Tag: News

  • Harvard Faculty Pledge 10% of Salary to Defend Against Trump

    Harvard Faculty Pledge 10% of Salary to Defend Against Trump

    Nearly 100 senior faculty members at Harvard have committed to taking a pay cut to support the institution’s legal defense against the federal government.

    The Trump administration has frozen more than $2 billion in federal funding, threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and said it would end the institution’s ability to enroll international students.

    Last month, Harvard filed a lawsuit to halt the federal freeze on $2.2 billion in grants after university officials refused to comply with a sweeping list of demands from the government.

    On Friday, President Trump repeated his calls to revoke Harvard’s tax exempt status. “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” he said in a post on his social media platform, TruthSocial.

    Harvard president Alan Garber said taking away the institution’s nonprofit tax exemption would be “highly illegal” and that its mission to educate and research would be “severely impaired” if the status were revoked.

    In their pledge, 89 senior faculty signatories said they would take a 10 percent pay cut for up to a year to protect the institution, as well as faculty and students who are more exposed to efforts to shore up costs, including by limiting graduate student enrollment and implementing hiring and salary freezes.

    “The financial costs will not be shared equally among our community. Staff and students in many programs, in particular, are under greater threat than those of us with tenured positions,” the pledge says.

    Ryan Enos, a signatory and professor of government at Harvard, estimated that the donations could amount to more than $2 million.

    The group said it intends to move quickly but has not decided how the salary cuts will be implemented.

    “We envision that faculty who have made the pledge will hold a vote and if the majority agrees that the university is making a good faith effort to use its own resources in support of staff, student, and academic programs, faculty will proceed with their donation.”

    Last week the institution announced changes to its admissions, curriculum and disciplinary procedures after two internal task forces launched last year investigating anti-Muslim bias and antisemitism on campus found the university’s response lacking.

    In response to the efforts, a White House official told CNN, “Harvard’s steps so far to curb antisemitism are ‘positive,’” but “what we’re seeing is not enough, and there’s actually probably going to be additional funding being cut.”

    Source link

  • Oklahoma State, UC, UT and Others Name New Presidents

    Oklahoma State, UC, UT and Others Name New Presidents

    Jennifer Berne, provost of Oakland Community College in Michigan, has been appointed president of Madison College in Wisconsin, effective July 1.

    Carlos Carvalho, a professor of statistics at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business, has been named the second president of the University of Austin.

    Philip Cavalier, the provost and senior vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Tennessee at Martin, will become the president of Kutztown University in Pennsylvania, effective July 6.

    Jim Dlugos, who retired as president of St. Joseph’s College of Maine in 2023, became president of Landmark College in Vermont on May 1.

    Joyce Ester, president of Normandale Community College in Minnesota, has been selected as president of Governors State University in Illinois, effective July 1.

    Christopher Fiorentino, former interim chancellor and president of West Chester University, became chancellor of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education on April 11.

    Jim Hess, interim president of Oklahoma State University since February, has been appointed permanent president of the institution.

    Dee McDonald, vice president for enrollment and marketing at Crown College in Minnesota, has been named president of Bethel University in Indiana, effective July 1.

    Summer McGee, president of Salem Academy and College in North Carolina, has been selected president of Lenoir-Rhyne University, effective July 1.

    Bethany Meighen, vice president for academic and student affairs for the University of North Carolina system, has been appointed president of Concord University in West Virginia, effective July 1.

    James Milliken, who has served as chancellor of the University of Texas system since 2018, has been named the next president of the University of California system, effective Aug. 1.

    Martin Pollio, superintendent of the Jefferson County public school district in Louisville, Ky., has been elected president of Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana, effective July 1.

    Thomas Powell, who has formerly served as president at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Maryland, Glenville State University in West Virginia and Frederick Community College in Maryland, assumed the presidency at Averett University in Virginia on May 1.

    Ritu Raju, president and CEO of Gateway Technical College in Wisconsin, has been appointed president of South Central College in Minnesota, effective July 1.

    Brett Sanford, former North Dakota lieutenant governor and interim president of Bismarck State College, assumed the role of interim chancellor of the North Dakota University System on April 30.

    Brock Tessman, president of Northern Michigan University, has been named president of Montana State University, effective July 1.

    Willie Todd, president and chief executive officer of Denmark Technical College in South Carolina, has been appointed president of Talladega College in Alabama, effective July 1.

    John Zerwas, executive vice chancellor for health affairs at the University of Texas system, has been named acting chancellor of the UT system— replacing Milliken, who is departing for the top job at the University of California—effective June 1.

    Source link

  • Colleges Cut More Programs, Jobs in April

    Colleges Cut More Programs, Jobs in April

    April brought deep cuts to universities in Florida, Michigan and elsewhere.

    Although changes driven by the Trump administration that have included cutting grant funding and capping research reimbursement costs have driven hiring freezes and other changes, the cuts below are not directly tied to Trump. However, Trump’s agenda has directly prompted some job losses. For example, the University of Montana eliminated 42 positions after Congress excluded the Defense Critical Language and Culture Program from a government funding bill.

    But most of the below job cuts, program eliminations and other changes are instead tied to declining enrollment, rising operating costs and other factors challenging the sector.

    Jacksonville University

    Some of the deepest cuts in April were at Jacksonville University, which slashed 40 faculty jobs.

    Officials also announced plans to shutter JU’s music and theater programs in a cost-cutting effort, which, coupled with faculty layoffs, is expected to save the private university $10 million.

    President Tim Cost called the move “the most robust strategic review of our academic offerings we have ever done” in an April 15 video posted to Facebook where he cast the cuts as “strategic recalibration.” Cost argued that the move would improve academics and “streamline” expenses.

    Cost argued that higher education as a sector is beset with challenges and referenced hard choices at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cornell University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and Pennsylvania State University. However, with the exception of Penn State, hiring freezes and other changes at those institutions have been driven by changes to federal research funding. (Jacksonville is not a research university, while those institutions are.)

    Unmentioned in Cost’s video were concerns that the university could close, which were raised in JU’s most recent audit. Specifically, auditors noted that the university fell out of compliance with its debt agreements. Violations of such covenants can result in debt becoming due immediately. Jacksonville had nearly $144 million in debt at the end of fiscal year 2024.

    Despite the university’s financial challenges, enrollment is up. In fall 2015, JU enrolled 4,048 students, federal data shows. This spring, that number was 4,601, according to a bond filing.

    JU’s deep cuts have been met with anger and a sense of betrayal from faculty members.

    “I really believed that this was a place that believed in its mission,” an anonymous faculty member who was laid off told local media. “And now it is so completely changing that mission. And what’s worse is they are gaslighting us into pretending like this has always been the plan.”

    Although faculty voted no confidence in Cost, college officials have argued that changes at JU have followed its shared governance processes, which included faculty input, and that such changes are necessary to drop low-performing programs and prioritize other academic offerings.

    Concordia University

    The private Christian university plans to lay off 46 employees across two states.

    Concordia University—which has its primary campus in Wisconsin—informed the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity in a letter it would move forward with plans to lay off 41 employees at its Ann Arbor campus on May 31 or “during the 14-day period thereafter.” Another five employees will be laid off in Wisconsin, according to a similar filing there.

    Concordia announced last summer that most Ann Arbor academic programs would go online.

    Concordia has navigated financial struggles in recent years and closed three campuses it operated in Wisconsin in 2023. However, officials have sought to reassure community members that there are no immediate plans to close the Ann Arbor campus.

    “Concordia Ann Arbor will continue to offer a variety of degree options in 2025 and beyond,” reads a university page on frequently asked questions. The page added that “Concordia can no longer sustain multi-million-dollar operational losses at the Ann Arbor campus.”

    California State University, Sacramento

    Facing state budget cuts, the public university in California made a series of personnel changes in April.

    “Due to the severe state budget cuts and the escalating labor costs we are facing for the upcoming fiscal year, 28 management (MPP) positions have been eliminated, merged, or not retained. These actions included 15 MPP employees who were released from their positions today,” Sacramento State president Luke Wood wrote to the campus community April 7.

    More changes are on the horizon as Sac State navigates a $37 million budget deficit, amid cuts to state appropriations that will ultimately hit all 23 California State University system members.

    Franklin & Marshall College

    Last month Franklin & Marshall College laid off 16 staff members, LancasterOnline reported.

    The private Pennsylvania institution laid off staff members in the library, as well as areas such as facilities and event services, but appeared to spare faculty, according to a list obtained by the news outlet. Officials told LancasterOnline that F&M was exercising “responsible management” by “reducing the number of our employees to better match the size of our student body.” (Like many other colleges, Franklin & Marshall’s enrollment has slipped in recent years from 2,209 students in fall 2014, according to federal data, to around 1,900 currently.)

    Some other jobs were also changed from a 12-month to a 10-month schedule.

    University of Akron

    Amid efforts to trim $22 million from its budget by the end of fiscal year 2026, the University of Akron is eliminating its physics and anthropology departments, Cleveland.com reported.

    Approximately 20 full-time faculty members across the university have also accepted voluntary separation agreements, the news outlet confirmed. An advisory committee to help steer faculty cuts and ideas for generating revenue has pitched buyouts as a possible alternative to layoffs.

    University of Toledo

    Elsewhere in Ohio, the University of Toledo is suspending nine programs due to a state politics and policies.

    The public university announced last month that it’s pausing admission to the Africana studies, Asian studies, data analytics, disability studies, Middle East studies, philosophy, religious studies, Spanish and women’s and gender studies programs, to comply with legislation, Senate Bill 1, that recently passed and became law.

    All affected programs will remain available as minors, according to the university website.

    SB 1—controversial and sweeping legislation that affects both program offerings and campus speech—bans diversity efforts in higher education and requires colleges to drop undergraduate programs that yield fewer than five degrees annually, on average, over a three-year period.

    Unrelated to SB 1, Toledo also announced it was suspending admissions to a dozen other undergraduate and graduate programs, following a recent review of academic offerings.

    Portland Community College

    More than a dozen programs could be cut at Oregon’s largest community college.

    Portland Community College is currently weighing a plan to eliminate as many as 14 programs in a cost-cutting effort, local CBS affiliate KOIN reported. So far, PCC has identified two programs that will be eliminated within two years: music and sonic arts, and gerontology.

    Other potential programs on the chopping block at PCC are anthropology, art, Chinese, criminal justice, electronic engineering technology, English for speakers of other languages, general science, German, machine manufacturing technology, Russian, theater arts and welding.

    Middlebury College

    Officials at the private liberal arts college in Vermont announced a series of cost-cutting moves last month, including employee buyouts, in an effort to plug a projected $14 million budget hole.

    Middlebury officials blamed the deficit on declining enrollment and increased operating costs.

    Other fiscal moves include reducing Middlebury’s retirement matching contributions, shedding rental property leases and evaluating health insurance plans for possible changes. Altogether, officials said initial efforts are expected “to realize more than $10 million” in savings.

    Canisius University

    The private Jesuit university in Buffalo, N.Y., is offering buyouts to staff as part of a plan to identify $15 million in savings across the next two fiscal years, NBC affiliate WGRZ reported.

    Canisius has also sought to refinance $55 million in debt recently.

    Source link

  • Trump Admin Cuts Off New Research Funding to Harvard

    Trump Admin Cuts Off New Research Funding to Harvard

    Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

    Harvard University won’t be getting any new grants, Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote in a blistering letter to the institution that was posted on the social media platform known as X.

    “Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution and can instead operate as a privately-funded institution, drawing on its colossal endowment and raising money from its large base of wealthy alumni,” McMahon wrote. “You have an approximately $53 billion head start, much of which was made possible by the fact you are living within the walls of, and benefiting from, the prosperity secured by the United States of America and its free-market system you teach your students to despise.”

    McMahon didn’t specify what grants she was referring to in the letter, sent Monday evening, but other media outlets reported that the Trump administration was cutting Harvard off from new research grants.

    The move escalates the Trump administration’s war with Harvard University. After the university rejected sweeping demands, the administration froze $2.26 billion of Harvard’s estimated $9 billion in grants and contracts. Harvard then sued. Trump also has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and its ability to enroll international students.

    The letter didn’t cite any legal authority for cutting off new funds to Harvard, so it’s unclear if McMahon can follow through on her threat.

    McMahon accused Harvard of failing to follow federal law and abide “by any semblance of academic rigor.” She also raised questions about why the university was offering an introductory math course to address pandemic learning loss and criticized the decision to scrap standardized testing requirements.

    “Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this ‘acclaimed university’? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest level of mathematics, are being rejected?” McMahon wrote.

    Over all, she wrote that Harvard had “made a mockery of the country’s higher education system,” referencing in part the plagiarism allegations against the university’s former president. To McMahon, it all shows “evidence of Harvard’s disastrous management” and an “urgent need for massive reform.”

    Trump administration officials told Politico that to restore the flow of federal funds, Harvard “would have to enter into a negotiation with the government to satisfy the government that it’s in compliance with all federal laws.” (The government has yet to release any finding or evidence showing that Harvard isn’t complying with federal laws, though officials have made plenty of accusations.)

    McMahon wrote that the administration stands by its demands for “common sense” reforms such as merit-based admissions and hiring decisions and an “end to unlawful programs that promote crude identity stereotypes.” Those changes “will advance the best interests of Harvard University,” she added.

    Source link

  • Confessions of a Reformed DEI Officer (opinion)

    Confessions of a Reformed DEI Officer (opinion)

    DEI is under fire—not just from politicians, but from within the academy itself. What began as a push for equity now faces an existential crisis. Faculty, students and even longtime advocates are questioning whether DEI has lost its way—whether it’s become too symbolic, too scripted or too powerless to make real change.

    I spent five years as a DEI officer in higher education. I pushed for change in an academic system that claimed to want it. I still believe in DEI. Yet, I’ve seen how often it fails—not because the ideas are wrong, but because the execution is. Diversity, equity and inclusion, when thoughtfully and strategically embedded, can be transformative. But when they become symbolic gestures, checkbox exercises or top-down mandates imposed without trust or buy-in, they often backfire. I’ve seen both.

    This isn’t a takedown. I write this because I still believe in the work—and because belief without scrutiny is dangerous. DEI doesn’t need to be dismantled. It needs to be reformed, strengthened and made more honest. We need fewer slogans and more substance. Less signaling and more systems. And above all, more humility about the complexity of this work.

    One of the biggest problems I’ve seen is the reduction of diversity to only race, ethnicity or gender. These are important dimensions, but they’re not the whole picture. When diversity becomes a proxy for visible identity markers alone, we miss what actually makes institutions stronger: a wide range of lived experiences, skill sets and worldviews. Inclusion isn’t about agreement—it’s about making space for people who see the world differently. The danger of focusing too narrowly is that we create institutions that look diverse yet whose members still think the same—and that kind of monolith doesn’t solve complex problems. It makes us worse at solving them.

    We live in a time of extraordinary complexity. Whether we’re addressing climate change, artificial intelligence, mental health or global conflict, these challenges require collaboration across differences. Research shows that diverse teams produce better results. They’re more creative, more innovative and more likely to challenge assumptions that would otherwise go untested. But it only works when inclusion is real—not performative. Diversity without inclusion is like assembling a symphony and never letting half the musicians play.

    This is why we can’t afford to get DEI wrong. Because when we do, the consequences ripple out—not just in missed opportunities for innovation, but in eroded trust, disengagement and backlash. And some of that backlash, while politically weaponized in many cases, is also fueled by real problems with DEI itself.

    We need to be honest about one of those problems: the silencing of dissenting views. When DEI is framed in a way that suggests there is only one acceptable perspective—or when people who raise legitimate critiques are dismissed as regressive—it undermines the very values of inclusion and dialogue. True equity work must make space for disagreement, especially when it’s respectful and grounded in a shared desire for improvement.

    When critical questions are treated as threats, or when people fear professional consequences for expressing dissent, we risk undermining the values of intellectual rigor and inclusion that DEI is meant to uphold. It’s a short path from ideological clarity to rigidity, which can shut down the kind of dialogue that progress requires. Inclusion must mean inclusion of unpopular opinions, too. This is one lesson I learned the hard way.

    Another challenge that continues to undermine trust in DEI efforts is the perception of the so-called diversity hire. The phrase is loaded, toxic and—when DEI is done badly—not entirely baseless. In institutions where hiring is reduced to checking demographic boxes, this perception takes hold. And with it, the person hired is immediately set up to fail. Not because they lack qualifications, but because their colleagues are convinced they were chosen for the wrong reasons. It erodes trust, breeds resentment and delegitimizes the entire process.

    But that’s not what DEI is supposed to be. When done right, it broadens the search process. It doesn’t lower the bar. It means casting a wider net, doing targeted outreach and making sure the applicant pool reflects the full range of talent that exists. It means interrupting the biases that shape hiring—especially in homogeneous departments. And when you do that, the candidate pool becomes more diverse and more competitive.

    During my time as DEI officer, we developed a faculty hiring tool kit to address these challenges. It supported broader outreach and inclusive job ads and helped search committees examine how bias can influence evaluations. The tool kit was adopted across the university and became the basis for a peer-reviewed publication. Search committees reported feeling more confident, and hiring outcomes began to reflect that intentionality. That’s what it looks like when DEI becomes a tool for excellence rather than a threat to it.

    But even the best tools can’t fix a broken structure. Many DEI leaders are hired to drive change but denied the power or resources to do so. They’re tasked with transforming the institution but positioned on the margins of decision-making. And when change doesn’t come fast enough, they’re blamed. I’ve felt that pressure. And I’ve seen how it erodes trust—not just for those doing the work, but for the communities they’re meant to serve. If we’re serious about equity, we have to stop treating DEI as both a priority and an afterthought. It can’t be the institution’s conscience and its scapegoat at the same time.

    The truth is that a DEI office or officer does not matter in the slightest. What matters is what these offices and individuals are empowered to do—and how the institution responds. Too often, DEI structures are set up with grand titles but little actual authority. They’re underfunded, overburdened and expected to carry the weight of transformation without the tools to do it. Worse, they’re sometimes used for symbolic signaling while real decisions happen elsewhere.

    Here’s a hot take: Land acknowledgments are one of the clearest examples of symbolic DEI gone wrong. Even many DEI advocates are uneasy about saying this out loud—but it’s a conversation we need to have. Originally intended as respectful recognition of Indigenous peoples, they’ve too often become formulaic, superficial and devoid of follow-up. When institutions recite them without engaging Indigenous communities, investing in their successes or addressing systemic issues affecting them today, the gesture rings hollow. Sometimes it’s even counterproductive—giving the appearance of moral action without the substance. That’s the danger of symbolic DEI: It feels good in the moment, but it can do more harm than good by masking the real work that needs to be done. Respect requires more than words. It requires meaningful engagement, resource investment and sustained commitment.

    Another hot take: Sometimes constraints make the work better. Guardrails—even legal ones—can force us to get more creative, more deliberate and more focused on what actually works. In my home state of California, DEI work has operated under the legal constraints of Proposition 209, passed in 1996, which prohibits public institutions from considering race, sex or ethnicity in admissions, hiring or contracting. In 2020, a ballot initiative to repeal Prop 209 failed—leaving the status quo intact, but reigniting debate about what equity should look like in a race-neutral legal landscape.

    Rather than marking a shift, the 2020 vote reaffirmed the challenge California institutions have been navigating for nearly three decades. Public colleges and universities have spent years adapting—expanding outreach and pipeline programs, revamping search processes, and investing in mentorship and faculty development—all without using race-conscious criteria. Without relying on the most legally vulnerable tools, they were pushed to build models of reform that were legally sound, broadly applicable and less susceptible to political attack.

    California is not alone—some other states have adopted similar restrictions. And while the state is not immune from the scrutiny and investigations now facing institutions across the country, the constraints of Prop 209 forced a more intentional and durable approach to equity—one that may offer useful lessons for others.

    As backlash to DEI spreads—through lawsuits, legislation and public discourse—it’s easy to dismiss it all as reactionary. Sometimes it is. But sometimes it’s a response to real flaws: lack of transparency, ideological rigidity, symbolic efforts with no outcomes. The solution isn’t to abandon DEI. It’s to do it better. With more rigor, less theater. More results, fewer slogans. We need to distinguish between bad DEI and good DEI. Between what divides and what unifies. Between what placates and what transforms.

    Here’s the reality: The alternatives to diversity, equity and inclusion—uniformity, inequity and exclusion—aren’t values any institution should embrace. Few people, even DEI skeptics, would argue otherwise. The real debate isn’t about the values themselves—it’s about how they’ve been implemented, and whether the methods we’ve used actually advance the outcomes we claim to care about. If DEI is to survive, it has to evolve. Not into something shinier or trendier—but into something real. Built on trust, not performance. And that trust won’t come from more committees or statements. It will come from showing our work, owning our mistakes and staying committed to the values that brought us into this field in the first place.

    That’s what I’ve learned. And I’m still learning. But I haven’t lost hope. The ground is shifting—but that disruption brings opportunity. It’s fertile soil for building something better. If we bring more humility to our certainty, more evidence to our strategies and more courage to our conversations, this might not be the end of DEI. It could be the beginning of something stronger.

    Michael A. Yassa is a professor of neuroscience at the University of California, Irvine. He served for five years as associate dean of diversity, equity and inclusion and continues to work on institutional reform and mentoring in higher education. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policies or positions of UC Irvine.

    Source link

  • Westchester CC Sees 12-Point Growth in Graduation Rate

    Westchester CC Sees 12-Point Growth in Graduation Rate

    Providing students with wraparound support is one evidence-based practice that has demonstrated impact on student credit accumulation, persistence and graduation rates. In the mid-2000s, the City University of New York created a model of student support that has been duplicated at dozens of colleges to improve outcomes; now the State University of New York system hopes to build on this success on its own campuses.

    In 2018, Westchester Community College became the first SUNY campus to adopt CUNY’s initiative, which WCC calls Viking Resources for Obtaining Associate Degrees and Success (Viking ROADS). A March 2025 report from the nonprofit education-research group MDRC highlights the success of Viking ROADS during its initial three years: a 12-percentage-point increase in graduation rates among participants, despite headwinds from remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The background: CUNY created Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) in 2007 as a comprehensive initiative to address barriers to student retention and completion.

    The core components of ASAP are personalized academic advising, specialized enrollment options and financial aid for course material and transportation costs for three years.

    Over the past decade, ASAP-inspired programs have been implemented at over a dozen institutions in seven states. WCC president Belinda Miles was a part of the ASAP replication initiative in Ohio in 2014, so when she began her role at WCC in 2015, “it wasn’t too long before I ran into ASAP,” she said.

    Arnold Ventures and MDRC, along with an anonymous donor to the WCC Foundation, provided financial support for the launch of Viking ROADS.

    In 2023, SUNY chancellor John B. King Jr. announced the system would implement ASAP at 25 of its 64 campuses starting in 2024. Now, results from a three-year MDRC evaluation of Westchester Community College’s program offer guiding principles to peer institutions scaling their own efforts.

    “We’re delighted to be that pivot campus and a leader amongst our peers,” Miles said.

    The study: MDRC’s study followed WCC staff and students from 2018 to 2021.

    Viking ROADS requires WCC students to be enrolled full-time in an eligible major, meet with a dedicated counselor and use college support services monthly, as well as be a New York resident, a first-time college student and only enrolled in one developmental education course.

    A majority of students involved in the Viking ROADS study were traditional college students, with about one in five identifying as a nontraditional student (defined as someone who is older than 24, works full-time, has children or does not have a high school diploma). One adaptation of ASAP that Viking ROADS staff implemented was to offer a transportation stipend, rather than a prepaid MetroCard; WCC is a commuter campus and students utilize both their own cars and public transport to reach campus, so having flexibility in how they addressed transportation barriers was key, Miles said.

    Over all, program participants were more likely to have higher enrollment rates over time and complete more credits, compared to their peers. By their fourth semester, 20 percent of program participants had earned degrees, compared with 13.3 percent of control group students. And by their sixth semester, 35 percent of program participants had completed an associate degree, compared to 23 percent of the control group.

    Researchers theorized this gap could be tied to the specialized course enrollment options and academic advising Viking ROADS participants receive, which could help students meet their course requirements and reduce their risk of earning excess credits that don’t support degree completion.

    “It’s critical that students begin with a person and a plan, or a plan and a person, [so] we can say, ‘Here’s the road map, here’s your guided pathway, here are the steps you take.’ But having a person that’s reliable is something that is critical for students, particularly first-generation students,” Miles said, because some learners may not have supporters at home who understand the bureaucracy of higher education.

    Program staff also reduce barriers to applying for graduation and making degrees official; among nonparticipants who earned 60 or more credits, only 69 percent earned a degree, compared to 83 percent of Viking ROADS students.

    “Despite the challenges that were posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, Viking ROADS still had large effects on three-year graduation rates, confirming the strength and adaptability of the ASAP model,” according to the report. “Viking ROADS not only helped students navigate the immediate disruptions that were caused by the pandemic but also supported their continued academic progress and degree attainment.”

    What’s next: In the same way Miles brought her work with ASAP to WCC, she and her staff plan to contribute to a community of practice for the other SUNY campuses joining these efforts.

    “I’m happy to share with colleagues what our story is and how we keep it going and how we keep expanding, albeit incrementally,” Miles said.

    Funding and providing resources for wraparound services can be a barrier to scaling initiatives, but reallocating and redesigning existing services to better address student needs is one way Miles said she is looking to expand student success efforts at WCC.

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

    This article has been updated to reflect the correct name of Arnold Ventures.

    Source link

  • Cultivating a Postdoc Community (opinion)

    Cultivating a Postdoc Community (opinion)

    What happens when postdoctoral researchers feel like they truly belong? It is not just a feel-good moment—it is the foundation for success. A strong sense of community in the postdoctoral workplace can transform isolation into inclusion, stress into resilience and short-term survival into long-term thriving. It can help postdocs form the right mindset to face challenges such as career uncertainty, heavy workloads and relocation away from familiar support systems.

    For postdocs, community combats a unique kind of professional isolation. Whether someone is fresh out of graduate school or pivoting from one career path to another, postdoctoral training is a time of both intense focus and high ambiguity. Demanding workloads, career uncertainty, immigration concerns and financial insecurity can weigh heavily on postdocs and increase their levels of stress and feelings of outsiderness, especially for those from historically underrepresented backgrounds. Because of this, for career practitioners, faculty and mentors, focusing solely on the professional development of postdocs no longer seems to be enough.

    Why Community Matters

    Looking to expand our support for postdocs beyond their professional development, we at the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs at Washington University in St. Louis embraced the need to prioritize postdoc well-being and the creation of an inclusive, engaged community. We believe postdocs who feel a sense of belonging to a supportive environment are more likely to:

    • Maintain a healthier work-life integration, leading to better research outcomes, productivity and professional growth.
    • Reflect on their career paths, plan their future goals and make informed decisions about their careers.
    • Develop transferable skills such as communication, teamwork and leadership, which are crucial for career success.
    • Stay at their institutions, avoiding disruptions in research projects or the research group’s morale.

    With these objectives in mind, the skill-development side of the postdoctoral experience needs to be complemented with considerations about postdoc well-being, sense of belonging and identification with the institution.

    Initiatives to Cultivate Community

    Building a strong postdoc community and a strong sense of belonging has to be intentional. At WashU, partnerships and a little imagination helped us develop creative, low-cost initiatives to cultivate community, initiatives that any institution could tailor to fit the needs of their postdocs.

    Our community-building work centers on three main strategies: programming, fun giveaways and improved communication methods.

    Programming: Moments that Matter

    From our fall holiday pop-up to year-round celebrations of cultural heritage and history months, we have hosted events that offer postdocs essential touch points for connection outside their academic research and scholarship. We have reached out to internal and local partners (such as libraries and cultural organizations) and found they are often enthusiastic about collaborating with programs that align with their educational and service missions.

    For example, we connected with campus health and wellness programs to offer existing services (like CPR certification, health screenings or nutrition workshops) branded as postdoc-only events. Likewise, during LGBT History Month, we hosted Walk with Pride, a walking tour highlighting a local neighborhood’s LGBT history, in collaboration with the local history museum, which donated items for a raffle. With low investment, these events provide postdocs with opportunities to engage with diverse communities and cultures, enriching their personal and professional lives.

    Fun Giveaways: Small Tokens, Big Meaning

    We regularly ask our on-campus partners for fliers and branded stationery, which we include in a welcome kit we give away during orientation. A welcome kit is a small bag containing a collection of practical campus resources and promotional merchandise from the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs and our partners. We found that elements like stickers and branded lanyards not only boosted morale but also became a way for postdocs to visibly identify other postdocs across campus, sparking lighthearted and spontaneous conversation. We have learned to not underestimate the power of a sticker that says, “I’m a WashU Postdoc. I got this.” These small tokens help postdocs feel valued and connected.

    Communication: Making Sure No One Misses Out

    To ensure postdocs actually know about our programming and services, we leveled up our communications strategy with calendar invites, personalized welcome emails and festive event announcements tied to specific holidays or cultural celebrations. A successful strategy for us has been to share our announcements with the administrative staff in the academic units—they replicate our event invites in their internal departmental communications and thus create another avenue for the information to reach postdocs. Partnerships for proactive, clear communication go a long way in making sure everyone feels included.

    Call for Action

    There is still so much more we are excited to build at WashU. We are developing a postdoc parent network, a postdoc alumni network and a mentor network. We are planning more cultural events that connect postdocs with their identities and local history. We are finding ways to better support postdocs’ financial well-being.

    Community building is essential. We believe every postdoc deserves to feel like they belong, not just as researchers, but as people. And through practical initiatives like the ones we’ve shared, postdocs can develop a wide range of career skills that will serve them well in their future endeavors.

    There is no need for huge budgets or massive teams if we rely on curiosity, willingness to listen and partnerships across the campus and community. Talk to your postdocs. Then try something small, fun and heartfelt. It could be a sticker or a bake-off. Maybe it could be just a well-timed welcome email that says, “We are glad you are here.”

    The difference between isolation and engagement can start with a single gesture. That is a difference worth making. A supportive, connected postdoc community is not just a nice-to-have—it is a must-have for professional growth.

    Elizabeth Eikmann is currently the assistant director of curricular innovation in the College of Arts and Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and previously served as program coordinator in WashU’s Office of Postdoctoral Affairs. Paola Cépeda is the assistant vice chancellor for postdoctoral affairs at WashU. They are both members of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders. This article represents their views alone.

    Source link

  • Pasco-Hernando President Resigns Amid State DOGE Scrutiny

    Pasco-Hernando President Resigns Amid State DOGE Scrutiny

    Pasco-Hernando State College president Jesse Pisors has resigned after less than 18 months on the job, amid scrutiny from Florida’s version of the Department of Government Efficiency, The Tampa Bay Times reported.

    Pisors stepped down Thursday, the day before a special meeting called by board chair Marilyn Pearson-Adams to discuss concerns about student growth and retention, according to meeting documents. In a letter to other trustees, which included analysis from Florida’s DOGE on student growth and retention, Pearson-Adams noted the college was among the worst on those metrics.

    Specifically, she noted PHSC was second-to-last in retention numbers, which she called “alarming.” She added that trustees “had not been made aware of these numbers” despite “our continued requests over the past 12 months regarding this type of information and data.”

    The agenda shows only one action item for Friday’s special meeting of the Pasco-Hernando Board of Trustees: “Determination of Sustainability of College’s Future.” 

    Florida is one of several states that has sought to implement cost-cutting measures modeled on DOGE, the federal initiative led by billionaire bureaucrat Elon Musk to reduce government waste through layoffs and the elimination of various programs—an effort that has run into multiple legal challenges. DOGE-driven cuts have also fallen far short of their intended vision, with Musk often exaggerating savings for taxpayers in his work for the Trump administration. 

    Florida’s DOGE has also sought records of all faculty research at public institutions published in the last six years, leading to concerns about how the effort may be weaponized against faculty.

    Source link

  • The Trump Administration’s War on Children – The 74

    The Trump Administration’s War on Children – The 74

    ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

    The clear-cutting across the federal government under President Donald Trump has been dramatic, with mass terminations, the suspension of decades-old programs and the neutering of entire agencies. But this spectacle has obscured a series of moves by the administration that could profoundly harm some of the most vulnerable people in the U.S.: children.

    Consider: The staff of a program that helps millions of poor families keep the electricity on, in part so that babies don’t die from extreme heat or cold, have all been fired. The federal office that oversees the enforcement of child support payments has been hollowed out. Head Start preschools, which teach toddlers their ABCs and feed them healthy meals, will likely be forced to shut down en masse, some as soon as May 1. And funding for investigating child sexual abuse and internet crimes against children; responding to reports of missing children; and preventing youth violence has been withdrawn indefinitely.

    The administration has laid off thousands of workers from coast to coast who had supervised education, child care, child support and child protective services systems, and it has blocked or delayed billions of dollars in funding for things like school meals and school safety.

    These stark reductions have been centered in little-known children’s services offices housed within behemoth agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice, offices with names like the Children’s Bureau, the Office of Family Assistance and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In part because of their obscurity, the slashing has gone relatively overlooked.

    “Everyone’s been talking about what the Trump administration and DOGE have been doing, but no one seems to be talking about how, in a lot of ways, it’s been an assault on kids,” said Bruce Lesley, president of advocacy group First Focus on Children. He added that “the one cabinet agency that they’re fully decimating is the kid one,” referring to Trump’s goal of shuttering the Department of Education. Already, some 2,000 staffers there have lost or left their jobs.

    The impact of these cuts will be felt far beyond Washington, rippling out to thousands of state and local agencies serving children nationwide.

    The Department of Education, for instance, has rescinded as much as $3 billionin pandemic-recovery funding for schools, which would have been used for everything from tutoring services for Maryland students who’ve fallen behind to making the air safer to breathe and the water safer to drink for students in Flint, Michigan. The Department of Agriculture, meanwhile, has canceled $660 million in promised grants to farm-to-school programs, which had been providing fresh meat and produce to school cafeterias while supporting small farmers.

    At the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the agency’s secretary, has dismissed all of the staff that had distributed $1.7 billion annually in Social Services Block Grant money, which many states have long depended on to be able to run their child welfare, foster care and adoption systems, including birth family visitation, caseworker training and more. The grants also fund day care, counseling and disability services for kids. (It is unclear whether anyone remains at HHS who would know how to get all of that funding out the door or whether it will now be administered by White House appointees.)

    Head Start will be especially affected in the wake of Kennedy’s mass firings of Office of Head Start regional staff and news that the president’s draft budget proposes eliminating funding for the program altogether. That would leave one million working-class parents who rely on Head Start not only for pre-K education but also for child care, particularly in rural areas, with nowhere to send their kids during the day.

    Some local Head Start programs are already having to close their doors, and many program directors are encountering impediments to spending their current budgets. When they seek reimbursement after paying their teachers or purchasing school supplies, they’re being directed to a new “Defend the Spend” DOGE website asking them to “justify” each item, even though the spending has already been appropriated by Congress and audited by nonpartisan civil servants.

    Next on the chopping block, it appears, is Medicaid, which serves children in greater numbers than any other age group. If Republicans in Congress go through with the cuts they’ve been discussing, and Trump signs those cuts into law, kids from lower- and middle-class families across the U.S. will lose access to health care at their schools, in foster care, for their disabilities or for cancer treatment.

    The Trump administration has touted the president’s record of “protecting America’s children,” asserting in a recent post that Trump will “never stop fighting for their right to a healthy, productive upbringing.” The statement listed five examples of that commitment. Four were related to transgender issues (including making it U.S. government policy that there are only two sexes and keeping trans athletes out of women’s sports); the other was a ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates at schools that receive federal funding.

    The White House, and multiple agencies, declined to respond to most of ProPublica’s questions. Madi Biedermann, a Department of Education spokesperson, addressed the elimination of pandemic recovery funding, saying that “COVID is over”; that the Biden administration established an “irresponsible precedent” by extending the deadline to spend these funds (and exceeding their original purpose); and that the department will consider extensions if individual projects show a clear connection between COVID and student learning.

    An HHS spokesperson, in response to ProPublica’s questions about cuts to children’s programs across that agency, sent a short statement saying that the department, guided by Trump, is restructuring with a focus on cutting wasteful bureaucracy. The offices serving children, the statement said, will be merged into a newly established “Administration for Healthy America.”

    Programs that serve kids havehistorically fared the worst when those in power are looking for ways to cut the budget. That’s in part because kids can’t vote, and they typically don’t belong to political organizations. International aid groups, another constituency devastated by Trump’s policy agenda, also can’t say that they represent many U.S. voters.

    This dynamic may be part of why cuts on the health side of the Department of Health and Human Services — layoffs of doctors, medical researchers and the like — have received more political and press attention than those on the human services side, where the Administration for Children and Families is located. That’s where you can find the Office of Child Support Services, the Office of Head Start, the Office of Child Care (which promotes minimum health and safety standards for child care programs nationally and helps states reduce the cost of child care for families), the Office of Family Assistance (which helps states administer direct aid to lower-income parents and kids), the Children’s Bureau (which oversees child protective services, foster care and adoption) and the Family and Youth Services Bureau (which aids runaway and homeless teens, among others).

    All told, these programs have seen their staffs cut from roughly 2,400 employees as of January to 1,500 now, according to a shared Google document that is being regularly updated by former HHS officials. (Neither the White House nor agency leadership have released the exact numbers of cuts.)

    Those losses have been most acutely felt in the agency’s regional offices, five out of 10 of which — covering over 20 states — have been closed by the Trump administration. They were dissolved this month without notice to their own employees or to the local providers they worked with. It was these outposts that had monitored Head Start programs to make sure that they had fences around their playgrounds, gates at the top of their stairs and enough staffing to keep an eye on even the most energetic little ones. It was also the regional staff who had helped state child support programs modernize their computer systems and navigate federal law. That allowed them, among other things, to be able to “pass through” more money to families instead of depositing it in state coffers to reimburse themselves for costs.

    And it was the regional staff who’d had the relationships with tribal officials that allowed them to routinely work together to address child support, child care and child welfare challenges faced by Native families. Together, they had worked to overcome sometimes deep distrust of the federal government among tribal leaders, who may now have no one to ask for help with their children’s programs other than political appointees in D.C.

    In the wake of the regional office cuts, local child services program directors have no idea who in the federal government to call when they have urgent concerns, many told ProPublica. “No one knows anything,” said one state child support director, asking not to be named in order to speak candidly about the administration’s actions. “We have no idea who will be auditing us.”

    “We’re trying to be reassuring to our families,” the official said, “but if the national system goes down, so does ours.”

    That national system includes the complex web of databases and technical support maintained and provided by the Office of Child Support Services at HHS, which helps states locate parents who owe child support in order to withhold part of their paychecks or otherwise obtain the money they owe, which is then sent to the parent who has custody of the child. Without this federal data and assistance, child support orders would have little way of being enforced across state lines.

    For that reason, the Trump administration is making a risky gamble by slashing staffing at the federal child support office, said Vicki Turetsky, who headed that office under the Obama administration. She worries that the layoffs create a danger of system outages that would cause child support payments to be missed or delayed. (“That’s a family’s rent,” she said.) The instability is compounded, she said, by DOGE’s recent unexplained move to access a highly confidential national child support database.

    But even if the worst doesn’t come to pass, there will still be concrete consequences for the delivery of child support to families, Turetsky said. The staff members who’ve been pushed out include those who’d helped manage complicated, outdated IT systems; without updates, these programs might over- or undershoot the amount of child support that a parent owes, misdirect the money or fail to give notice to the dad or mom about a change in the case.

    When Liz Ryan departed as administrator of the Department of Justice’s juvenile division in January, its website was flush with opportunities for state and local law enforcement as well as nonprofits to apply for federal funding for a myriad of initiatives that help children. There were funds for local police task forces that investigate child exploitation on the internet; for programs where abused children are interviewed by police and mental health professionals; and for court-appointed advocates for victimized kids. Grants were also available for mentoring programs like Big Brothers Big Sisters and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

    But the Trump administration removed those grant applications, which total over $400 million in a typical year. And Ryan said there still hasn’t been any communication, including in what used to be regular emails with grant recipients, many of whom she remains in touch with, about whether this congressionally approved money even still exists or whether some of it might eventually be made available again.

    A spokesperson for the Office of Justice Programs within the DOJ said the agency is reviewing programs, policies and materials and “taking action as appropriate” in accordance with Trump’s executive orders and guidance. When that review has been completed, local agencies and programs seeking grants will be notified.

    Multiple nonprofits serving exploited children declined to speak on the record to ProPublica, fearing that doing so might undermine what chance they still had of getting potential grants.

    “Look at what happened to the law firms,” one official said, adding that time is running out to fund his program’s services for victims of child abuse for the upcoming fiscal year.

    “I never anticipated that programs and services and opportunities for young people wouldn’t be funded at all by the federal government,” Ryan said, adding that local children’s organizations likely can’t go to states, whose budgets are already underwater, to make up the funding gap. “When you look at this alongside what they’re doing at HHS and the Department of Education and to Medicaid, it’s undercutting every single effort that we have to serve kids.”

    Source link

  • HHS Condemns Gender-Affirming Care in Report That Finds ‘Sparse’ Evidence of Harm – The 74

    HHS Condemns Gender-Affirming Care in Report That Finds ‘Sparse’ Evidence of Harm – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    This story was originally reported by Orion Rummler of The 19th. Meet Orion and read more of his reporting on gender, politics and policy.

    On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a 400-page analysis of research on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, as directed by President Donald Trump. The agency used the release of the report to declare that available science does not support providing gender-affirming care to trans youth. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups worry the report will be used to further restrict gender-affirming care and to change medical guidelines in ways that harm trans youth.

    The president mandated the report in an executive order condemning the medical treatment — without evidence — as a form of mutilation, amid a broader push by the administration to exclude trans people from public life. Trump’s order asked the health agency to review the “best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria,” while pressuring youth clinics to halt treatment or lose federal funding.

    Now, the HHS has produced that report. The agency combed through research on the outcomes of puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, social transition, psychotherapy, and the rare cases of surgeries on adolescents and young adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria. 

    Gender dysphoria, the reason that most trans people undergo gender-affirming care, is a strong and persistent distress felt when one’s body is out of sync with their gender identity. Without treatment, gender dysphoria can lead to severe negative impacts in day-to-day life. 

    The agency states in its executive summary of the report that the document is not meant to provide clinical practice guidelines or issue legislative or policy recommendations. However, the report does imply that health care providers should refuse to offer gender-affirming care to adolescents and young adults on the basis that such care comes with the potential for risk — despite little evidence for that risk actually being found in the report. 

    “The evidence for benefit of pediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain,” the executive summary states. “When medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by patients.”

    In its research review, the HHS determined that evidence measuring the effects of gender-affirming care on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret and long-term health is of “very low” quality. This conclusion ignores decades of research, as well as a recent survey of more than 90,000 transgender people in the United States that found an overwhelming majority report more life satisfaction after having transitioned. Access to gender-affirming care has been linked to lower odds of suicidality and depression in trans youth, while gender-affirming surgeries have been found to lower psychological distress for adults.

    Even when analyzing research that the administration deemed low-bias, the HHS found “sparse” to no evidence of harm from gender-affirming care. What’s more, the report frequently found evidence demonstrating the benefits of gender-affirming care — though it ultimately downplays those findings as not significant. 

    Available research on puberty blockers found high satisfaction ratings and low rates of regret. A systematic review of hormone replacement therapy described improved gender dysphoria and body satisfaction. Another found that hormone treatment leads to improved mental health. Two before-and-after studies reported reduced treatment needs or lower levels of suicidality and self-harm after hormone treatment. When measuring safety outcomes of hormone treatment, side effects did not have a major impact on treatment and complications were limited. 

    Despite these findings, the Department of Health and Human Services advertised the report in a Thursday news release as one that “highlights a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks” of gender-affirming care. At the White House briefing room Thursday, deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller touted the new report and attributed the idea of being transgender as part of a “cancerous communist woke culture” that is “destroying this country.” 

    There are side effects to many of the medications that transgender people — and cisgender people — take to receive gender-affirming care, as is the case with most medical treatments. These side effects, like the risk of decreased bone density when taking puberty blockers, are closely monitored and treated by doctors and communicated to patients.

    LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations denounced the report as a political attack on transgender youth. Multiple groups said that the report’s endorsement of psychotherapy as a “noninvasive alternative” to puberty blockers and hormone treatment amounts to an endorsement of conversion therapy — a practice wherein mental health professionals try to change a youth’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

    “It is already clear that this report is a willful distortion of the evidence intended to stoke fear about a field of safe and effective medicine that has existed for decades, in order to justify dangerous practices which amount to conversion therapy,” said Sinead Murano Kinney, health policy analyst at Advocates for Trans Equality. 

    The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization, accused the HHS of producing a report that is attempting to lay the groundwork to replace medical care for trans and nonbinary people with conversion therapy. 

    “Trans people are who we are. We’re born this way. And we deserve to live our best lives and have a fair shot and equal opportunity at living a good life,” said Jay Brown, chief of staff at the Human Rights Campaign. “This report … lays the groundwork to push parents and doctors aside and allow politicians to subject our kids to the debunked practice of conversion therapy.” 

    No authors or contributors are named in the report or in its executive summary. The agency says these names are being initially withheld to “maintain the integrity of this process,” and states that chapters of the document were subject to peer review.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link