HBCUs for grants when no one is there to champion them.

    “By them not having representation within the federal government, it becomes difficult for them to advocate effectively for their needs,” he said.

    Robert Palmer, chair of the education department at Howard, said he worries HBCUs don’t have their “earpiece” to the Trump administration at a time when policy shifts, such as upcoming changes to the student loan program, will affect HBCU students.

    The unfilled roles are “quite concerning,” Palmer said. “It almost makes you wonder, is it a priority for him? Because that’s what it signals—that it’s not a priority.”

    Mixed Views

    Other HBCU advocates don’t see a problem. Lodriguez Murray, vice president of public policy and government affairs at the United Negro College Fund, which represents private HBCUs, said he isn’t troubled by the wait because organizations like his have still been able to have “high-power and high-level discussions” with the White House and Department of Education.

    “We’ve been able to get every concern addressed. We’ve been able to get every email returned. We’ve been able to get every meeting request handled,” he said. “The house is not burning down for us. And I have seen no lack of continuity and engagement on our issues at the highest levels.”

    He said it’s more meaningful to him that Trump issued an executive order reaffirming the White House Initiative on HBCUs within his first 100 days and fully funded HBCUs in his proposed budget. He’d also rather the administration take its time to pick “the right individuals” to fill these roles.

    “There have been many individuals who have had the role of executive director of the White House initiative on HBCUs [who] have fallen below what the expectations are of this community,” Murray said. “And so, if the White House is attempting to find the right person to meet a moment and to meet expectations, that’s fine with me.”

    Trump’s pick for executive director during his first term, speaker and consultant Johnathan Holifield, was met with mixed reactions by HBCU supporters because of his lack of prior experience with these institutions. Former president Obama also received criticism for some of his executive director choices, including multiple interim appointments between permanent directors.

    Murray said he’s hoping for someone “with the president’s confidence” who can help bring Trump’s plans to support HBCUs to fruition and who can simultaneously “speak truth to power and express to the president the concerns of HBCUs.”

    For Toldson, “institutional knowledge of HBCUs” and an “apolitical” approach will be critical to a new executive director’s success to avoid HBCUs getting mired in the anti-DEI crusade besieging other higher ed institutions.

    “Regardless of who’s in office, we need representation, and I think that the right representation would be able to balance the needs of the HBCU community with the broader direction of the government,” Toldson said.

    Mounting Anticipation

    Harry Williams, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which represents public HBCUs, said the amount of time it takes for presidents to fill these roles has varied historically. HBCUs have often waited months for these appointments, so the current timeline isn’t out of the ordinary, he said. Former president Joe Biden didn’t officially name an executive director until February 2022, a little over a year after his inauguration.

    Still, a long wait “creates uncertainty, and it creates anxiety,” Williams said.

    “We’ve gotten good information that this is something that will happen, but the timing of it has always been the challenge,” he added. TMCF is reassuring campuses that the administration plans to fill these positions, “but we don’t know exactly when.”

    David K. Wilson, president of Morgan State University, said he and other HBCU presidents are eager to get started on making the promises in Trump’s executive order a reality. They were glad to see the order call on federal agencies, businesses and foundations to partner with and invest more in HBCUs.

    Wilson said he hopes to see these positions filled soon “so that we can begin to express directly to the White House what some of the opportunities are for continued investment in these institutions.”

    “All of them will return unbelievable dividends to the nation,” he added.

    Wilson noted that Howard University recently regained Research-1 status, the coveted Carnegie Foundation classification for universities with very high research activity. Other HBCUs, including Morgan State, are poised to follow in the coming years. He wants to see appointees in place who can help maintain that momentum.

    “We can’t wait to see now what this next era of HBCU investments under the Trump administration will look like,” he said. “We were on a roll, and now the question is, can we roll faster?”

    Source link