Tag: News

  • ED Pressures Accreditor to Act on Columbia

    ED Pressures Accreditor to Act on Columbia

    The Department of Education has publicly called on Columbia University’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, to take action against the university’s alleged noncompliance with federal nondiscrimination laws.

    In a Wednesday news release, officials wrote that Columbia was found to have acted “with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Officials said, “Columbia failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment on Columbia’s campus and consequently denied these students’ equal access to educational opportunities to which they are entitled under the law.” As a result of that finding, ED called on MSCHE to take action on the matter.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon accused the university of failing to protect Jewish students on campus in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attacks against Israel, arguing that such a lapse “is not only immoral, but also unlawful.”

    McMahon added that accreditors are obligated to ensure members abide by their standards and called on MSCHE to inform the department of compliance actions taken against Columbia. ED indicated that MSCHE should require Columbia to develop a plan to ensure compliance.

    “We are aware of the press release issued today by the United States Department of Education (USDE) regarding Columbia University and can confirm that we received a letter regarding this matter this afternoon,” MSCHE president Heather Perfetti said in a statement. “This letter is part of the commitment reflected within the Executive Order to promptly provide to accreditors any noncompliance findings relating to member institutions issued after an investigation conducted by the Office of [sic] Civil Rights. Consistent with our Commission’s management of investigative findings, we will process these in accordance with our policies and procedures.”

    The call for MSCHE to take action on Columbia is the latest effort by the Trump administration to force further changes at an institution that has been in its crosshairs over how it handled a pro-Palestinian student encampment and related demonstrations in the aftermath of Oct. 7.

    Columbia has already yielded to the Trump administration’s call for sweeping changes, agreeing in March to revise disciplinary processes, hire campus police officers with the authority to make arrests and appoint a new senior vice provost to oversee academic programs focused on the Middle East, among other changes—despite concerns around academic freedom. However, university officials appear to have rejected the administration’s desire for a consent decree.

    The Trump administration has also frozen hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding, an effort that has continued even after university officials agreed to various demands.

    Columbia officials acknowledged the exchange between ED and MSCHE in a statement.

    “Columbia is aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States. Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,” university officials wrote in a statement posted online.

    Wednesday’s news sparked confusion (and celebrations from some critics) online, as many social media users incorrectly interpreted the news to mean Columbia had lost accreditation. However, the federal government does not have the power to strip accreditation. Only accreditors can determine if universities are out of compliance, as experts have previously noted.

    (This article has been updated to add statements from MSCHE and Columbia.)

    Source link

  • This Is a Summer to Organize (opinion)

    This Is a Summer to Organize (opinion)

    We’re entering what would normally be the long-awaited reprieve of summer—a time to write, think, travel, to escape the demands of the academic year. But this will not be a normal summer.

    Faculty may long for a break, but the government is actively operationalizing Project 2025, a blueprint for remaking every public institution, with higher education being the crown jewel of its antidemocratic agenda. At his 100-day rally in Michigan, Donald Trump declared, “We’ve just gotten started. You haven’t even seen anything yet.” Christopher Rufo, architect of the right-wing culture war, promises to plunge higher education still further into “an existential terror.”

    We should be prepared for a potential wave of coordinated assaults on higher education this summer: reductions in Pell Grant eligibility for low-income students and slashed student loans, more dismantlement of scientific research funding, politicized accreditation crackdowns, new endowment taxes, expanded intimidation of international students and scholars, and further weaponization of Title VI and Title IX enforcement.

    We recommend mobilizing on two simultaneous fronts this summer: by operationalizing mutual academic defense compacts (MADCs), and through direct activism. We must forge powerful alliances for mass protest. We suggest one often-overlooked but deeply strategic constituency— veterans.

    Recent opinion polls show that most Americans oppose the Trump administration’s approach to higher education. This public sentiment gives us a crucial opening—and we must seize the momentum as we move into summer.

    1. Mobilize and Form Unlikely Alliances

    Faculty can take simple, student-centered actions this summer—sharing stories of student impact over social media using #DegreesForDemocracy, or highlighting the real-world outcomes of their teaching and research with #WhatWeBuild—to demonstrate the value of higher education and help galvanize public support. Op-eds and blog posts that highlight how higher ed strengthens local communities, drives economic growth and improves American public health and well-being are also powerful tools.

    In addition, faculty must begin to mobilize on the streets for mass peaceful protest. This will require reaching beyond our usual circles and forming big-tent coalitions. Now is not the time for ideological purity or partisan hesitation. The threat we face at this point goes beyond conventional liberal-versus-conservative disagreement; it is an attack on democratic institutions, civil liberties and public education itself.

    One particularly powerful, and perhaps surprising, potential partner in this moment is the veteran community. As a start, we urge faculty to consider aligning with veterans this Friday for the June 6 D-Day anniversary protest: Veterans Stand Against Fascism Nationwide at the National Mall, as well as at more than 100 other venues across the country. This is a great way for higher ed to show up in the lead-up to the June 14 No Kings Day protests.

    Why Join With Veterans?

    The shared legacy of the GI Bill links veterans and higher education. A public alliance with veterans has the potential to lend more political credibility to faculty and foster broader public empathy that will disrupt the Trump administration’s strategy of divide and conquer.

    From Black WWII veterans who catalyzed the civil rights movement to anti–Vietnam War resistance, veterans have consistently served on the front lines of social change. Today, they are standing up to deep cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs; the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and dangerous reductions to the veteran workforce—issues that mirror the assaults on higher education.

    Professors and veterans are natural allies in more ways than many realize. Since the passage of the GI Bill in 1944, millions of veterans have earned college degrees and experienced upward mobility through higher education. Veterans are a protected class under antidiscrimination law and recipients of DEI programming. The veterans’ centers and services we have created to support them are now under threat from the Trump administration’s ideological dismantling of DEI. While trust in most American institutions—including higher education—has declined, polling shows that the military remains one of the few institutions still trusted by a majority of Americans. This trust is rooted in the military’s demographic breadth: Its members come from every region, ethnicity, income bracket and political background.

    In contrast, higher education suffers from an image problem—often caricatured as elite, out of touch and overly partisan. Yet many of the most trusted professionals in society—nurses, teachers, first responders, small business owners and veterans themselves—were trained and mentored in our classrooms. Building visible alliances with veterans can help reshape public perceptions of academia, challenging the dominant narratives that seek to isolate and delegitimize higher education.

    1. Operationalize Mutual Academic Defense Compacts

    While public protest builds pressure, cross-institutional coalition building creates networks for effective resistance. Faculty and university senates across the country are approving mutual academic defense compact resolutions, which call for universities to join in shared defense of any participating institution that comes under government attack. But this is just the beginning. We need more, and these resolutions need to be operationalized through the creation of MADC task forces of administrators and faculty on as many campuses as possible. Presidents and chancellors need to endorse both the compacts and the task forces.

    We must use this summer to refine model MADC resolution language to align with institutional legal and financial requirements, to prepare for the passage of resolutions and creation of MADC task forces in the early fall, and to build the infrastructure that will allow these coalitions to function as coordinated networks of protection, resistance and shared strategy.

    That’s why we co-founded Stand Together for Higher Ed, a growing national movement to help faculty organize in defense of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. After beginning with a letter signed by about 5,000 professors in all 50 states calling on institutions to unite in a proactive common defense, we are now building a network of MADCs, campus task forces and shared strategies. This summer, Stand Together is offering model resolutions, organizing tools and communications support to help campuses build capacity for the fights ahead.

    We’ve been struck by how many faculty members lack formal structures for self-governance on their campuses. Shared governance is a foundational pillar of academic freedom—though often overshadowed by the more visible right to pursue scholarship free from interference. We’re working with campuses to strengthen existing faculty governance organizations with the establishment of Stand Together groups, and where none exist, we’re helping to establish American Association of University Professors and other advocacy chapters to fill that crucial gap.

    This summer, we must think strategically—and expansively. This summer calls for alliance building across our sister institutions of higher ed and across diverse nonacademic interest groups. The stakes are nothing less than the future of democracy.

    Jennifer Lundquist is a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Kathy Roberts Forde is a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Together, the authors co-founded Stand Together for Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Keystone College Merges With Think Tank

    Keystone College Merges With Think Tank

    Keystone College has completed a merger with ​​the Washington Institute for Education and Research, a fledgling think tank, after nearly three years of work, officials announced Monday.

    Last week, Keystone’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, announced that it had reviewed and signed off on the ownership change, making it official at the end of May.

    The Pennsylvania Department of Education, the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Education already approved the merger.

    Keystone president John F. Pullo Sr. noted the merger effort was both lengthy and challenging.

    “I am pleased to report that the merger transaction between Keystone and WIER was concluded on Friday, May 30, finally joining the College with its strategic partner after nearly a three-year journey that at times threatened the future of the College,” Pullo said in a news release.

    Pullo’s remarks are a likely nod to Keystone’s precarious position in recent years. Last spring, MSCHE warned that the private college was “in danger of immediate closure.” However, Pullo noted at the time that officials were in talks with “an investment partner” to help stabilize the college. (Keystone’s accreditation was also at risk last year, but it remains accredited.)

    Keystone’s new owner is a largely unknown think tank based in Washington, D.C. 

    WIER, founded in 2023, describes its purpose on its website as “The establishment and operation of post-secondary degree-granting institutions for the instruction of students” and “Funding and supporting other post-secondary 501(c)(3) degree-granting institutions.” WIER does not list any staff members on its website except for founder and president Ahmed Alwani. 

    Alwani was previously president of Fairfax University of America in Northern Virginia, which quietly closed in December due to its inability to find a new accreditor after the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools lost federal recognition, according to the FXUA website. The private, nonprofit institution, formerly known as Virginia International University, was almost shut down by state regulators in 2019 due to various issues highlighted by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, including a lack of academic rigor and other concerns.

    Source link

  • As Recession Risk Rises, Don’t Expect 2008 Repeat (opinion)

    As Recession Risk Rises, Don’t Expect 2008 Repeat (opinion)

    Months into the second Trump administration, clear trends are reshaping the higher education landscape. Economic uncertainty stemming from inconsistent tariff policies has left businesses and consumers grappling with unpredictability. Meanwhile, efforts by the administration and congressional leadership to overhaul federal funding for higher education, including cuts to research grants and proposed cuts to Pell Grants and student loans, have created significant challenges for the sector.

    The U.S. economy contracted slightly in the first quarter of 2025, with the administration’s erratic and unpredictable policies amplifying recession risks. These fluctuations have led some to draw comparisons to the 2008 Great Recession, particularly regarding public higher education. While some lessons of that recession for higher education, such as those related to state appropriations, remain relevant, others may not apply due to the administration’s unique policies and priorities.

    Since the 1980s, economic downturns have increasingly impacted public higher education, primarily due to state budget cuts. During the 1980 recession, state educational appropriations per full-time-equivalent student dropped by 6 percent but recovered to pre-recession levels by 1985. In contrast, during the 2008 Great Recession, funding fell by nearly 26 percent, and most states never fully restored funding to pre-recession levels before the COVID-19 pandemic once again disrupted budgets in 2020. This prolonged recovery left public institutions financially weakened, with reduced capacity to support students.

    More than a decade after the Great Recession, public institutions were struggling to regain the level of state funding they once received. This prolonged recovery significantly affected student loan borrowing. The Great Recession weakened higher education systems as states shifted funds to mandatory expenses and relied on the federal student loan system and Pell Grants to cover a growing share of students’ educational costs. As a result, when states reduce funding, students and their families shoulder more financial responsibility, leading to greater student loan debt.

    During the Great Recession, public institutions were operating with reduced funding and downsizing, even as rising joblessness drove more people to enroll in college. Before 2008, total enrollment in degree-granting institutions was about 18.3 million, but by 2011–12, it exceeded 21 million. This period marked the emergence of the modern student loan crisis. Public institutions, already strained by reduced funding, faced the dual challenge of accommodating more students while maintaining quality. For many students, especially those pursuing graduate degrees, borrowing became a necessity. The economic downturn exacerbated these trends, further entrenching reliance on debt to finance education.

    A future recession could have an even more pronounced impact on public higher education, particularly in terms of state funding. The recently passed House budget bill, which proposes substantial cuts to higher education and Medicaid, exacerbates this risk by forcing states to prioritize addressing these funding shortfalls. Consequently, as legislatures shift resources to more immediate needs, both states and students may find themselves unable to rely on federal aid to support education. Long-standing research indicates that states will prioritize health-care funding over higher education. This pattern suggests that recent state investments in higher education could be rolled back or significantly reduced, even before a recession takes hold.

    The financial pressures on public institutions are already evident. Some systems are considering closing branch campuses, while others are cutting programs, laying off staff or grappling with declining enrollments. In addition, public regional institutions are particularly at risk, as they depend heavily on state funding and serve many of the students most vulnerable to financial challenges. If a recession occurs, these institutions may face severe and rapid downsizing.

    Following downsizing, a key consideration is whether a future recession will lead to an enrollment rebound similar to that seen during the Great Recession. This issue can be analyzed through two key factors: (1) the severity of joblessness and (2) the availability of grants, scholarships and loans, as well as the repayment structures of those loans.

    During the 2008 crisis, unemployment peaked at 10 percent, double the pre-recession rate, with a loss of 8.6 million jobs. Higher unemployment historically benefits higher education as individuals seek to retool their skills during economic downturns. Economists predict that under the current administration, unemployment could rise from 4.1 percent to between 4.7 percent and 7.5 percent, though projections are uncertain due to volatile policies. While higher unemployment might lead more people to consider enrolling in college, proposed changes to financial aid policies could significantly dampen such trends.

    The House’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduces stricter eligibility requirements for Pell Grants, such as tying awards to minimum credit-hour thresholds. Students would need to enroll in at least 30 credit hours per year for maximum awards and at least 15 credit hours per year to qualify at all. Furthermore, the bill eliminates subsidized student loans, meaning students would accrue interest while still in school. This change could add an estimated $6,000 in debt per undergraduate borrower, increasing the financial burden on students and potentially deterring enrollment.

    On the repayment side, the proposed Repayment Assistance Plan would replace existing income-driven repayment options. Unlike current plans, RAP bases payments on adjusted gross income rather than discretionary income, resulting in higher monthly payments for lower-income borrowers. Although RAP ensures borrowers do not face negative amortization—which is important for borrowers’ financial and mental distress—the 30-year forgiveness timeline is longer than that of current IDR plans, and the lack of inflation adjustments makes it less appealing than current IDR plans. Together, these changes could discourage potential students, particularly those from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds, and depress graduate student enrollment.

    The bill also introduces a risk-sharing framework that requires institutions to repay the federal government for a portion of unpaid student loans. This framework, based on factors such as student retention and default rates, could influence enrollment decisions. Institutions might avoid admitting students who pose financial risks, such as those from low-income backgrounds, with lower precollege performance or nonwhite students, thereby restricting access and perpetuating inequities. Alternatively, some institutions may opt out of the student loan system entirely, further limiting opportunities for those who rely on federal aid.

    Recent executive actions pausing international student visa interviews will hinder the ability to recruit international students and eliminate the potential for these students to help subsidize low-income domestic students. As a result, institutions have fewer resources to support key groups in the administration’s electoral base without burdening American taxpayers. These actions not only increase the cost of higher education but also appear inconsistent with a fiscally conservative ideology.

    Mass layoffs in the Department of Education have delayed financial aid processing and compliance and hindered institutions’ ability to support more low-income students during an economic downturn. These personnel play a critical role in ensuring that state higher education systems receive the funding needed to expand access for low-income students. During the last recession, their efforts were essential to fostering student success, but under the current administration, the federal government continues to be an unreliable partner.

    While lessons from the Great Recession may offer some insight for public higher education during a future recession, the financial context and the priorities of the administration and congressional majority leadership differ significantly. Unlike the Great Recession, the next economic downturn may not lead to a surge in higher education enrollment. Without proactive measures to protect funding, expand financial aid and increase opportunity, public higher education risks reduced capacity and declining student outcomes. These changes will likely undermine higher education’s role as a pathway to economic mobility and societal progress.

    Daniel A. Collier is an assistant professor of higher and adult education at the University of Memphis. His work focuses on higher education policy, leadership and issues like student loan debt and financial aid; recent work has focused on Public Service Loan Forgiveness. Connect with Daniel on Bluesky at @dcollier74.bsky.social.

    Michael Kofoed is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His research interests include the economics of education, higher education finance and the economics of financial aid; recent work has focused on online learning during COVID. Connect with Mike on X at @mikekofoed.

    Source link

  • Florida Board Rejects Ono for UF Job

    Florida Board Rejects Ono for UF Job

    The Florida Board of Governors voted Tuesday to reject Santa Ono as the next president of the University of Florida, bowing to opposition from conservatives over his past support of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

    Anti-DEI activist Chris Rufo led the conservative backlash, while multiple elected officials in Florida alleged that Ono failed to protect Jewish students during his time as president of the University of Michigan.

    Amid those concerns, the Board of Governors voted 10 to 6 to reject Ono for the UF job.

    That process included a no vote from Paul Renner, a former Republican lawmaker in the state who had previously angled for the UF presidency, as became clear during board discussions. Throughout the meeting Renner grilled Ono on his past support for DEI, prompting fellow board members to push back, accusing him of “interrogating” Ono and questioning the fairness of his inquiries.

    The vote comes after the UF Board of Trustees approved Ono’s hire last week following a public interview that focused largely on DEI. Ono distanced himself from DEI in that interview, arguing that the initiatives began with good intentions but ultimately became divisive. He said they siphoned resources away from student success efforts and stifled dialogue, which he said prompted his decision to close Michigan’s DEI office this spring. (Ono resigned from the Michigan presidency in May to pursue the UF job.)

    “I am here to ensure that DEI never returns to the University of Florida,” Ono said Tuesday.

    In the past, Ono had condemned systemic racism and argued for the necessity of DEI. But Tuesday—as he did in his public interview with UF’s Board of Trustees last week—Ono emphasized his ideological evolution, which ultimately failed to convince the board.

    A Contentious Meeting

    In the public comments portion of the meeting, both Ono’s supporters and detractors made their case.

    Michael Okun, director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at UF, disputed claims that Ono failed to protect Jewish students. Okun, who is Jewish, argued Ono is an ally to the Jewish community, “and suggesting otherwise is factually incorrect and deeply harmful.”

    But University of Michigan Medical School professor Joshua Rubin countered that claim, arguing that Ono had failed to stymie a culture in Michigan where antisemitism thrived. Rubin argued that Ono failed to fix problems at UM and “is complicit in that culture.”

    Other speakers included Kent Fuchs, the former UF president called out of retirement to helm the university again when Ben Sasse exited the job abruptly last year. Fuchs, who is currently serving as interim president, supported Ono’s hire, telling the board the candidate was “unmatched nationally in both his credentials and his experience and his track record.”

    UF Board of Trustees chair Mori Hosseini also made an impassioned plea to hire Ono.

    “The bottom line is that Dr. Ono is globally recognized as one of the most respected leaders in higher education, and we are lucky to have him. Outside of Dr. Ono, there are very few people, if any, with a combination of ideological alignment in Florida and the operational experience to run a research powerhouse like you are,” Hosseini said in remarks to the Board of Governors.

    He added that “the UF presidency is not a position where someone can learn on the job.”

    But the Board of Governors bombarded Ono with a series of sharp questions.

    Few had to do with how he would run the University of Florida; student and faculty representatives on the board asked how he would support and include their respective groups in his decision-making process, but most questions focused on DEI.

    Jose Oliva, a former Republican lawmaker, told Ono his ideological shift was “nothing short of incredible.” He also asked Ono, who has a background in ophthalmology, what science his “decades-long, enthusiastic support and advocacy” for DEI initiatives was based on.

    Ono argued that he was “not an expert in that area” and had not created any DEI programs; he said such efforts were already in place when he arrived at UM and his previous institutions, such as the University of British Columbia.

    “Your words simply don’t support that you were just kind of sailing along,” Oliva responded.

    Some trustees also pressed Ono on transgender care at University of Michigan Health, questioning whether the hospital had “cut off” the breasts or genitals of transitioning patients, particularly children.

    As with many other questions, Ono demurred. In that case, he said he didn’t want to misspeak.

    “I’m not an expert,” Ono said, in what became a common refrain throughout the day.

    Hosseini, who was seated next to Ono and involved in the conversation at times—including when he revealed that Renner, who was one of Ono’s fiercest inquisitors of the day, had inquired about the UF job—appeared to bristle at the Board of Governors’ sharp questions for the candidate.

    “You all decided today is the day you’re going to take somebody down,” Hosseini told the board.

    Ono had been set to make up to $3 million a year as UF president. Now it appears Hosseini and the rest of the board will have to restart the search process.

    Ono’s Opponents Celebrate

    As news of Ono’s rejection spread, conservative critics took a victory lap.

    “This is a massive win for conservatives—and an act of courage by the board,” Rufo posted.

    Florida’s elected officials also weighed in.

    “This is the right decision for @UF. UF’s students, faculty, and staff deserve a president who will stand for Florida values and against antisemitism,” Republican senator Rick Scott posted on X. (Scott had previously called for an investigation into the search that yielded Ono.)

    But conservatives weren’t the only ones celebrating.

    Multiple academics on BlueSky also seemed to take satisfaction in the news, with some indicating they thought Ono had done an about-face on DEI, only for the move to backfire.

    “I don’t know how many times this needs to be said: there is no winning with these people. If you’re willing to sell your soul to try and appease them, then I’m sorry but you deserve whatever they do to you,” Neil Lewis Jr., a communication professor at Cornell University, wrote online.

    Outside experts also noted how the Ono vote reflected the influence of state-level politics on decisions.

    James Finkelstein, a professor emeritus of public policy at George Mason University who studies presidential contracts and hiring processes, told Inside Higher Ed by email that the outcome illustrated the growing complexity and politicization of picking a college leader.

    “This episode is a stark reminder of how state-level politics are reshaping the presidential search process. The lesson is clear: until a contract is signed, nothing is guaranteed,” Finkelstein wrote.

    Source link

  • This Is a Summer to Organize (opinion)

    This Is a Summer to Organize (opinion)

    We’re entering what would normally be the long-awaited reprieve of summer—a time to write, think, travel, to escape the demands of the academic year. But this will not be a normal summer.

    Faculty may long for a break, but the government is actively operationalizing Project 2025, a blueprint for remaking every public institution, with higher education being the crown jewel of its antidemocratic agenda. At his 100-day rally in Michigan, Donald Trump declared, “We’ve just gotten started. You haven’t even seen anything yet.” Christopher Rufo, architect of the right-wing culture war, promises to plunge higher education still further into “an existential terror.”

    We should be prepared for a potential wave of coordinated assaults on higher education this summer: reductions in Pell Grant eligibility for low-income students and slashed student loans, more dismantlement of scientific research funding, politicized accreditation crackdowns, new endowment taxes, expanded intimidation of international students and scholars, and further weaponization of Title VI and Title IX enforcement.

    We recommend mobilizing on two simultaneous fronts this summer: by operationalizing mutual academic defense compacts (MADCs), and through direct activism. We must forge powerful alliances for mass protest. We suggest one often-overlooked but deeply strategic constituency— veterans.

    Recent opinion polls show that most Americans oppose the Trump administration’s approach to higher education. This public sentiment gives us a crucial opening—and we must seize the momentum as we move into summer.

    1. Mobilize and Form Unlikely Alliances

    Faculty can take simple, student-centered actions this summer—sharing stories of student impact over social media using #DegreesForDemocracy, or highlighting the real-world outcomes of their teaching and research with #WhatWeBuild—to demonstrate the value of higher education and help galvanize public support. Op-eds and blog posts that highlight how higher ed strengthens local communities, drives economic growth and improves American public health and well-being are also powerful tools.

    In addition, faculty must begin to mobilize on the streets for mass peaceful protest. This will require reaching beyond our usual circles and forming big-tent coalitions. Now is not the time for ideological purity or partisan hesitation. The threat we face at this point goes beyond conventional liberal-versus-conservative disagreement; it is an attack on democratic institutions, civil liberties and public education itself.

    One particularly powerful, and perhaps surprising, potential partner in this moment is the veteran community. As a start, we urge faculty to consider aligning with veterans this Friday for the June 6 D-Day anniversary protest: Veterans Stand Against Fascism Nationwide at the National Mall, as well as at more than 100 other venues across the country. This is a great way for higher ed to show up in the lead-up to the June 14 No Kings Day protests.

    Why Join With Veterans?

    The shared legacy of the GI Bill links veterans and higher education. A public alliance with veterans has the potential to lend more political credibility to faculty and foster broader public empathy that will disrupt the Trump administration’s strategy of divide and conquer.

    From Black WWII veterans who catalyzed the civil rights movement to anti–Vietnam War resistance, veterans have consistently served on the front lines of social change. Today, they are standing up to deep budget cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs; the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and dangerous reductions to the veteran workforce—issues that mirror the assaults on higher education.

    Professors and veterans are natural allies in more ways than many realize. Since the passage of the GI Bill in 1944, millions of veterans have earned college degrees and experienced upward mobility through higher education. Veterans are a protected class under antidiscrimination law and recipients of DEI programming. The veterans’ centers and services we have created to support them are now under threat from the Trump administration’s ideological dismantling of DEI. While trust in most American institutions—including higher education—has declined, polling shows that the military remains one of the few institutions still trusted by a majority of Americans. This trust is rooted in the military’s demographic breadth: Its members come from every region, ethnicity, income bracket and political background.

    In contrast, higher education suffers from an image problem—often caricatured as elite, out of touch and overly partisan. Yet many of the most trusted professionals in society—nurses, teachers, first responders, small business owners and veterans themselves—were trained and mentored in our classrooms. Building visible alliances with veterans can help reshape public perceptions of academia, challenging the dominant narratives that seek to isolate and delegitimize higher education.

    1. Operationalize Mutual Academic Defense Compacts

    While public protest builds pressure, cross-institutional coalition building creates networks for effective resistance. Faculty and university senates across the country are approving mutual academic defense compact resolutions, which call for universities to join in shared defense of any participating institution that comes under government attack. But this is just the beginning. We need more, and these resolutions need to be operationalized through the creation of MADC task forces of administrators and faculty on as many campuses as possible. Presidents and chancellors need to endorse both the compacts and the task forces.

    We must use this summer to refine model MADC resolution language to align with institutional legal and financial requirements, to prepare for the passage of resolutions and creation of MADC task forces in the early fall, and to build the infrastructure that will allow these coalitions to function as coordinated networks of protection, resistance and shared strategy.

    That’s why we co-founded Stand Together for Higher Ed, a growing national movement to help faculty organize in defense of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. After beginning with a letter signed by about 5,000 professors in all 50 states calling on institutions to unite in a proactive common defense, we are now building a network of MADCs, campus task forces and shared strategies. This summer, Stand Together is offering model resolutions, organizing tools and communications support to help campuses build capacity for the fights ahead.

    We’ve been struck by how many faculty members lack formal structures for self-governance on their campuses. Shared governance is a foundational pillar of academic freedom—though often overshadowed by the more visible right to pursue scholarship free from interference. We’re working with campuses to strengthen existing faculty governance organizations with the establishment of Stand Together groups, and where none exist, we’re helping to establish American Association of University Professors and other advocacy chapters to fill that crucial gap.

    This summer, we must think strategically—and expansively. This summer calls for alliance building across our sister institutions of higher ed and across diverse nonacademic interest groups. The stakes are nothing less than the future of democracy.

    Jennifer Lundquist is a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Kathy Roberts Forde is a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Together, the authors co-founded Stand Together for Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Encouraging Alumni to Assist in Career Development

    Encouraging Alumni to Assist in Career Development

    Networking events with alumni give students the chance to learn more about life after graduation and build career skills.

    A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 29 percent of respondents believe their college or university should prioritize connecting students to alumni or other potential mentors. However, not every student has this opportunity before graduating; only one-third of graduates said their institution helped them to network with alumni while they were students, according to a 2024 National Alumni Career Mobility survey.

    Administrators don’t always recognize this disconnect between current and former students; a 2024 survey of student success leaders found that 56 percent believe their career center effectively connects students with the institution’s alumni network.

    Inside Higher Ed compiled six ways colleges and universities can invite alumni to partner with them to enhance students’ career development.

    1. Mentorship Programming

    Pairing students with graduates, particularly those in the same discipline or with similar career goals, is a common way to foster feelings of belonging among classes and with the institution.

    Survey Says

    A 2025 survey from Gravyty found that 80 percent of alumni engagement teams invite alumni to participate in community or networking events, but just over one-quarter ask alumni to become active volunteers. A survey of alumni also by Gravyty found that alumni who have served as mentors say they are 200 percent more likely to donate in the future.

    The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth hosts a Meet and Mentor mixer to introduce current and past students, building organic relationships in an informal setting. Syracuse University extends mentorship opportunities for alumni far from campus through virtual mentorship meetings. The university has coordinated over 1,000 meetings between students and alumni mentors over the past five years.

    In some cases, alumni can provide insights into evolving industries in ways that career services pros may be less equipped to.

    Worcester Polytechnic Institute created a mentorship program for students interested in green or sustainable jobs and industries, in part to help them keep up with the rapid changes in the field. The program has found more mentors than mentees so far, including alumni from a variety of industries such as architecture and design, waste reduction, consulting, and energy.

    1. Office Hours Programs

    Establishing an informal space for students to meet with alumni allows them to create connections and helps students build confidence for venturing into more professional networking spaces. Clemson University’s business school invites alumni to participate in drop-in office hours to review résumés, provide career advice or engage in a casual conversation with students.

    Some colleges and universities designate alumni in residence who provide one-on-one guidance, give presentations, engage in networking receptions and more, as needed. The University of Connecticut’s career center asks alumni in residence to devote at least four hours per month for virtual office hours and to participate in several career events and programs.

    1. Job Shadows

    While many students may know what field they’re interested in working in, understanding the day-to-day responsibilities of an industry professional can feel out of reach. Alumni connections can address the transition to work and help students establish work-life balance. Kalamazoo College connects students with local alumni for a short-term job shadow during spring break, showcasing local businesses and industries that hire graduates.

    Grinnell College also taps alumni around the globe each spring to provide job shadows and homestays, giving soon-to-be graduates a deeper look at what their future may be after college. The visits, which can last from a day to a week, connect students to new cities, professional networks and careers.

    1. Microinternships

    Microinternships have grown as a way to engage students in project-based experiential learning connected to a potential employer. At Goucher College, microinternships also introduce students to alumni who share their career interests. The six-week virtual experiences take place across the winter break and January term, and students are paid a stipend by the university, reducing barriers for participation.

    Projects vary depending on the needs of alumni, and in the past students have edited books, organized data, created presentations or conducted market research. The goal is to enable the student to walk away with a portfolio piece they can talk about in future interviews.

    1. Early Alumni Engagement

    Colleges can also help graduating students make the transition to being engaged alumni by establishing programs for recent graduates.

    Boise State University created BOLD, short for Broncos of the Last Decade, an alumni group specifically for students who graduated in the past 10 years, which holds tailgate events and a champagne reception for new grads during commencement weekend. BOLD also offers discounts on football and basketball season tickets, helping alumni maintain connections to the institution even after graduation.

    West Virginia University and Marshall University partnered to create a talent-development pipeline, called First Ascent, for recent graduates to reduce brain drain in the state and connect recent alumni to peers and mentors.

    1. Financial Support

    Alumni can also build institutional capacity and help sustain programs for current students through financial gifts and endowed resources. Supported through alumni donations, Brandeis University’s World of Work fellowship program provides stipends of up to $6,000 for students to participate in unpaid or underpaid experiential learning opportunities, helping build their career skills.

    Many career centers are also endowed by alumni, including the University of Central Florida’s Kenneth G. Dixon Career Development Center, named for the 1975 alumnus who donated $5 million in 2024.

    Do you have a career-focused intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Cross-Functional Marcomm Teams Drive Strategic Success

    Cross-Functional Marcomm Teams Drive Strategic Success

    During my first foray into marcomm leadership, every project seemed on fire. If the project was due at 3 p.m., the first draft was ready at 2 p.m., giving little time for adjustments. I noticed this happened with almost every project. As I did some research into the production calendar, I realized there were more projects than time. That meant if one project got behind, there was a ripple effect that continued to impact more and more projects the team was working on.

    An initial strategy to address this involved offloading projects that were not the best use of marcomm’s time. The second strategy looked at increasing capacity through student workers and approved freelance partners. Despite implementing both, the team still struggled to accomplish all the tasks, finding many delays in the back-and-forth process with the campus partner. As I started exploring what would help the team, the idea of cross-functional teams emerged as a viable strategy to yield better alignment with key constituents, increase efficiency and create better products.

    Cross-functional teams are groups of people from various areas in an organization who work together to achieve a common goal. I have used these teams with key university partners including enrollment, advancement and athletics. Each cross-functional team has several members from the marcomm team (usually a representative from communications, marketing, creative and web) and two or three members from the other unit. Together, these groups meet regularly and work as strategic partners to meet institutional goals.

    Cross-functional teams are time-consuming but can have significant impact on outcomes, culture and organizational success when done well. Below are a few benefits of utilizing cross-functional teams when working with strategic campus partners.

    Moving From Service Provider to Strategic Partner

    One benefit of cross-functional teams is positioning marcomm teams as a strategic partner, not just an order taker. This shift allows marcomm to more meaningfully support institutional goals. Instead of executing someone else’s strategy, these teams can apply their individual expertise while collaborating on integrated strategies that support the partner and ultimately the organization. For example, the web team member can begin approaching the project thinking about the entire digital strategy, instead of just making a website pretty. This role’s shift helps improve relationships between the teams but ultimately drives results.

    Operational Efficiency Creates Wins Faster

    Familiar teams work faster. Less time is required to navigate procedural and relational decisions, such as who needs to review something or what the feedback process entails. In cross-functional teams, the members become comfortable with these aspects, allowing them to begin working faster. The speed comes not only from familiarity but also from intentionality. Shared institutional knowledge of the goals and the internal processes to complete tasks results in more thoughtful responses when adjustments are needed because of changes like enrollment shifts, market changes or budget adjustments.

    Consistency Builds Brand Equity

    Aligned teams also create consistent work. Regular collaboration leads to consistency in voice, tone and look on projects. For example, when cross-functional teams are collaborating on the goals for a piece, there is more likely to be synergy in the tactical execution of the piece or at a least a shared understanding of the approach. When there is no alignment, the teams may agree on the goal but are less likely to agree on the strategies and tactics, resulting in disjointed messaging and less effective outcomes.

    Cohesive messages also build trust and recognition with external audiences, which is critical to support for university objectives. Ultimately, consistency across teams strengthens the university’s voice in the market and amplifies the impact of every communication.

    Internal Alignment Supports Goals

    One of the biggest benefits of cross-functional teams is how they strengthen internal alignment within marcomm. By collaborating closely with colleagues across disciplines, the marcomm team is better equipped to align its work with the goals and priorities of campus partners. For example, telling our story takes on an enhanced meaning when it is viewed through the lens of growing enrollment or raising private institutional support. In addition, this cross-functional collaboration fosters greater accountability and trust within the marcomm unit itself. From my experience, the team often internally aligns on the approach and presents a strategic (and united) front when pitching concepts or suggesting strategy shifts.

    Empowered Teams Create Elevated Outcomes

    Cross-functional teams facilitate learning from all members. Hearing new perspectives from other divisions creates new understandings, both within marcomm and outside of it. For example, web team members learn about graphic design and enrollment best practices. This occurs because cross-functional teams are collaboration-based, so all team members are empowered to contribute ideas instead of only giving feedback on their traditional roles. More broadly, the entire marcomm team benefits from cross-functional teams if there’s a way to share these learnings with the full group instead of just those in a specific meeting.

    Working Toward Success

    When I first stepped into marcomm leadership, the team was running full speed just to keep up, racing from one fire drill to the next with little time to pause, reflect or align. What initially seemed like a time-management problem turned out to be a deeper issue of structure, communication and partnership. Through the intentional creation of cross-functional teams, we began to shift from reactive executors to proactive strategic partners.

    Cross-functional teams require time investment to create shared mission, collaboration frameworks and understanding of the work at hand. However, these teams generate shared ownership and strong trust, central to ongoing collaboration, partnerships and organizational innovation. Most importantly, the outcomes are usually a more agile, aligned and high-performing organization—better equipped to meet both immediate goals and long-term strategic priorities of the institution.

    Carrie Phillips, Ed.D., is chief communications and marketing officer at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

    Source link

  • City College of SF Announces Chancellor Hire, Then Backtracks

    City College of SF Announces Chancellor Hire, Then Backtracks

    City College of San Francisco announced last week that it had hired a new chancellor—but never voted to approve the candidate and later deleted the news release, leaving the process in limbo.

    The San Francisco Chronicle reported that City College posted a news release on Tuesday announcing that it had selected Carlos O. Cortez as its next chancellor, pending approval at a Board of Trustees meeting on Thursday. However, the board spent several hours in a closed executive session before ultimately deciding not to make a decision on the candidate.

    Trustees did not explain their inaction on the search, according to a review of the meeting. The board agenda shows trustees were also set to consider approval of a contract for Cortez, with an annual base salary of $350,000, but removed that action item after punting on the search.

    Multiple speakers at the meeting expressed support for Cortez.

    In the Tuesday news release that was later deleted, Anita Martinez, the Board of Trustees president, lauded the candidate for his “proven track record of success in academic innovation, fundraising, student success, and community engagement.”

    His hire even prompted congratulatory posts on LinkedIn before the move was walked back.

    Cortez was previously chancellor of the San Diego Community College District from July 2021 to May 2023 before he stepped down suddenly, a move he attributed to the need to take care of his ailing parents in Florida. Since then he has emerged as a finalist for six jobs at the chancellor or president level, including SFCC. Five of those jobs were in California and one was in Wisconsin.

    The San Francisco Chronicle also reported that Cortez was arrested in Florida on suspicion of driving under the influence in January 2024 and later pleaded no contest to reckless driving. Cortez told the newspaper the charge was “due to a mixture of prescription medicine.”

    Cortez told the San Francisco Chronicle last week that he didn’t know where his candidacy stands. He did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed sent via LinkedIn on Monday.

    City College officials also did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)

    Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)

    American universities are dynamic engines of deep technological innovation (deep tech), responding to a growing demand for STEM research innovations that can reach the market quickly and at scale. In order to remain competitive in a fast-moving global scientific landscape and strengthen national research dominance, universities need to accelerate their innovation outputs by shortening the time it takes for research products from graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields to reach the market, while providing these early-career researchers with the necessary mentorship and resources needed to translate their academic research projects into high-impact startup companies. By targeting these highly qualified scientists at the juncture of innovative university research and entrepreneurial ambition, we can more effectively advance academic research discoveries from early-career STEM talent into commercially viable new companies (NewCos) at scale.

    To fully capitalize on this immense potential, America must transcend the current national innovation paradigms. We argue that our nation’s global leadership in science and technology could be maintained through strategically scaled and nationally coordinated approaches to innovation, including cross-cutting and cross-sectoral approaches. Additionally, to retain American scientific and technological leadership on the global stage, we must confront the inherent risks of deep tech ventures head-on and decisively maximize our national “shots on goal,” which can lead to developing a truly robust and self-sustaining innovation ecosystem.

    A Scalable Model for National STEM Innovation

    The foundation of a new American innovation model lies in the urgent creation of new and effective cross-sectoral partnerships involving universities, industry, government and philanthropic players. Existing models supporting American innovation rely heavily on public seed funding, which, while valuable, often falls short in meeting the needs for the capital-intensive process of commercializing deep tech ventures from university lab research. Historically, the federal government has borne much of the early risk for deep tech company formation such as through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, administered by agencies including the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

    These programs have served as important launchpads for many academic entrepreneurs, including early-career scientists. However, early-phase SBIR/STTR grants typically range around $150,000 for durations of six months to one year. While this funding provides critical seed capital, it represents only a fraction of the substantial investment required for R&D, prototyping and market validation for deep tech ventures. Compounding this challenge, the acceptance rate for SBIR grants has declined sharply, from approximately 30 percent in 2001 to just 10 percent in 2024 in some sectors, further straining the pipeline necessary for deep tech innovation.

    Current federally focused financial support systems are falling short. Start-up success rates remain low, and private venture capital is unlikely to close the funding gap, especially for university-based early-career scientists. As competition for SBIR funding intensifies and global venture capital investment drops by 30 percent, America’s scientific and technological competitiveness is at risk without stronger shared-risk models and expanded backing for academic innovation.

    In today’s highly commercialized and globally competitive research landscape, the quality and quantity of start-ups emerging from academic labs are critical parameters for developing the next generation of entrepreneurs. A strong pipeline of NewCos enables more innovations to be tested in real-world markets, increasing the chances that transformative companies will succeed and attract external investment from industry. To meet this challenge, America needs a bold vision focused on maximizing national shots on goal through strategic scaling, proactive risk management and innovative risk-sharing models. This framework must not only rely on investment from the federal government but also from a strategically blended funding model that includes state and local governments, industry, philanthropy, venture capital, mission-driven investors, and other nontraditional funding sources.

    A nationally coordinated cross-sector pooled NewCo fund, supported by federal agencies, universities, industry, philanthropy, private equity and venture capital, partnering together, is essential for rapidly advancing national innovation at scale.

    This idea is not unique to us; it has been proposed in Europe and Australia and has been part of the science policy conversation for some time. However, the current historical moment in American science offers a unique opportunity to move from conversation to action.

    Impacts of Research Funding Cuts

    This year, significant reductions in federal funding for R&D at multiple federal agencies have posed substantial challenges to universities striving to remain global-leading STEM innovation hubs. Reductions in staff at the NSF have implications for SBIR programs, which rely on robust institutional support and agency capacity to guide early-stage innovation effectively. In addition, proposed reductions in indirect cost reimbursements for grantees at multiple agencies including NIH, DOD, NSF and the Department of Energy may also pose a challenge to research institutions and resulting start-ups in covering essential overhead expenses, impacting the transition of federally-funded research from labs to market-ready applications.

    An Updated Framework

    The national shots on goal framework is a potential remedy to the currently changing landscape imposed by federal science funding cuts. By emphasizing public-private-philanthropic partnerships, scaled seed investments and improved use of existing infrastructure within universities, this framework can help mitigate the impact of research funding cuts at federal agencies on early-career researchers.

    This framework can be especially impactful for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields whose scientific projects, entrepreneurial endeavors and research careers require robust and sustained federal support from multiple funding sources over a longer period of time. It also allows universities to maintain and expand deep tech innovation without relying solely on federal agency funding.

    For example, targeted one-year investments of $200,000 per NewCo can provide an essential and low-risk commercialization runway, similar in scale to the NIH R21 program. This fund would be sustained through contributions from a broad coalition of federal agencies, philanthropies, state governments, regional industries, universities and venture and private equity partners. By distributing risk across the ecosystem and focusing on returns from a growing pipeline of NewCos, this coordinated effort could partially counteract the losses sustained by the research enterprise as a result of federal agency funding cuts and accelerate university-driven scientific innovation nationwide.

    To support the long-term sustainability of these start-up companies, a portion of national NewCo funds could be reinvested in traditional and emerging markets, including crypto. This would help grow the NewCo funds over time and de-risk a pipeline of start-ups led by early-career scientists pursuing high-risk research.

    A Pilot Program

    To validate the national shots on goal vision, we propose a targeted pilot program initially focused on graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields pursuing NewCo formation at select U.S. land-grant universities. Land-grant universities, which are vital hubs for STEM research innovation, workforce development and regional workforce growth, are uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Below, we suggest a few elements of effective pilot programs, bringing together ideas for outreach, partnerships, funding and relevant STEM expertise.

    • Dedicated, national risk-mitigating funding pool: To minimize capital risk, provide one-year seed grants of $200,000, along with subsidized or free access to core facilities. By the end of the year, each venture must secure external funding from the commercial sector, such as venture capital, or it will be discontinued, given that follow-on support cannot come from additional federal grants or the seed fund itself.
    • Targeted, risk-aware STEM outreach and recruitment: Implement a national outreach campaign explicitly targeting STEM graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at land-grant universities, highlighting risk-managed opportunities and participation pathways. Industry and philanthropic partners should be included in outreach and recruitment steps, and promote projects that meet high-priority industrial and/or philanthropic R&D strategic interests.
    • Specialized, STEM-oriented risk management–focused support network: Develop a tailored mentorship network leveraging STEM expertise within land-grant universities. The network should include alumni with entrepreneurial talent and economic development partners. It should also include training for academic scientists on risk modeling and corporate strategy, and actively incorporate industry experts and philanthropists.
    • Earmarked funding for STEM-based graduate and postdoctoral programs: In addition to the above, new funding streams should be specifically allocated to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields. This framework would grant them an intensive year of subsidized financial support and access to the university’s core facilities, along with support from business experts and technology transfer professionals to help them launch a company ready for external venture funding within one year. Critically, during this process, the university where academic research was conducted should take no equity or intellectual property stake in a newly formed company based on this research.
    • Rigorous, risk-adjusted evaluation and iteration framework: Establish a robust national evaluation framework to track venture progress, measure performance and iteratively refine the framework based on data-driven insights and feedback loops to optimize risk mitigation.
    • Leverage existing programs to maximize efficiency and avoid duplication: Entrepreneurial talent and research excellence are nationally distributed, but opportunity is not. Select federal programs and initiatives can help level the playing field and dramatically expand STEM opportunities nationwide. For example, the NSF I-Corps National Innovation Network provides a valuable collaborative framework for expanding lab-to-market opportunities nationwide through the power of industry engagement.
    • Prioritize rapid deep tech commercialization through de-risking models that attract early-stage venture and private equity: Transformative multisector funding models can unlock NewCo formation nationwide by combining public investment with private and philanthropic capital. The Deshpande Center at MIT demonstrates this approach, offering one-year seed grants of $100,000, with renewal opportunities based on progress. These early investments can help deep tech entrepreneurs tackle complex challenges, manage early risk and attract commercial funding. ARPA-E’s tech-to-market model similarly integrates commercialization support early on. Additionally, the mechanism of shared user facilities at DOE national labs reduces R&D costs by providing subsidized access to advanced infrastructure for academic researchers in universities, thereby supporting the formation of NewCos through strong public-private partnerships.
    • Bridge the academic-industry gap: Given the central role of universities in national innovation, building commercially viable deep tech ventures requires bridging the science-business gap through integrated, campus-based STEM ecosystems. This requires strengthening internal university connections by connecting science departments with business schools, embedding training in risk modeling and corporate strategy and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration. These efforts will support the creation of successful start-ups and equip the next generation of scientists with skills in disruptive and inclusive innovation.

    Conclusion

    As American scientific innovation continues to advance, this moment presents an opportunity to rethink how we can best support and scale deep tech ventures resulting in start-up companies emerging from university research labs. In the face of federal funding cuts and ongoing barriers to rapid commercialization at scale within universities, these institutions must adopt bold thinking, forge innovative partnerships and exhibit a greater willingness to experiment with new models of innovation.

    By harnessing the strengths of land-grant universities, deploying innovative funding strategies and driving cross-disciplinary collaboration, we can build a more resilient and globally competitive national research and innovation ecosystem.

    Adriana Bankston is an AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow, currently working to support sustained federal research funding in the U.S. House of Representatives. She holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology from Emory University and is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Michael W. Nestor is board director of the Government-University-Industry-Philanthropy Research Roundtable at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. He directed the Human Neural Stem Cell Research Lab at the Hussman Institute for Autism, where his work led to the founding of start-ups Synapstem and Autica Bio, and contributed to early-stage biotech commercialization at Johnson & Johnson Innovation–JLABS. He holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and completed postdoctoral training at the NIH and the New York Stem Cell Foundation.

    The views expressed by the authors of this article do not represent the views of their organizations and are written in a personal capacity.

    Source link