Two professors at Florida Atlantic University are back at work after the university placed them on administrative leave for making comments related to Charlie Kirk’s death, The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported Wednesday.
After the right-wing activist was shot and killed Sept. 10 during an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump and his allies sought to punish anyone who made public comments about Kirk that could be perceived as critical. Numerous universities fired or suspended professors, including three at FAU: Karen Leader, an associate professor of art history; Kate Polak, an English professor; and Rebel Cole, a finance professor.
While Leader’s and Polak’s comments criticized Kirk, Cole’s comments were directed at Kirk’s opponents. “We are going to hunt you down. We are going to identify you,” he wrote on social media, according to the Sun Sentinel. “Then we are going to make you radioactive to polite society. And we will make you both unemployed and unemployable.”
While the three professors were on administrative leave, the university hired Alan Lawson, a former Florida Supreme Court justice, to investigate their comments. Lawson has since concluded that Cole’s and Leader’s comments were protected by the First Amendment and recommended they both be reinstated.
“The findings reflect that each professor’s social-media statements, though provocative to varying degrees, were authored in a personal capacity on matters of public concern,” Lawson wrote. Although both the FAU Faculty Senate and Cole himself objected to the investigation—Cole sued the university over an alleged First Amendment violation—Lawson’s report said the university “preserved constitutional rights while upholding its responsibility to ensure professionalism, civility, and safety within its academic community.”
Polak remains on leave while Lawson continues to investigate her comments.
“Politics is for short-term cycles, education is for the long-term,” said Baroness Usha Prashar, independent member of the UK House of Lords, speaking at the Reinventing Higher Education conference 2025, led by IE University, in London.
Prashar told university leaders in the room that institutions must not get “buffeted by the political pressures of the day,” urging them to think creatively to find ways of preserving core values.
Prashar pointed to cases in the US where she said universities were being “creative” and giving equality initiatives different names to save them from abolition under Trump’s anti-DEI crusade.
The US is perhaps the most striking current example of education coming under political pressure as the Trump administration attempts to reshape American higher education.
Earlier this month, the government rolled out its so-called “compact” for higher education to all US colleges, promising preferential federal funding for institutions that agree to a slew of commitments widely seen as an attack on academic research and institutional autonomy.
Faith Abiodun, executive director of United World Colleges (UWC) international, echoed Prashar’s advocacy, stating: “We can’t leave education to political leaders”, and warning that isolated institutions were more likely to be targeted.
He highlighted the dilemma faced by many US universities, compelled to choose between following the “pseudo kings” or lose access to vital federal funding.
Abiodun said the US previously attracted 60% of UWC’s school graduates, funded by the world’s largest privately funded tertiary education scholarship, but that students were fast turning away from the destination.
While Europe has stepped up efforts to attract talent pivoting away from the US – evident in the European Commission’s recent “Choose Europe for Science” campaign – IE University president Santiago Iñiguez de Onzoño emphasised international education wasn’t a “zero-sum game”.
“A number of continental European universities have benefitted from these increased barriers to mobility, but I don’t think it’s good news because in the end it puts up barriers to cross border mobility and good globalisation,” he told The PIE.
“Disruptions in the US are negative for all players.”
Amid heightened visa restrictions and increased compliance measures across all of the ‘big four’ study destinations, western universities are ramping up efforts to establish branch campuses to reach students in traditional source destinations.
While providing “rich educational opportunities” for students who otherwise might be unable to access an international education, as well as allowing students and faculty to travel between campuses, Iñiguez warned that TNE was “at once an opportunity and a threat” which in some ways represents a step backwards from globalisation.
Politics is for short-term cycles, education is for the long-term
Baroness Usha Prashar CBE, UK House of Lords
In the US, the impact of declining international enrolments has not been felt uniformly across institutions, with the University of Notre Dame seeing “almost exactly the same yield of international undergraduate and postgraduate students” this semester, Notre Dame vice president and associate provost, David Go, told delegates.
“As a research university in the pursuit of truth we can position ourselves as nonpartisan and independent.”
“Universities can and should be the place for difficult conversations, which is at the root of diplomatic activity,” said Go, highlighting a recent event at Notre Dame which hosted two governors – one democratic and one republican – to discuss how to disagree well.
“While the broader political discourse in the US favours disagreeing poorly, to have two of our leaders come and have that conversation helped at least reset some of that discourse,” he said.
Elsewhere, speakers emphasised the importance of institutional neutrality to create spaces where people can disagree, at a time when universities are under increased pressure to take a political stance.
Julie Sanders, vice chancellor of Royal Holloway University in the UK, highlighted the necessity of institutions fostering debate when the political sphere is becoming more binary.
For Sanders, universities should be places for intellectual debate but also places of refuge for migrant students, highlighting the UK’s Chevening Scholarship which is one of the routes through which the UK opened its doors to Gazan students fleeing the war.
The University of Arizona is the latest institution to reject an offer to sign on to the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” issuing its response on the same day feedback on the proposal was due.
While some universities have rejected the compact outright, Arizona president Suresh Garimella announced the decision in a message to the campus community that sent mixed signals. “The university has not agreed to the terms outlined in the draft proposal,” Garimella wrote. He emphasized the need to preserve “principles like academic freedom, merit-based research funding, and institutional independence.”
At the same time, he said that some of the compact’s provisions “deserve thoughtful consideration as our national higher education system could benefit from reforms that have been much too slow to develop,” noting that many were already in place at Arizona. He added that the federal government said it was “seeking constructive dialogue rather than a definitive written response.”
Indeed, in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Garimella indicated an openness to further engagement. “We have much common ground with the ideas your administration is advancing on changes that would benefit American higher education and our nation at large,” he wrote.
Still, he took issue with the administration’s promise of giving signatories preferential treatment in research funding. “A federal research funding system based on anything other than merit would weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation, advancement of technology, and solutions to many of our nation’s most profound challenges,” he wrote to McMahon. “We seek no special treatment and believe in our ability to compete for federally funded research strictly on merit.”
Arizona was one of nine universities the Trump administration reached out to on Oct. 1 offering preferential treatment for federal research funding if they agreed to a compact that would overhaul admissions and hiring, cap international enrollment at 15 percent, revise academic offerings, suppress criticism of conservatives, freeze tuition for five years, and more.
Amid some rejections from the original nine, the federal government sent additional invitations earlier this month.
Institutions initially invited to join were Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. Invitations were later sent to Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis.
Six of the original invitees have declined to sign: MIT was the first to reject the compact, followed by Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, USC and Virginia.
The Trump administration has since opened the compact to any institution that wishes to join.
As of Monday, none of the invited institutions had agreed to the deal, despite a recent push from the White House, which included a meeting with several universities last week. Institutions have until Nov. 21 to make a final decision about whether to sign, according to a letter McMahon sent with the proposal.
Washington University in St. Louis officials indicated Monday they remain open to the idea.
Chancellor Andrew Martin announced that the university would provide feedback, or, as he put it, “participate in a conversation about the future of higher education” with the Trump administration. Martin emphasized the importance of having “a seat at the table” for such discussions but said those talks did not equate to signing the compact.
“It’s important for you to know that our participation in this dialogue does not mean we have endorsed or signed on to the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education presented to us for feedback by the federal administration. We have not done that. In addition, this decision was not made to advantage ourselves or gain any type of preferential benefit,” Martin wrote. “We firmly believe meaningful progress will best be achieved through open, ongoing dialogue.”
An Arizona State spokesperson also left open the option to join the compact, writing to Inside Higher Ed by email, “ASU has long been a voice for change in higher education and as President Trump’s team seeks new and innovative approaches to serve the needs of the country, ASU has engaged in dialogue and offered ideas about how to do so.”
Vanderbilt chancellor Daniel Diermeier noted in an email to the campus community that the university intended to offer feedback on the proposal.
“Despite reporting to the contrary, we have not been asked to accept or reject the draft compact,” Diermeier wrote. “Rather, we have been asked to provide feedback and comments as part of an ongoing dialogue, and that is our intention.”
But other universities stayed silent on the day of the initial deadline.
University of Texas system officials initially announced they were “honored” that the flagship was invited to join, but Austin officials did not have an update on where that invitation stands. Kansas did not respond to requests for comment.
The directors felt they were fired as part of the administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion and for political reasons.
Wesley Lapointe/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Four directors at the National Institutes of Health who were placed on administrative leave earlier this year have now been fired, Sciencereported.
The ousted leaders led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Tara Schwetz, the deputy director for program coordination, planning and strategic initiatives, was also fired. The directors were put on leave in the spring around the same time that the administration laid off thousands at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Science reported that the directors felt they were targeted as part of the administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion and for political reasons. Jeanne Marrazzo, the former NIAID director, took over for Anthony Fauci, a frequent target for Republicans who took issue with his approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Marrazzo filed a whistleblower complaint in early September that in part accused NIH leadership of downplaying the value of vaccines, The New York Timesreported.
“It’s not surprising, but it’s still incredibly disappointing,” Marrazzo told Science. “I would have been quite happy to serve under the new administration as long as we were allowed to do our jobs.”
Dixon has faced blowback for his political activism before and remained in his role at UNC.
Eros Hoagland/Getty Images
Officials at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill placed Professor Dwayne Dixon on leave Monday while the university investigates his “alleged advocacy of politically motivated violence,” said Dean Stoyer, UNC Chapel Hill’s vice chancellor for communications and marketing.
Dixon, an associate professor of Asian and Middle Eastern studies, used to be a member of Silver Valley Redneck Revolt, a chapter of the antifascist, antiracist, anticapitalist political group Redneck Revolt. The group was formed in 2016 and some members, including Dixon, were present at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., to provide armed security and medical assistance to counterprotesters. Redneck Revolt disbanded in 2019 and has no active chapters, according to its website.
In a 2018 interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education, Dixon described himself as an “anarchist,” and he is no stranger to blowback for his political activism and support for gun rights. He was arrested for bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a Ku Klux Klan counterprotest in Durham, N.C., in 2018—the case was later dismissed as unconstitutional on the grounds that the charges violated Dixon’s First and Second Amendment rights. He was also among 20 people who protected counterprotesters in Durham when white supremacists protested the removal of a Confederate statue in 2017. Through all these events, Dixon remained employed at UNC Chapel Hill.
Why is Dixon in the hot seat now? The answer is convoluted, but it begins with fliers on the Georgetown University campus.
On Sept. 24, Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, posted on X a photo of a flier on the Georgetown campus in Washington, D.C., that read, “Hey Fascist! Catch!”—a nod to engraving on the casing of bullets left behind by Kirk’s suspected killer—and “The only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.” The flier also included a QR code to a Google form for a potential Georgetown chapter of the John Brown Gun Club, a Redneck Revolt affiliate organization known as a “leftist gun-rights group” with multiple independent chapters, including one in the D.C. area, according to the Counter Extremism Project. It “arms itself to defend against far-right violence and often appears as a security force at protests to protect against expected far-right violence,” the CEP wrote. Google has since removed the form for violating its terms of service.
University officials removed the fliers and reported them to the FBI. Education Secretary Linda McMahon also weighed in: “At a moment like this, Georgetown has to determine what it stands for as an institution … Allowing violent rhetoric to fester on our nation’s campuses without consequences is dangerous. It must be condemned by institutional leaders,” she wrote on X. “I am grateful to those who spoke out against this and made noise about the posters on campus—you made a difference. There is power in speaking up to reveal these hateful ideologies that have incited deadly violence.”
Kolvet posted again, this time linking to a recent Fox News article that cited Dixon’s involvement in Redneck Revolt based on an old blog post that has since been taken down. “I posted this flyer our team spotted at Georgetown University, and now we find out professors at ‘elite’ schools are members of this group and its offshoots,” Kolvet wrote. “This professor must be immediately fired and the group/network investigated.”
Dixon was placed on leave Monday, which will “allow the University to investigate these allegations in a manner that protects the integrity of its assessment,” UNC’s Stoyer said in his statement. “Depending upon the nature and circumstances of this activity, this conduct could be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including potential termination of employment.”
UNC Chapel Hill officials declined to answer any other questions about Dixon and did not say whether Kolvet’s post or the Fox News article led to the investigation. Dixon did not reply to a request for comment but told the student newspaper The Daily Tarheel that he left the Silver Valley Redneck Revolt in 2018.
A Change.org petition to reinstate Dixon is circulating and as of Wednesday evening had more than 900 signatures. In a statement Wednesday, the North Carolina chapter of the American Association of University Professors, as well as UNC Chapel Hill’s AAUP president, condemned the university’s actions and demanded Dixon be reinstated.
“Right-wing activists are attacking Dixon for prior membership in a group that has been inactive since 2019, and are baselessly connecting him to flyers allegedly posted by a different group on a different campus outside of North Carolina. Fox News picked up the story on September 27, 2025, without verifying the existence of the flyers, and apparently this was enough for UNC’s administration to remove a professor from the classroom in the middle of the semester and bar him from campus,” the statement read. “Let’s call this what it is: UNC administrators are capitulating to a call from a right-wing group, infamous for attacking faculty, to fire a professor based on an unsubstantiated rumor.”
Dixon joins the ranks of dozens of college and university faculty members who have been placed on leave, disciplined or fired in the weeks since Kirk was shot and killed. All of these professors have been investigated after right-wing personalities identified them on social media. Two of them—Michael Hook, who was placed on leave for social media comments he made about Kirk’s death, and Thomas Alter, who was terminated after being accused of inciting violence during a speech—have been reinstated by court orders.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
A federal judge has ordered leaders at the University of South Dakota to temporarily reinstate Phillip Michael Hook,a tenured art professor it sought to fire over a social media post critical of Charlie Kirk.
On Sept. 12, the university notified Hook he would be placed on administrative leave and that it intended to terminate his contract over a private Facebook post he shared criticizing Kirk the day of the conservative firebrand’s killing.
Hook is suing university leaders, alleging they unconstitutionally retaliated against him over his political speech.The professor’s case has a “fair chance of prevailing,” U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier said Wednesday in granting the temporary restraining order.
Dive Insight:
Hook is just one of an increasing number of college employees who have been reprimanded or fired over their speech about Kirk following his killing on Sept. 10. And a growing number of the educators affected are taking their cases to court. Schreier’s ruling this week represented one of the first court actions in such a lawsuit.
The federal judge said Hook must prove he made his comments as a citizen on “a public matter of concern” and that the University of South Dakota’s actions came as a result of that speech.
Hours after Kirk was killed, Hook said on his private Facebook account that he had no “thoughts or prayers” for Kirk.
In 2012, Kirk founded Turning Point USA, a conservative advocacy group geared toward young people, and became a prominent figure on college campusesin the process. Many of his political beliefs — such as opposition to race-conscious college admissions and gun control — fell in line with those of the conservative movement more broadly.
But his comments on some issues regularly prompted significant outcry and backlash, such as when he called Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson a “diversity hire” and said “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target White people.” He also espoused the great replacement theory, which labels immigration policies as part of a plot to undermine the power and influence of White people.
“I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better,” Hook said in his Facebook post. “But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police?”
A few hours later, Hook deleted the post and shared “a public apology to those who were offended” by it on the same account. He published both posts while he was off work, according to court documents.
However, Hook’s original comments gained significant attention after conservative politicians shared a screenshot of them online.
Jon Hansen,the Republican speaker for South Dakota’s House and a 2026 candidate for governor, on Sept. 12 called Hook’s speech disgusting and “unbecoming of someone who works for and represents our University.”
“Yesterday, after seeing the post, I immediately reached out to USD President Sheila Gestring and called on the professor to be fired. I understand that the professor is likely to be terminated from his position,” Hansen said on social media.
A few hours later, South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden said Hook’s post made him “shaking mad” and that the South Dakota Board of Regents intended to fire the professor, a decision he applauded.
The same day, Hook received a letter from Bruce Kelley, the university’s fine arts dean, notifying him of the university’s “intent to terminate” his employment.
The letter alleged that Hook had violated two university policies, according to court documents.
One bans “neglect of duty, misconduct, incompetence, abuse of power or other actions” that diminish trust in faculty or prevent them from doing their job. The other requires that faculty “at all times be accurate, show respect for the opinions of others and make every effort to indicate when they are not speaking for the institution.”
University of South Dakota officials said this week that, over the two days between Hook’s post and Kelley’s letter, the university and the South Dakota Board of Regents received hundreds of messages criticizing Hook’s comments and calling for his removal.They confirmed that one such call came from Hansen.
However, the federal judge who ordered Hook’s temporary reinstatement said the officials failed to show that the reaction to the professor’s private comments disrupted his lessons or the university’s operations.
The Sept. 12 letter “identifies Hook’s social media post as the single piece of evidence it used to support its decision to terminate Hook’s position,” Schreier wrote.
Kelley had placed Hook on administrative leave until Sept. 29, when a personal conference was to be held to “discuss this matter and intended disciplinary action.”
Hook sued Kelley and Gestring, along with board president Tim Rave, on Tuesday seeking to have their decision ruled unconstitutional.
Schreier’s order will remain in effect until Oct. 8, when the court is scheduled to hear arguments over a more permanent preliminary injunction. The temporary restraining order allows for the Sept. 29 meeting to still occur, should the defendants choose.
The federal government’s latest guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines make it difficult to know who, exactly, will be able to access shots this fall. While Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and some of his staff claim anyone will be able to access a shot in consultation with their doctor, medical groups are warning that the new guidance will impact a broad swath of people, including postpartum people and healthy children.
“For children and young adults that I see, there are constraints, and they are significant,” said Dr. Molly O’Shea, a pediatrician in Michigan and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).
It might also take several more weeks to know who will be able to receive no-cost COVID-19 vaccines covered by health insurance. That decision partly depends on formal recommendations from a vaccine panel that isn’t scheduled to meet until mid-September.
Actions by the Food and Drug Administration last week mean that none of the COVID-19 vaccines that are slated to be on the U.S. market this fall will have an emergency use authorization that had allowed their quick (yet still rigorously tested) approval at the height of the pandemic. The removal of this designation means the drug company Pfizer will no longer offer COVID-19 vaccines to very young children, limiting parents’ brand options and potentially impacting supply.
Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax, the three main COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, have all shared news releases about what they’ve been approved to offer:
Moderna, Pfizer or Novavax will offer shots to anyone who is 65 and older, irrespective of medical history.
Pfizer will offer shots to anyone between the ages of five and 64 if they have at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19.
Moderna will offer shots to anyone between six months and 64 if they have at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19.
Novavax, the only company providing a non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, will offer shots to anyone between 12 and 64 if they have at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19.
The vaccine panel known as the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) is expected to make formal recommendations on these FDA-approved vaccines, and those recommendations have historically determined whether insurance providers will cover a vaccine at no cost under insurance.
An HHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for information and comment from The 19th, but in a post on X, Kennedy said: “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.” Separately, USA Today reported on a document from HHS stating the FDA’s actions do “not affect access to these vaccines for healthy individuals. These vaccines remain available to those who choose them in consultation with their healthcare provider.”
Dr. Marty Makary, FDA commissioner, added in a separate X post: “100% of adults in this country can still get the vaccine if they choose. We are not limiting availability to anyone.”
But what that means practically for everyday people who want to access a COVID-19 shot — everything from whether their doctor will prescribe it, or if a pharmacy will be able to administer it, and whether there will be an out-of-pocket cost — is unclear for now.
How will it impact postpartum people?
Pregnant people are expected to still have access to the vaccine because the CDC continues to list pregnancy as an underlying condition that puts an individual at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19. (The list of at least two dozen conditions also includes chronic health conditions and immunocompromised conditions.)
Lactating and postpartum individuals must have an underlying medical condition to be eligible for one of the FDA’s approved vaccines, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)’s understanding of the announcement. ACOG continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination to people who are contemplating pregnancy, are pregnant, were recently pregnant or are now lactating.
“We recognize that now, disappointingly, only lactating and postpartum individuals with an underlying condition will be eligible for vaccination. Still, it remains critical that pregnant patients receive the vaccines so that they are able to provide passive immunity from COVID-19 to their infants in those first few months of life before they can be vaccinated,” said ACOG President Steven J. Fleischman in an email.
How will it impact healthy children?
Healthy children will likely still be able to access the COVID vaccine, but the cost for a parent or guardian, as well as availability, will be impacted by these decisions.
Charlotte A. Moser, co-director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said parents who want to get their kids the COVID-19 vaccine should still be able to do so through what is called shared clinical decision-making in consultation with their child’s health care provider, according to the CDC’s current vaccine schedule. But it’s unclear whether this will change when ACIP meets again.
But physicians who prescribe a COVID-19 vaccine outside of the parameters of how the FDA approved them would be OKing use of the shot “off-label” — a designation that means a medical product is being used outside of how the FDA approved it. That raises questions about access and cost. Physicians might not be willing to prescribe off-label because of concerns about liability.
“I think that there will be a substantially smaller number of pediatricians, pharmacies, etc., who will be comfortable taking that risk,” O’Shea said.
Dr. Dial Hewlett, medical director of tuberculosis services at Westchester County Department of Health in New York and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said an off-label prescription might also not be covered by insurance.
“A mother or father can go in with their child and say, ‘I’d like for them to have the vaccine,’ but they may be told, ‘Well we’ll give it, but you’re going to have to pay $200,’” he said.
The science on COVID vaccines has consistently indicated they are safe for children to receive. (Joseph Prezioso / AFP / Getty Images)
Depending on the circumstances, pharmacists may also not be able to provide off-label vaccines. Some states tie pharmacist immunization authority to FDA approval,which has the potential to create a hodgepodge of access. The New York Times reported that CVS and Walgreens, the country’s largest pharmacy chains, have begun restricting COVID-19 shots in some states to people with a prescription.
“There may be some variability from state to state, but it’s a big barrier if FDA approval is not there, and the FDA approvals have been pulled back from where they were previously,” Hewlett said.
The FDA announcement is “concerning,” added Moser, who noted that limiting Pfizer’s vaccine will make it more difficult for all children to get a COVID-19 vaccine this year because of anticipated supply limitations.
O’Shea, the pediatrician in Michigan, said her office is currently deciding how many COVID-19 shots to stock, and it’s proving tricky as they weigh the cost vs. demand — the percentage of children under 18 getting the shot is under 15 percent.
“Figuring out how much we want to have at any one time, and how we are going to give it to people — this really makes it a lot more complicated,” she said.
What happens next?
Moser said the announcement adds confusion for providers and families, and noted that the unilateral approach by Kennedy so far when it comes to vaccine policy “removes hundreds of voices of clinicians and scientists that were part of the process.” Moser recently served on ACIP and is among the members that Kennedy removed. He has replaced the panel with people who do not have relevant experience.
“That army of voices ensured a process informed by clinical experience and scientific expertise to which the small group making these decisions now cannot possibly compare,” she said in an email.
The revamped ACIP panel is scheduled to meet over two days beginning on September 18. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a doctor who is chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, is now questioning whether that panel has enough legitimacy to meet, especially amid a leadership shakeup at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Serious allegations have been made about the meeting agenda, membership, and lack of scientific process being followed for the now announced September ACIP meeting,” he said in a statement. “These decisions directly impact children’s health and the meeting should not occur until significant oversight has been conducted. If the meeting proceeds, any recommendations made should be rejected as lacking legitimacy given the seriousness of the allegations and the current turmoil in CDC leadership.”
AAP called Kennedy’s latest COVID guidelines “deeply troubling” and urged COVID vaccine decision-making to remain between medical experts and families.
Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of AAP, said in a statement that any barrier to COVID-19 vaccination as the nation enters the respiratory virus season creates “a dangerous vulnerability for children and their families.”
“Any parent who wants their child vaccinated should have access to this vaccine,” she said, adding that HHS’ action “not only prevents this option for many families, but adds further confusion and stress for parents trying to make the best choices for their children.”
More Californians are using paid family leave benefits to care for a child after a new state law that increased payments for parents went into effect in January, according to new state data.
Claims in the first two quarters this year were up about 16%, compared with the same time period last year, according to data provided to LAist from the California Employment Development Department.
Anne Chapuis, public information officer for EDD, said several factors contributed to the uptick.
“The January 2025 benefit rate adjustment has led to higher benefit amounts for eligible customers. Also, we typically see a higher seasonal number of claims submitted near the end of each calendar year,” Chapuis said in an email.
While claims tend to tick up at the beginning of every calendar year, the uptick in the first quarter of 2025 was nearly 25% higher than the same period last year.
Before this year’s change, most workers got up to 60% of their income when they took time off to care for a new baby. Now, many workers can get up to 90% of their wages.
The changes stemmed from legislation in 2022 that aimed to allow more families to be able to take leave, especially low-income workers. Prior analysis showed that higher-income workers were using paid family leave benefits at much higher rates than workers making less than $20,000 a year.
For those making under $20,000, claims were up about 2%, while claims for those making under $60,000 were up 17%.
How paid family leave works
Currently, moms and dads can get up to eight weeks of paid family leave to bond with a new child. That’s in addition to the paid time off pregnant people get before and after giving birth to a child.
The paid family leave program in California is funded through the State Disability Insurance program, which covers about 18 million employees in the state. Workers pay into this fund with 1.2% taken out of their paychecks (it usually shows up on paystubs as “CASDI”).
Workers who make less than $63,000 a year can get up to 90% pay — workers who make above that get 70%.
Miscarriage leave policies are a blind spot on many college campuses, one that urgently needs to be addressed.
For me, losing my unborn child to miscarriage exposed an uncomfortable truth about the academy. While we are encouraged to, and should be expected to, show compassion and care for our students who endure unimaginable life circumstances, there is little to no formal infrastructure in place to support the inevitable suffering of faculty.
In the wake of my unexpected miscarriage and subsequent related surgery, I was profoundly struggling. I found out at nine weeks of gestation that I’d experienced what’s called a missed miscarriage, and what followed were weeks of mental and physical pain. Despite the traumatic nature of these events, I returned to work and continued with lesson preparation, grading and responding to emails as quickly as humanly possible, given the circumstances.
Contrast this to how we seek, rightly, to treat our students. A pedagogy of care centers on human connection and empathy to guide and support students who are struggling. It creates a culture and climate of care for students that extends beyond the classroom. For instance, students who experience miscarriage during the academic semester are protected under Title IX. This means we provide our students who have miscarriages with the proper support and grieving time so as not to derail their semesters. On my campus, if a student is going through a mental health crisis or a loss like a miscarriage, we are advised to send them to the counseling center, where they can be provided with one-on-one counseling sessions and proper resources to help with their care.
This same structure of care that has been put in place for our students isn’t in place for faculty. As professor and scholar Maha Bali notes, an authentic pedagogy of care should recognize that faculty also need care, asking institutions to support instructors with policies and structures that allow them to do their jobs well without burning out. Though employees are protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, we don’t always have the same resources on campus for faculty and staff who are struggling with mental health issues as a result of a miscarriage. More campuses should follow the model of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where faculty members can access counseling on campus through the Employee Counseling and Consultation Office.
For women in academia who have endured a miscarriage, the historical silence surrounding the experience lends itself to even greater feelings of isolation and loneliness. It adds to barriers to success and tenure. Between 15 and 20 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, but the stigma surrounding it keeps women quiet. I work in a supportive department, where my chair and many of my colleagues never hesitated to provide me with what I needed. However, that is not the case for everyone. Even in my case, there was still a significant amount of logistical work to consider.
When I miscarried, I knew that I’d have to cancel classes because of the physical toll it took on my body and the subsequent recovery from surgery. However, that also meant reorganizing my semester to accommodate my students’ needs. The nature of the academic year leaves little room for flexibility in canceling classes and reorganizing lessons and as such, requires considerable time and effort to do so. This detracted from my ability to grieve and heal, physically and emotionally. During times of loss, faculty shouldn’t have to think twice about mundane details; they should have a clearly outlined miscarriage policy they can turn to so there is no question they are entitled to the leave they need.
Too often on college campuses, there is a lack of visibility and clarity on how faculty can access help. Fair and caring policies, such as a standalone miscarriage policy, provide time and space for faculty members to grieve, while also clearly defining the rights of faculty, staff, and administrators and ensuring consistent treatment when an employee experiences a loss. As Grace Ellen Brannon and Catherine L. Riley suggest in their book chapter, “Missed Realities About Miscarriage in Academia,” such policy or guidance documents typically include “(1) information on how managers can offer practical and emotional support during and after a loss, and (2) managers’ responsibilities when it comes to practical support. They also include (3) other relevant policies, including medical absence and maternity or family leave policies, alongside any relevant mental health or well-being policies.”
In the United Kingdom, the University of Essex has a policy in which a pregnant employee who experiences a miscarriage is eligible for “pregnancy-related” sick leave, with no time limit on sick days one can take for miscarriage leave (partners or others affected are also eligible for “compassionate or special leave”). In addition, the policy outlines resources for department chairs (called line managers in the U.K.) to help them implement these policies for their faculty in the most humane way possible, as well as ideas for how to facilitate a return to work for employees who find it understandably difficult in the aftermath of pregnancy loss.
One promising example in the United States comes from the University of Santa Clara, which has a Reproductive Loss Leave policy, which clearly outlines the time an employee can take off with pay in the event of a reproductive loss, defined as a “failed adoption, failed surrogacy, miscarriage, stillbirth, or an unsuccessful assisted reproduction.” At the University of Arizona, the paid parental leave program allocates two weeks of paid leave in the event of a miscarriage. Outside academe, a growing number of private-sector employees are adding miscarriage leave policies. But these examples still seem to be the exception, not the norm.
Although our institutions may not be fully equipped yet, we can start showing support for our colleagues who have experienced miscarriage in small ways, whether through acts of care on an individual level or the development of formal peer support groups.
Sometimes all we need is to be heard. The sheer act of listening can go a long way, but doesn’t replace the need for structural change. In the aftermath of my loss, one colleague reached out with a simple email, which read in part, “If you ever need to talk, I’m here.” And so, in the depths of my loss, I knocked on his door, walked into his office, and with tears in my eyes, asked, “Can I talk?” We sat, crying with one another about our respective losses and the stress of it all, and I left feeling lighter. I felt lighter because I felt love and care from my colleague.
As bell hooks argues, love is not merely an emotion, but a practice and choice that can transform teaching and learning. I encourage us all to take a step back and listen to each other. I’m certain if you listen closely enough, you’ll hear what your colleagues need, and it’s probably love. Love in the form of small acts of care and open dialogue about miscarriage is a start. Love in the form of miscarriage-specific policies that demonstrate our institutions’ care for us is the end goal. Ultimately, we need policies that acknowledge the material reality of loss, help to reduce the invisible emotional labor of miscarriage by providing short-term teaching relief for affected faculty, and allow us to grieve and heal with dignity.
Alyse Keller Johnson is a writer and associate professor of communication studies at Kingsborough Community College, part of the City University of New York. Her research and writing tackle themes of health, illness, motherhood and grief and can be found at alysekellerjohnson.com.
By Dani Payne, Senior Researcher and Education Lead at the Social Market Foundation.
University remains the most effective pathway for disadvantaged individuals to achieve upward social mobility. Graduates earn more, are less likely to be unemployed, and report higher levels of health, happiness and civic engagement. Yet, despite this individual impact, higher education’s benefits often fail to translate into positive outcomes for local communities.
Recent research from the Sutton Trust ranked constituencies by social mobility. Most interesting is the bottom 20. More than half have at least one university within their immediate locality, and some have as many as 18 in their wider region. Essentially, having a university – or, indeed, many universities – in your region doesn’t guarantee improved local social mobility.
The need for a new social mobility framework
The government’s ‘opportunity mission’ is built on the principle that every child, in every community, should have a fair chance to succeed.
But rising costs, frozen maintenance support, demographic shifts and widening attainment gaps threaten progress made on access. Moreover, targets tend to be institution-specific, creating duplications and silos, and encouraging competition between providers. Selective universities continue to meet access targets by disproportionately recruiting disadvantaged pupils from high-attaining London boroughs, leaving local disadvantaged learners behind – even when world-class institutions are right on their doorstep.
We must broaden how we assess universities’ social mobility impact. To be able to understand when, why and how the benefits of an institution do or don’t reach into local communities, we must also consider their roles as major employers, civic actors and research hubs.
In our new report, Leave to Achieve?, we set out a new framework for how universities can conceptualise and measure their local social mobility contribution. The framework consists of four key pillars, underpinned by the need for regional collaboration and long-term planning.
1. Educational opportunities for local people
Access to higher education varies starkly by region: 27% of disadvantaged pupils in London hold an undergraduate degree by age 22, compared to just 10% in the South West.
Universities must work with local schools and colleges to raise attainment and create alternative entry pathways. They should be considering the extent to which they nurture and recruit talent locally, supporting pupils to progress and succeed. A place-based approach to widening participation, developed collaboratively with other regional providers, ensures local talent is not just nurtured but retained.
Some existing initiatives show promise. Durham Inspired North East Scholarships, Middlesex’s guaranteed offer scheme for local applicants, and the Warwick Scholar’s program providing financial, academic and practical support to local disadvantaged pupils, all show how targeted programs can work at a local level. However, articulation agreements with local further education providers are underutilised in England, and inconsistent contextual admissions policies limit impact.
2. Good jobs for local people
Universities are often the largest, or among the largest, employers in the local region. This is often cited to give the impression that they are ‘too big to fail’, particularly in the current financial context. But little has been done to look at the extent to which universities are providing good jobs to local people, and whether these are open to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Academic roles provide an opportunity for social mobility – for those who can secure one. For someone from a lower socioeconomic background to become a lecturer, for example, they have almost certainly experienced upwards occupational social mobility, if not also absolute (income) social mobility, too. Similarly, professional service roles are often well paid and secure, with a reasonable pension, and working within a university comes with a certain amount of cultural and social prestige, too.
A university performing strongly in this area would be spearheading initiatives to support local people from disadvantaged backgrounds into some of these roles and supporting staff from lower socioeconomic backgrounds whilst they are there. Southampton’s staff social mobility network stands out here, specifically recognising and seeking to tackle barriers in recruitment, retention and career progress for those from working-class backgrounds.
3. Using research to address local needs
Research within institutions should address local needs and tackle inequalities, with outputs shared with local communities. Local residents should have opportunities to be involved in research and should understand why research carried out in their region is valuable.
There are excellent examples in this area, such as UWE Bristol’s ‘Engagement with Education‘ programme and London Metropolitan’s participatory knowledge exchange projects. But these remain examples of best – not yet standard – practice.
4. Civic actors: Lead locally, collaborate regionally
As civic institutions, universities must be more deeply integrated within their localities. Despite growing attention to civic engagement, activity is often fragmented and lacking an overarching strategy. Participation in local skills planning is inconsistent, and incentives to foster collaboration across providers are weak.
Great Manchester’s Civic Agreement is a great example of universities coming together with local leaders to work towards shared goals, recognising that collaboration is far more effective than competition, duplication, or silos. The South West Social Mobility Commission takes this a step further, bringing together all education providers (not just higher education), businesses, local leaders and third-sector organisations to promote better social mobility in the region.
A call to action
This framework is not a checklist, but a tool for reflection. We do not expect every institution to be a star performer in every pillar, but we do see value in measuring impact more holistically, across the full range of university activity.
Universities should ask themselves:
Are we reaching local disadvantaged students?
Are we getting local people into good jobs, and are these jobs available to those from all social class backgrounds?
Is our research making a tangible difference to local challenges?
Are we truly embedded as civic leaders in our region?
Only by addressing these questions can we begin to understand how – and when – the presence of a university does improve social mobility in its immediate communities. And only then can we ensure that local people no longer feel that they must leave in order to achieve.
