Tag: multiple

  • Side hustles, moonlighting, resting actors, and multiple jobholding in creative work

    Side hustles, moonlighting, resting actors, and multiple jobholding in creative work

    How do creatives sustain their careers?

    We used large UK datasets to map how careers work in creative occupations, showing how having a second job is twice as prevalent in key creative jobs than occupations; mixing creative and non-creative jobs is normal, especially outside London; and having a non-creative main job and a creative “side hustle” rarely leads to a single full-time creative job.

    Having multiple jobs isn’t a stepping-stone into full-time creative work. It is how creatives sustain their careers.

    Who has two jobs?

    We used the UK Labour Force Survey (2015–2021) to look at occupational and social patterns, and Understanding Society (2011–2019) for longitudinal transitions. We used the DCMS definition of creative occupations, rather than industries (so graphic designers working in retail are in, accountants working in theatres are out). We also developed a typology of multiple jobholding: portfolio (both jobs creative); main creative (creative main job plus a non-creative second job); side creative (non-creative main job plus a creative second job).

    We found that having a second job is almost twice as common for core creative workers, (arts/culture production such as music, performance, visual arts, publishing, museums/libraries, film/TV/photo) compared to the rest of the workforce (6.8 per cent, against 3.5 per cent) but less common (3.2 per cent) for non-core creative jobs (advertising, architecture, crafts, design, IT). Some roles are extreme outliers, with relatively high proportions of actors (14 per cent) and musicians (12.8 per cent) having second jobs.

    These proportions are higher than the general workforce, but they are also lower than popular discourse might suggest. This might be explained by how the data is collected (both jobs need to have been worked at during the same, specified, week). Even with this note of caution, the demographic patterns of multiple jobholding, and changes over time, give important insights into creative careers.

    The type of second job held by people whose first job is creative is important. For those with second jobs, 38 per cent of those jobs are in other core creative occupations- true “portfolio” work. A further 27.5 per cent of those jobs are professional but non-creative roles, especially teaching and corporate training. And 25.5 per cent are non-creative, non-professional roles, for example retail, hospitality and admin roles.

    Even more notable was the size of the core creative workforce whose creative occupation was a second job: there are far more people with a non-creative first job and core creative second job (about 113,000 per year) than there are core creatives with a second job (about 54,000 per year). In other words, where people have two jobs, creative work is more often the add-on rather than the main job.

    What other characteristics have an impact?

    Our analysis compared multiple jobholders to creatives with a single job, and found that combining creative and non-creative work is significantly more likely outside London. Outside the capital, sustaining a purely creative main job looks harder, and mixing jobs is more common.

    Portfolio workers are more likely to be graduates and to come from non-middle class backgrounds than are single-job creatives. Side creatives are much more likely to be employees (rather than self-employed) in their main job, suggesting that it is more about balancing income volatility than it is about enjoying the freedom of self-employment. However, main creatives are less likely to be employees—reflecting the prevalence of self-employment in core creative roles. And side creatives are more likely to be men.

    Part-time work signals both constraint and choice: creatives in multiple jobs are more likely to work part-time because they couldn’t find full-time work—but also more likely to say they didn’t want full-time, suggesting both labour market scarcity and preferences are in play.

    Covid changed things, but did not totally overturn these patterns. In 2021 the share of workers making their living only from creative jobs fell, while main and side creative patterns increased—consistent with pandemic disruption pushing creatives to diversify.

    Does a creative side-job turn into a creative main job?

    After one year, portfolio and main creatives are somewhat more likely to move to a single creative job (45 per cent and 39 per cent, respectively) than to remain in their dual-job pattern (31 per cent and 36 per cent). Side creatives mostly remain side creatives – they rarely report a single creative job after a year. After three years, the pattern hardens: side creatives are still the least likely to have moved into a single creative job. Dual-jobholding looks like a strategy for persisting with a creative career rather than transitioning fully to a single creative job.

    Policymakers should understand that dual jobholding is an endemic and long-lasting feature of creative work. It needs to be incorporated into “good work” policies, rather than removed completely from the creative economy. It can be an important counterbalance to income volatility associated with creative projects.

    This research also has implications for one of the common measures of success for graduates, which specifies a good, skilled, full-time job. Creative occupations are counted as skilled, but the LFS analysis shows how difficult it is to find full time creative work, and that creative work is highly likely to be hidden behind primary employment in a less-skilled occupation. This means that in various places, including regulatory outcomes and league tables, there is a likelihood of positive outcomes for creative graduates being under-reported.

    At the same time, policy must address the inequalities associated with creatives and second jobs. For example, the chances of making a living solely from creative work outside London are substantially lower, and London-centric career pathways are unrealistic for many during a cost-of-living crisis.

    For many creatives, multiple jobholding isn’t a stepping stone on the way to a single steady role, it’s their actual career. It should not be understood as a failure to “achieve” a single creative job. It is a pragmatic but unequal employment pattern, which needs to be accounted for in industrial strategies.

    Source link

  • Multiple HBCUs Go On Lockdown in Response to Threats

    Multiple HBCUs Go On Lockdown in Response to Threats

    At least seven historically Black colleges and universities across the country went into lockdown on Thursday after institutions received threats, which they did not elaborate on.

    Southern University and A&M College in Louisiana asked those on campus to shelter in place in response to a “potential threat to campus safety.”

    The lockdown applied to the “entire Baton Rouge landmass,” including the Southern University Law Center, the Agricultural Research and Extension Center, and the university’s Laboratory School, according to a statement from the institution.

    The lockdown lifted in the afternoon, but all classes and campus activities were canceled through the weekend.

    Alabama State University also received a “terroristic threat,” university officials told local media outlets, and shut down campus as law enforcement officials checked buildings. The university sent an all-clear notice later in the day, noting that “the immediate threat has been resolved,” but told students to continue to shelter in place.

    Two HBCUs in Virginia were also targeted.

    Virginia State University went into lockdown while local, state and federal law enforcement agencies investigated the credibility of a threat received earlier that day, according to a message from the Virginia State University Office of Communications and University Relations. University officials assured students, “No injuries or incidents have been reported in connection with the threat” and said they would be provided with meals in university housing during the lockdown.

    Hampton University canceled all activities and classes for both Thursday and Friday in response to a potential threat. Students were discouraged from moving across campus unless absolutely necessary, and all nonessential employees were told to “evacuate immediately” in a notice on the university’s website.

    A threat at Bethune-Cookman University in Florida also forced the university to cancel classes and go into lockdown. A notice from the university told students to go to their dorms and faculty and staff members to leave campus.

    Spelman College in Atlanta didn’t receive a threat but issued a shelter-in-place order because of its proximity to Clark-Atlanta University, which did. The order was lifted around 2 p.m.

    Howard University, in Washington, D.C., assured students the institution hadn’t received any threats but would maintain “heightened security.”

    “At Howard, we denounce all acts of hate designed to foster fear in our communities,” an update from the university read. “Howard stands in solidarity with our fellow HBCUs.”

    A predominantly white institution, the University of Central Florida, also reported receiving a threat Thursday. The Orlando Sentinel, which obtained a copy via an anonymous tipster, reported that the expletive-laden message threatened Black students and referenced the killing of Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee stabbed on a train in North Carolina.

    A message from the UCF Police Department Thursday afternoon said, “Similar messages have been reported at other universities around the country.” The police department added it was working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assess the threat but does not consider it “to be credible.”

    In what appears to be an unrelated incident, the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., went on lockdown Thursday evening after suspicious activity was reported on campus, The Baltimore Banner reported. One person was injured as Naval Security Forces cleared a building.

    Florida A&M University, an HBCU, did not receive any threats but put out a statement of solidarity with institutions on lockdown.

    Rep. Troy A. Carter, a Democrat from Louisiana, posted on X that he was “outraged and deeply disturbed” by the threats to HBCUs.

    “These reprehensible acts are not only an attack on institutions of higher learning—they are an attack on our history, our culture, and the promise of opportunity that HBCUs represent for generations of students,” Carter wrote. In a statement, he called on the federal government “to utilize every available resource to identify, apprehend, and prosecute those responsible.”

    The Congressional Black Caucus also put out a statement calling for action from the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI. Caucus members described the threats as a “chilling reminder of the relentless racism and extremism that continues to target and terrorize Black communities in this country.”

    The rash of violent threats is reminiscent of a wave of bomb threats that targeted HBCUs in 2022 and prompted the FBI to get involved. The HBCU campus lockdowns also come on the heels of a series of false calls to colleges and universities about active shooters last month; an online extremist group claimed responsibility for the hoaxes.



    Source link

  • What Multiple Intelligences Can Teach Us About Enrollment Marketing

    What Multiple Intelligences Can Teach Us About Enrollment Marketing

    Each student has a different way of perceiving, processing, and connecting with information.

    If you have ever wondered why one student peppers you with questions during a campus tour while another spends the visit sketching buildings, possibly giving your founder’s statue a comically large nose, you may have met what psychologist Howard Gardner calls multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 1999).

    Gardner proposed that intelligence is not a single metric but a collection of capabilities: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Each shapes how a student processes the world and how they connect during the college search. If you have ever tried to woo a future engineer with poetic descriptions of ivy-covered halls, you know: some want facts, others want a vibe, and a few want to hear about your beekeeping club.

    From theory to practice

    In K–12 education, Gardner’s theory inspired teachers to differentiate instruction to meet students where they are. Teachers understand that linguistic learners thrive in storytelling and debate. Kinesthetic learners act out history. Visual-spatial thinkers create models and posters.

    Preferences also carry into decision-making. A student with strong interpersonal intelligence may thrive in group discussion, while an intrapersonal learner prefers reflection (Shearer, 2018).

    A colleague once hosted two prospective students on the same tour. One chatted nonstop with ambassadors about clubs. The other hung back, took notes, and later emailed questions about academics. Both left a positive impression, but they connected in entirely different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

    From classroom to campus tour

    This theory has clear enrollment applications (statistics are from the 2025 E-Expectations Report from RNL, Halda, and Modern Campus).

    • Bodily-kinesthetic learners may need to walk your campus to “get” it physically. Eighty percent of students visit in person, and 88% find visits helpful.
    • Visual-spatial learners may prefer your virtual tour; 77% use it, and 84% find it helpful.
    • Musical learners might connect emotionally through audio, pacing, or sound design in videos.
    • Interpersonal learners thrive in authentic conversations, one-on-one chats, and social media DMs. Twenty-seven percent follow colleges on social as an early outreach step; 37% do so for student life content.
    • Intrapersonal learners might prefer ROI tools, microsites, or downloadable guides.
    • Logical-mathematical learners value dashboards, calculators, and evidence-based outcomes. Financial aid calculators are used by 81% and rated helpful by 85%.

    When the fit feels off

    Each intelligence has a “no-thanks” zone:

    • Kinesthetic learners disengage from dense PDFs.
    • Visual-spatial thinkers lose interest in text-heavy pages.
    • Musical learners notice when tone and pacing are off.
    • Interpersonal learners tire of one-way communication.
    • Intrapersonal learners feel drained by busy group events.
    • Logical-mathematical thinkers want facts, not fluff.
    • Linguistic learners need narrative and nuance.
    • Naturalistic learners respond to sustainability stories, not generic city skylines.

    E-Expectations data confirm this. Sixty-three percent of students use Instagram, but only 53% see college content there, missing visual, musical, and interpersonal opportunities. Nearly half (45%) use AI chatbots, and 27% fill out inquiry forms afterward, showing these tools’ value for personalization (RNL et al., 2025).

    AI as a multiple intelligences tool

    AI chatbots can adapt content type, video, infographic, or ROI data, to match a student’s preference. After engaging with an AI assistant, 24% of students said they were more likely to apply, and 29% emailed admissions (RNL et al., 2025).

    This is not about tech for tech’s sake. It is about designing digital interactions that honor different learning and connecting methods.

    Matching intelligences to enrollment touchpoints

    Each intelligence represents a unique way of perceiving, processing, and connecting with information. Your emails, tours, and inquiry forms can spark curiosity or shut it down, depending on how well they align.

    Ask yourself:

    • Are you offering an “entry point” for every kind of learner?
    • Where are your blind spots?
    • What simple tweaks could widen the invitation?

    This is not about building eight separate funnels. It is about creating a flexible ecosystem where every student can find something that feels made for them.

    Multiple intelligences and enrollment touchpoints

    Intelligence Type How They Process and Connect Enrollment Strategies That Click Common Turnoffs
    Linguistic Love stories, strong narratives, nuanced language Student blogs, alum success stories, narrative-driven videos, compelling email subject lines Dry fact sheets with no story
    Logical-Mathematical Seek patterns, data, and ROI Cost calculators, outcome dashboards, program comparison tools Emotion-heavy marketing without evidence
    Visual-Spatial Think in images, layouts Virtual tours, interactive maps, infographics, campus photo galleries Text-heavy pages without visuals
    Musical Respond to rhythm, tone, sound Videos with thoughtful sound design, podcasts, and student performances Flat, monotone content
    Bodily-Kinesthetic Learn by doing, moving Campus tours, hands-on events, and fairs Long static presentations or PDFs
    Interpersonal Thrive in connection with others One-on-one ambassador chats, live Q&A, small group sessions, social DMs One-way mass communication with no response path
    Intrapersonal Reflective, self-directed Self-paced microsites, outcome quizzes, downloadable guides Crowded events, high-pressure group calls
    Naturalistic Connect through nature and real-world context. Sustainability initiatives, green campus tours, and community-based learning stories Generic marketing is disconnected from the environment.

    (Table adapted from Gardner 1983, 1999; RNL et al, 2025.)

    Final thought

    You do not need a degree in educational psychology to use multiple intelligences in enrollment strategy. You need to remember that students are cognitively and emotionally diverse (Gardner, 1983, 1999).

    The smartest move? Offer multiple ways to connect and then let students choose.

    Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts

    RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges.  Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:

    • Student search strategies
    • Omnichannel communication campaigns
    • Personalization and engagement at scale

    Request now

    References

    Source link

  • UChicago Freezing Ph.D. Admissions for Multiple Programs

    UChicago Freezing Ph.D. Admissions for Multiple Programs

    The University of Chicago’s Arts and Humanities Division is reducing how many new Ph.D. students it admits for the 2026–27 academic year across about half of its departments and completely halting Ph.D. admissions elsewhere. Multiple language programs are among those affected.

    In a Tuesday email that Inside Higher Ed obtained, Arts and Humanities dean Deborah Nelson told faculty, staff and Ph.D. students, “We will accept a smaller overall Ph.D. cohort across seven departments: Art History, Cinema and Media Studies, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, English Language and Literature, Linguistics, Music (composition), and Philosophy.” The university didn’t tell Inside Higher Ed how many fewer Ph.D. students would be accepted across those departments.

    “Other departments will pause admissions,” Nelson wrote.

    Andrew Ollett, an associate professor of South Asian languages and civilizations, said that means no new Ph.D. students for these departments: classics, comparative literature, Germanic studies, Middle Eastern studies, Romance languages and literatures, Slavic languages and literatures, and South Asian languages and civilizations, plus the ethnomusicology and history and theory of music programs in the music department.

    While the university didn’t provide an interview or respond to multiple written questions, a spokesperson did point out that the UChicago Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy and Practice is also pausing Ph.D. admissions, while the Harris School of Public Policy is pausing admissions for the Harris Ph.D., the political economy Ph.D. and the master of arts in public policy with certificate in research methods.

    “A small number of PhD and master’s programs at the University of Chicago will pause admissions for the 2026–2027 academic year while divisions and schools undertake comprehensive reviews of the programs’ missions and structures,” UChicago said in a statement. It said the aim is “ensuring the highest-quality training for the next generation of scholars” and the pauses “will not affect currently enrolled students.”

    UChicago, which faces debt issues, has become yet another example of well-known universities freezing or scaling back Ph.D. admissions and programs amid financial pressures and other factors. In November, before Trump retook the presidency, Boston University said it was pausing accepting new Ph.D. students in a dozen humanities and social sciences programs, including philosophy, English and history. In February, the Universities of Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh announced pauses, following other institutions. 

    But UChicago’s reductions for language programs also reflect a broader trend of universities scaling back foreign language education offerings. In 2023, West Virginia University became infamous in academe for its leaders’ decision to eliminate all foreign language degrees.

    “It’s sad and pathetic,” Ollett said of the pause at UChicago, “because it represents the domination of one set of values, which is money, over the values that we say that we are pursuing in our lives as faculty members, as educators and as researchers.”

    He argued that the university can’t say it’s committed to the humanities as a field for producing knowledge while turning away from Ph.D. programs.

    Nelson’s email said, “This one-time decision applies only to the 2026–2027 academic year.” But Clifford Ando, the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Classics, History and the College, questioned whether this is just a pause.

    “I see no reason to think that we would resume doctoral education if we are simultaneously dismantling the curricula that sustain undergraduate training in these fields,” Ando wrote in an email sent to a classical studies Listserv. “Why would one have a doctoral program in a discipline that undergraduates can’t even study?”

    Ollett also said this comes as Nelson has pushed to consolidate smaller departments. He said a big question for the coming academic year was “Do we do Ph.D. admissions if we’re not sure that our department is going to exist?”

    Not Rule by Committee

    Ando provided Inside Higher Ed the “charge” UChicago gave to the Arts and Humanities Languages Working Group on June 17.

    “UChicago is known as a global leader in the instruction of ancient and modern languages,” the charge begins. “Language instruction and expertise is not simply a valuable object in its own right; it is an important foundation for the larger UChicago College education, for graduate education, and for the research and scholarship of our faculty.”

    But it then says, “language instruction at this extraordinary scope is also expensive.” It listed several questions for the committee to explore, including:

    • “Should there be a universal or suggested minimum number of students?
    • “Do we need to teach every class every year?
    • “Are there languages we no longer need to teach?
    • “Are there opportunities for partnerships with peer institutions (with similar standards and schedules) to share language instruction?
    • “How can we use technology more effectively to support and enhance language instruction?”

    Ollett said, “We teach more than 50 languages in the division, which seems to be too much because the committee was asked to find ways of getting that number down.”

    Tyler Williams, another associate professor in the South Asian languages and civilizations department and a member of the committee, said the committee members “unanimously declined to endorse any of the suggestions about cutting languages or outsourcing language teaching.” He said Nelson “did not wait for the committee to submit its report,” nor did she “consult with that committee before she made this decision.”

    Ando also provided the charge for a separate Ph.D. Working Group, which outlined a number of “existential challenges” for Ph.D. programs. Those include significantly reduced demand for entry-level faculty, increasing costs for the university and long times to degree, which can deter students.

    Additionally, the document notes that the programs are facing “heightened public skepticism about the value of what is taught in Arts & Humanities PhD programs, and how it is taught. Yet Ph.D. programs remain a critical part of the research university model, necessary to teaching, research, scholarship, and creativity.”

    Among other questions, that committee was asked to explore whether there should be a minimum size for Ph.D. cohorts in order to offer a program.

    Williams said that this committee indicated it wasn’t going to endorse an admissions pause, but said it should be divisionwide if it occurred.

    Nelson’s email announcing the changes stressed that “this decision is not the recommendation of any committee.”

    Williams said the Ph.D. admissions cuts are part of “a crisis manufactured by the university administration itself.” Ollett said he worries for the future of their field.

    “We are quite unique in that there’s not a lot of South Asia area studies departments in the United States, and especially ones that train the next generation of scholars,” he said. He said he’s “already turned away prospective Ph.D. students because of this, and that’s just going to keep happening.”

    He said he worries that “if we’re not doing it, no one will do it, and the field will wither and die.”

    Source link

  • Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

    Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

    Federal officials are accusing Duke University’s law journal and medical school of racial discrimination.

    Duke University file photo

    The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services are investigating Duke University and the Duke Law Journal for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race and national origin, the agencies announced Monday.

    The New York Times reported Tuesday night that the Trump administration froze $108 million in federal grants and contracts at Duke’s medical school and health system.

    On Monday, ED and HHS sent a letter detailing their concerns about potentially discriminatory practices at Duke Health and threatening the medical school’s federal funding.

    “These practices allegedly include illegal and wrongful racial preferences and discriminatory activity in recruitment, student admissions, scholarships and financial aid, mentoring and enrichment programs, hiring, promotion, and more,” the letter states, though officials didn’t offer specifics.

    The departments want Duke to “review all policies and practices at Duke Health for the illegal use of race preferences, take immediate action to reform all of those that unlawfully take account of race or ethnicity to bestow benefits or advantages, and provide clear and verifiable assurances to the government that Duke’s new policies will be implemented faithfully going forward—including by making all necessary organizational, leadership, and personnel changes to ensure the necessary reforms will be durable.”

    Additionally, the agencies want Duke to convene a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” that can negotiate with the federal government on behalf of university leaders and “avoid invasive federal engagement,” according to the letter. This request appears to be a new ask for the Trump administration as officials work to expand their scrutiny of higher education, based on what’s publicly known about investigations at other colleges.

    “We hope this arrangement will enable the parties to move quickly toward a mutually agreeable resolution of outstanding concerns and complaints,” officials wrote in the letter. “If the alleged offending policies, practices, and programs are found to exist and remain unrectified after six months, or if at any time the Merit and Civil Rights Committee and federal government reach an impasse, the federal government will commence enforcement proceedings as appropriate.”

    Duke has 10 days to respond to the request to form the committee.

    Meanwhile, the Duke Law Journal investigation, led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, centers on allegations that the journal uses factors such as race or national origin to select editors. The department opened a similar investigation into the Harvard Law Review. 

    The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, reported last month that the Duke Law Journal prepared a special application packet for affinity groups that noted applicants could get a three- to five-point bump if they have “meaningfully advanced the interests of communities with diverse perspectives and experiences either at school or in their community.” 

    Source link

  • Higher education leadership requires multiple versions of yourself

    Higher education leadership requires multiple versions of yourself

    To lead in higher education feels much like inhabiting a shifting identify.

    One moment you are a strategist expected to speak in spreadsheets and scenario plans. The next, you are a listener, empathetic, calm, human, supporting a student in distress. You leave that conversation only to enter a room full of staff in which morale is flatlining and you are now a motivational figure, expected to energise and inspire. Finish all these, and it’s not even 10am! Before the day is over, you are potentially answering questions from university leaders who want metrics, mitigations and certainty.

    If it feels like you’re performing multiple, sometimes conflicting roles across a single day, it is really because you are. And the deeper truth is that it is not a flaw – it is simply the job.

    Increasingly, leadership in universities demands what feels like a professionally sanctioned form of adaptive multiplicity. I use the phrase carefully to name a reality that many senior leaders know intimately but rarely articulate. The constant emotional and intellectual switching, the need to adjust tone, style, even the way you put your values in practice depending on the room you are in, creates a kind of managed fragmentation. Over time, this potentially leaves many leaders with a nagging internal question: who am I really in this job, and how many versions of me are left?

    Flex and strain

    This phenomenon has intensified as the sector has grown more complex, even in the short period of time of the last 15 years since I joined academia.

    Universities are now sites of competing expectations. Students see themselves as clients, citizens and many times co-creators of their learning – most of the time, all at once – and they rightfully expect to be treated accordingly. Staff expect authentic leadership that values their autonomy, but also want decisive action when systems stumble. Senior teams expect accountability, agility and strategic execution, while external bodies, in their usual “supportive approach”, demand ever increasing levels of compliance, assurance and visible grip.

    Each of these communities needs something different from their leaders. They do not all speak the same language, and thus leaders become translators, switchboards and even shape-shifters. It is not performance in the sense of fakery but it is code-switching as a leadership survival strategy.

    But even though this capacity to flex and adapt is a strength and should be firmly encouraged, it is also a source of strain. You learn to adapt so well, so naturally, that you risk forgetting what it feels to be still. You begin to filter your words so frequently that spontaneous speech starts to feel dangerous. You work hard to be authentic in different spaces but wonder whether your authenticity looks different depending on who is watching. And while you may pride yourself on being emotionally intelligent, you notice that your own emotional reserves deplete faster than they can replenish.

    This kind of labour (emotional, relational, cognitive) is almost entirely invisible in institutional language. It doesn’t appear on strategic plans or in KPIs and metrics. It is not listed in job descriptions or annual reviews. How could it even be? It is not something that can be easily defined.

    But, somehow, it is the glue that holds teams, cultures and people together. When a leader gets the tone wrong in a difficult moment, it can take weeks to rebuild trust. When they get it right, there is often no visible outcome because good leadership so often manifests as the evident absence of crisis. This is a key leadership paradox: when you do this work well, very few notice. When you falter, everyone does.

    Shifting registers

    The multiple selves of leadership are, in many ways, shaped by the multiple identities of the university itself. Higher education is a place of intellectual freedom, but also of bureaucratic machinery. It is a workplace, a community, a brand and a battleground for values. In this context, leaders are asked to be both deeply human and relentlessly strategic. You must lead with your heart while justifying decisions with data. You must be decisive without being authoritarian, empathetic without appearing weak and consistent without being rigid. All leaders will tell you it is a delicate calibration and no two days are the same.

    The benefits of this kind of psychological pluralism are real though. Leaders who are able to shift between registers can build bridges between otherwise disconnected parts of the institution. They are more likely to hear what’s not being said and they are better equipped to hold space for complexity, to manage contradictions without defaulting to simplistic solutions. In short, they are able to lead courses, curriculum areas, departments, schools, faculties, campuses or universities that are themselves fractured, plural and dynamic. But none of this is possible without deep self-awareness. Without a strong internal compass, an anchoring sense of purpose and principle, adaptive leadership risks becoming reactive or hollow.

    In my own leadership journey, across multiple roles, I have come to both respect and rely on this kind of multiplicity. It has certainly challenged me; it can be uncomfortable and exhausting to change shape so often. But it has also been one of the most professionally rewarding experiences of my life. I have learned more about people, influence, systems and purpose than I could have ever imagined. The act of switching roles deepened my empathy, sharpened my judgement and forced me to become a more deliberate values-led leader. The very difficulty of the work is in many ways what makes it so meaningful.

    What leadership in higher education increasingly requires is not just charisma, but presence. The ability to think carefully before acting, to sit with ambiguity rather than force resolution, and to adapt without losing coherence are not signs of weakness but more a mark of maturity. These are not qualities that always show up in leadership frameworks but they are often what hold institutions together when pressure mounts. In a sector where trust is easily lost and change rarely pauses, the capacity to lead with both flexibility and integrity has become more essential than ever.

    Don’t panic

    For anyone stepping into, or considering, a formal leadership role in higher education (at whatever level!) I would suggest this: know that the title does not prepare you for the internal work.

    You will be stretched in ways no leadership framework fully captures. You will need to hold contradiction, manage ambiguity and shift gears constantly. And this will be not just between meetings and conversations, but sometimes within the same sentence. It is demanding, to put it lightly, often invisible work and it can be lonely.

    But it is also deeply rewarding, transformative and full of purpose. Especially if you approach your leadership role with humility, clarity of values and a willingness to learn, unlearn, and then adapt some more. And while I believe everyone in HE is already a leader, whether they hold a title or not, those who accept formal leadership positions, regardless of the level, carry a particular responsibility – not to have all answers but to cultivate the space in which people can thrive. It is not about becoming someone else but about learning how to show up differently without ever losing who you are, what values define you.

    There is also a deeper cultural discomfort at play. History, and most frameworks, tend to favour the idea of singular leadership identity. But in a sector where the demands are multiple and shifting, I feel consistency is rarely a strength. True leadership authenticity in our sector lies not in being the same person in every room, but in being consistent in your values even as you adapt your delivery. It means having a clear sense of what matters, educationally, ethically, institutionally, and allowing that to shape the different selves you need to inhabit.

    And this is not about abandoning coherence – it is about redefining it. Leadership in HE is not a single performance, repeated daily; it is a catalogue of performances. Those who do well – again, regardless of the level which they are at – understand that they will be read differently by different audiences, and that this is not only inevitable but highly necessary. The most successful leaders are those who can integrate their different selves into a single, strategic identify, not fixed, but rooted in the same core values that act as a driving force.

    So if you, as a leader in higher education, sometimes feel like you are playing a cast of characters like Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor, do not panic. You are not alone, and you are not doing it wrong. You are doing what the job requires. You are developing a professionally disciplined multiplicity.

    Not a flaw, but a capacity. Not a weakness but a way through huge complexity. It is this ability to hold multiple selves in tension, without losing sight of the core values uniting them, that defines successful leadership in HE today. And that, just maybe, is the most authentic thing of all.

    Source link

  • Energy Department delays multiple rules after public pushback

    Energy Department delays multiple rules after public pushback

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

    The U.S. Department of Energy delayed implementation of multiple rules that it had quietly set to go into effect this week for colleges and schools that receive funding from the agency. The move comes in response to public pushback to proposed policy changes.

    The department said it was extending the effective dates for several direct final rules from July 15 to Sept. 12, 2025. The proposals would have undone some student protections related to sex discrimination under Title IX, disability discrimination under Section 504, and racial discrimination under Title VI. 

    One direct final rule, for example, would have no longer required schools to offer girls tryouts for boys’ teams in noncontact sports if the school didn’t have an equivalent girls’ team. Another would have removed protections allowing gender-conscious after-school programs or college initiatives to provide women and girls opportunities they have historically been denied, such as in STEM fields or in technical training.   

    Had the public not responded to the direct final rules with “significant adverse comments,” the rules would have undone such protections within a 30-day period — a much shorter timeline than the typical rulemaking process, which requires federal agencies to consider public feedback and make changes to their policy proposals accordingly. 

    The Trump administration’s decision to undo civil rights protections for students using expedited rulemaking — a process usually reserved for rules agencies expect to be uncontroversial — alarmed many civil rights organizations.

    Kel O’Hara, senior attorney for policy and education equity at Equal Rights Advocate, called the move a “backdoor elimination of student protections.”

    “The Trump Administration tried to exploit an obscure regulatory loophole meant only for minor administrative updates to gut fundamental protections for female athletes and transgender students,” O’Hara said in a Wednesday statement.

    Typical rulemaking would require a public notice and comment period, and a second version of the rule that takes into consideration changes based on public feedback. That process also gives school districts more time to prepare for policy changes. 

    The rules were also atypical in that they were released by the Energy Department rather than the U.S. Department of Education — meaning only schools receiving Energy Department funding would have been impacted by this set of changes. The Energy Department gave 28 schools just over $160 million in fiscal year 2025, and provides over $2.5 billion annually to more than 300 colleges and universities to fund research.

    However, had significant adverse comments not been received and delayed these rules’ implementation, and had the Energy Department been successful in its approach, the administration could have replicated the expedited method through other federal agencies to set education policies in many more schools, education policy experts predicted. 

    “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University, when the direct final rules were announced. “Basically every single school, in practically every single school district, has some grants from one of the many agencies in the federal government.” 

    Most schools receive K-12 funding from multiple agencies, such as the Energy Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

    Because of the opposition to the rules, the Energy Department must now either withdraw them entirely or issue new final rules by September 12 that take the comments into account. 

    The Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

    Source link

  • Energy Department delays multiple rules after public pushback

    Energy Department delays multiple rules after public pushback

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

    The U.S. Department of Energy delayed implementation of multiple rules that it had quietly set to go into effect this week for schools that receive funding from the agency. The move comes in response to public pushback to proposed policy changes.

    The department said it was extending the effective dates for several direct final rules from July 15 to Sept. 12, 2025. The proposals would have undone some student protections related to sex discrimination under Title IX, disability discrimination under Section 504, and racial discrimination under Title VI. 

    One direct final rule, for example, would have no longer required schools to offer girls tryouts for boys’ teams in noncontact sports if the school didn’t have an equivalent girls’ team. Another would have removed protections allowing gender-conscious after-school programs or college initiatives to provide women and girls opportunities they have historically been denied, such as in STEM fields or in technical training.   

    Had the public not responded to the direct final rules with “significant adverse comments,” the rules would have undone such protections within a 30-day period — a much shorter timeline than the typical rulemaking process, which requires federal agencies to consider public feedback and make changes to their policy proposals accordingly. 

    The Trump administration’s decision to undo civil rights protections for students using expedited rulemaking — a process usually reserved for rules agencies expect to be uncontroversial — alarmed many civil rights organizations.

    Kel O’Hara, senior attorney for policy and education equity at Equal Rights Advocate, called the move a “backdoor elimination of student protections.”

    “The Trump Administration tried to exploit an obscure regulatory loophole meant only for minor administrative updates to gut fundamental protections for female athletes and transgender students,” O’Hara said in a Wednesday statement.

    Typical rulemaking would require a public notice and comment period, and a second version of the rule that takes into consideration changes based on public feedback. That process also gives school districts more time to prepare for policy changes. 

    The rules were also atypical in that they were released by the Energy Department rather than the U.S. Department of Education — meaning only schools receiving Energy Department funding would have been impacted by this set of changes. The Energy Department gave 28 schools just over $160 million in fiscal year 2025, and provides over $2.5 billion annually to more than 300 colleges and universities to fund research.

    However, had significant adverse comments not been received and delayed these rules’ implementation, and had the Energy Department been successful in its approach, the administration could have replicated the expedited method through other federal agencies to set education policies in many more schools, education policy experts predicted. 

    “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University, when the direct final rules were announced. “Basically every single school, in practically every single school district, has some grants from one of the many agencies in the federal government.” 

    Most schools receive K-12 funding from multiple agencies, such as the Energy Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

    Because of the opposition to the rules, the Energy Department must now either withdraw them entirely or issue new final rules by September 12 that take the comments into account. 

    The Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

    Source link

  • How Trump is deploying multiple agencies to set education policy

    How Trump is deploying multiple agencies to set education policy

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

    The Trump administration is tapping agencies other than the U.S. Department of Education to implement its agenda in colleges and K-12 schools, sometimes circumventing typical rulemaking procedures that would allow districts months to give feedback on and prepare for policy changes before they roll out. 

    The use of other agencies to set or enforce education policy marks a significant shift from typical K-12 policymaking, some education policy experts say. 

    “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University. “So I think going forward, we might be seeing broader use of this wider range of policy tools in the area of education policy changes.” 

    This month, for example, a policy change from the U.S. Department of Energy could take effect that would undo some students’ protections related to sex discrimination under Title IX, disability discrimination under Section 504 and racial discrimination under Title VI. 

    The changes would only apply to colleges receiving Energy Department funds, as opposed to public institutions nationwide — which would have been the case had the rules come from the Education Department. The Energy Department provides over $2.5 billion in research funding to more than 300 colleges annually. The agency also distributed just over $160 million to 28 schools in fiscal year 2025, according to department spokesperson Ben Dietderich.

    As a result of the quietly proposed policy changes, colleges receiving Energy Department grants would no longer, among other things:

    • Be required to facilitate noncontact sports team tryouts for women if there is no equivalent women’s team. For example, if a college had a men’s baseball team but no women’s softball team, women would no longer be guaranteed the opportunity to try out for a spot on the men’s baseball team.
    • Be permitted to proactively “overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex.” This would remove protections that allow schools to have gender-conscious after-school or college programs to provide women and girls opportunities they have historically been denied, such as in STEM fields and technical training, according to Shiwali Patel, senior director of Safe and Inclusive Schools at National Women’s Law Center and a Title IX attorney.  
    • Be required to prevent systemic racial discrimination that may result from seemingly neutral policies, as a result of the department rescinding guardrails protecting against policies that cause a “disparate impact” on underserved students. Disparate impact investigations have previously addressed issues such as Black students being disciplined at higher rates than students of other races.  

    The agency issued the policy changes through a process called direct final rulemaking, which allows it to issue a rule without going through the rulemaking process twice to incorporate changes based on public feedback and publish a final version. The expedited process is usually used for noncontroversial changes and when an agency does not expect significant pushback.

    The rules are to take effect July 15 as long as no “significant adverse comments” were received by June 16. Dietderich did not respond as to whether the agency received significant adverse comments.

    However, a review of some publicly available comments show that the direct final rules — posted May 16 — have been controversial, with multiple civil rights organizations explicitly telling the Energy Department they are submitting “significant, adverse” comments for its review.

    Other agencies launch civil rights investigations and enforcement

    The Energy Department situation isn’t the first time the Trump administration has deployed agencies other than the Education Department to set or enforce education policy. In fact, the administration has used the departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services over the past few months to investigate sex and race discrimination at schools and enforce compliance. 

    The administration notably used these agencies in an unprecedented investigation into the Maine Department of Education, spurred by a public disagreement between President Donald Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, over the state’s athletic policy allowing transgender athletes on women’s and girls’ sports teams. 

    That dispute kicked off a string of Title IX investigations by several federal agencies that provide funds to Maine. 

    They included a four-day probe launched by HHS. And because HHS rather than the Education Department conducted the probe, it didn’t have to follow the standards spelled out in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights case processing manual. That manual ensures the Education Department conducts investigations according to certain timelines, for example, allowing up to 90 calendar days for negotiations to take place and 10 days for schools or states to sign onto a resolution agreement. 

    In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture froze funds to some of the state’s schools over the Maine Department of Education’s alleged Title IX violations. 

    “USDA, alongside other federal agencies, will continue to pause and, where appropriate, terminate categories of education programming in Maine if these Title IX violations are not resolved to the satisfaction of the Federal Government,” said an April 2 letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to Mills. 

    A court order eventually overturned the USDA funding freeze as part of an agreement struck in May between Maine and the USDA. 

    Source link

  • How Trump is deploying multiple agencies to set education policy

    How Trump is deploying multiple agencies to set education policy

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

    The Trump administration is tapping agencies other than the U.S. Department of Education to implement its agenda in schools, sometimes circumventing typical rulemaking procedures that would allow districts months to give feedback on and prepare for policy changes before they roll out. 

    The use of other agencies to set or enforce education policy marks a significant shift from typical K-12 policymaking, some education policy experts say. 

    “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University. “So I think going forward, we might be seeing broader use of this wider range of policy tools in the area of education policy changes.” 

    This month, for example, a policy change from the U.S. Department of Energy could take effect that would undo some students’ protections related to sex discrimination under Title IX, disability discrimination under Section 504 and racial discrimination under Title VI. 

    The changes would only apply to schools receiving Energy Department funds, as opposed to public schools nationwide — which would have been the case had the rules come from the Education Department. The Energy Department distributed just over $160 million to 28 schools in fiscal year 2025, according to department spokesperson Ben Dietderich. The agency also provides over $2.5 billion annually to more than 300 colleges and universities to fund research.

    As a result of the quietly proposed policy changes schools receiving Energy Department grants would no longer, among other things:

    • Be required to facilitate noncontact sports team tryouts for girls if there is no equivalent girls’ team. For example, if a school had a boys’ baseball team but no girls’ softball team, girls would no longer be guaranteed the opportunity to try out for a spot on the boys’ baseball team. 
    • Be permitted to proactively “overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex.” This would remove protections that allow schools to have gender-conscious after-school or college programs to provide women and girls opportunities they have historically been denied, such as in STEM fields and technical training, according to Shiwali Patel, senior director of Safe and Inclusive Schools at National Women’s Law Center and a Title IX attorney.  
    • Be required to prevent systemic racial discrimination that may result from seemingly neutral policies, as a result of the department rescinding guardrails protecting against policies that cause a “disparate impact” on underserved students. Disparate impact investigations have previously addressed issues such as Black students being disciplined at higher rates than students of other races.  

    The policy changes were issued through a process called direct final rulemaking, which allows an agency to issue a rule without going through the rulemaking process twice to incorporate changes based on public feedback and publish a final version. The expedited process is usually used for noncontroversial changes and when an agency does not expect significant pushback.

    The rules are to take effect July 15 as long as no “significant adverse comments” were received by June 16. Dietderich did not respond as to whether the agency received significant adverse comments.

    However, a review of some publicly available comments show that the direct final rules — posted May 16 — have been controversial, with multiple civil rights organizations explicitly telling the Energy Department they are submitting “significant, adverse” comments for its review.

    Other agencies launch civil rights investigations and enforcement

    The Energy Department situation isn’t the first time the Trump administration has deployed agencies beyond the Education Department to set or enforce education policy. In fact, the administration has used the departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services over the past few months to investigate sex and race discrimination at schools and enforce compliance. 

    The administration notably used these agencies in an unprecedented investigation into the Maine Department of Education, spurred by a public disagreement between President Donald Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, over the state’s athletic policy allowing transgender athletes on girls’ and women’s sports teams. 

    That dispute kicked off a string of Title IX investigations by several federal agencies that provide funds to Maine. 

    They included a four-day probe launched by HHS. And because HHS rather than the Education Department conducted the probe, it didn’t have to follow the standards spelled out in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights case processing manual. That manual ensures the Education Department conducts investigations according to certain timelines, for example, allowing up to 90 calendar days for negotiations to take place and 10 days for schools or states to sign onto a resolution agreement. 

    In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture froze funds to some of the state’s schools over the Maine Department of Education’s alleged Title IX violations. 

    “USDA, alongside other federal agencies, will continue to pause and, where appropriate, terminate categories of education programming in Maine if these Title IX violations are not resolved to the satisfaction of the Federal Government,” said an April 2 letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to Mills. 

    A court order eventually overturned the USDA funding freeze as part of an agreement struck in May between Maine and the USDA. 

    Source link