At more than a dozen events across the country Wednesday, workers and faculty at colleges and universities gathered to speak out against what they see as an attack on federal research funding, lifesaving medical research and education.
In Washington, D.C., hundreds rallied in the front of the Department of Health and Human Services, while in Philadelphia, hundreds gathered at the office of Senator Dave McCormick, a Pennsylvania Republican. Other protests were planned at colleges in Seattle and St. Louis, among others.
The rallies were part of a national day of action organized by a coalition of unions representing higher ed workers, students and their allies. The coalition includes the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, Higher Ed Labor United and United Auto Workers, among others.
Hundreds in Philly braved the freezing temps to rally for our healthcare, research, and jobs! ❄️💪Workers & students from CCP, Drexel, UPenn, Rutgers, Temple, Jefferson, Arcadia, Rowan, Moore—alongside elected leaders & union presidents—made it clear: We won’t back down. #LaborForHigherEd
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has proposed capping reimbursements for indirect research costs, laid off hundreds of federal employees and cracked down on diversity, equity and inclusion. Most recently, the Education Department gave colleges and K-12 schools until Feb. 28 to end all race-conscious student programming, resources and financial aid. Higher education advocates have called that directive “dystopian” and “very much outside of the law.”
Colleges and universities sued to block the rate cut for indirect costs, warning it would mean billions in financial losses and an end to some research. Some colleges have already frozen hiring in response, even though the cut is temporarily on hold.
“If politics decides what I can and cannot study, I’m afraid I will fail the very people who need this research and inspire me to do it,” said Lindsay Guare, a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania, in a news release about the Philadelphia event. “In an ideal world, I would be fighting to expand support for my science instead of fighting to keep it afloat … The work done in Philadelphia’s institutions doesn’t just lead the world in innovation—it saves lives.”
A year after being sued by ex-president Joseph Nyre for alleged breach of contract and retaliation, among other claims, Seton Hall University has hit back with its own legal action against the former leader.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in the Superior Court of New Jersey, the university accused Nyre of “illicitly accessing, downloading, maintaining, and later disseminating confidential and proprietary documents, as well as documents protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, and information after his departure as President of the University.” Those documents led to critical reports about the university’s current president, Monsignor Joseph Reilly.
Alongside Nyre, the lawsuit also names John Does 1–10, referring to them as “persons who are in possession of documents unlawfully maintained, retrieved, accessed, and/or downloaded.”
In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, a Seton Hall spokesperson wrote that Wednesday’s filing “makes clear that confidential documents were utilized with sections selectively released, causing damage to the University and its leadership and painting a false narrative about Monsignor Reilly.” Reilly has been accused of failing to report allegations of sexual misconduct and thus violating the university’s Title IX policies.
An attorney for Nyre blasted the lawsuit as a “cover-up” by Seton Hall.
The former president later sued Seton Hall, alleging he was pushed out by the Board of Regents amid conflict with then-chair Kevin Marino, whom Nyre accused of micromanagement, improperly involving himself in an embezzlement investigation at the law school and sexually harassing the president’s wife, Kelli Nyre, among other claims. Marino, who is no longer a board member, was not named as a defendant in Nyre’s lawsuit, and an investigation found no evidence of sexual harassment.
While Seton Hall is defending itself against Nyre’s lawsuit, it also threw a legal counterpunch in suing the ex-president. The university alleges that its information technology team confirmed that Nyre had improperly accessed materials after his departure, and in doing so, he violated confidentiality provisions in his employment and separation agreement.
Specifically, Nyre is accused of improperly downloading confidential documents that were later provided to Politico. Those files—some of which were also obtained by Inside Higher Ed—seemed to indicate Reilly, the current president, overlooked instances of sexual harassment while rector and dean of the university’s graduate seminary from 2012 to 2022.
However, one of the leaked documents in question—a letter from a Board of Regents member to Reilly in February 2020 that said he had violated university Title IX policies through his inaction—was an unsent draft, university officials previously told Inside Higher Ed.
Seton Hall officials said in the lawsuit that though the Politico reporter never disclosed who provided him with the documents, “it was clear that [Nyre], directly or indirectly, was responsible” for the leak of confidential information to the news outlet between December and February. Seton Hall accused Nyre of trying to “create a false impression about” Reilly, arguing he acted in “bad faith and malicious intent” by not disclosing that the February 2020 letter was never sent.
The allegations against Reilly have prompted calls for transparency from state lawmakers and Democratic governor Phil Murphy, who called on the university to release an investigative report that allegedly cleared Reilly. Seton Hall has thus far declined to do so, citing the need to protect the confidentiality of participants who voluntarily cooperated with the investigation.
The allegations against Reilly come as the university is only a few years removed from the sprawling sexual abuse scandal involving former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who sat on both of Seton Hall’s governing boards. Investigators determined in a 2019 university report that McCarrick “created a culture of fear and intimidation” and “used his position of power as then–Archbishop of Newark”—which sponsors Seton Hall—“to sexually harass seminarians” for decades. (McCarrick was defrocked but avoided criminal charges due to a dementia diagnosis.)
As part of the lawsuit, Seton Hall is seeking a temporary restraining order to stop Nyre from allegedly sharing more documents. University officials argued in court filings that Seton Hall stands to “suffer irreparable harm” from further leaks, which “cannot be adequately compensated” monetarily.
“The nature of the harm is such that it affects the university’s ability to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information, which is crucial for its operations and reputation,” filings read. “Moreover, to the extent that documents to which defendant has access are protected under [the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] or Title IX, the disclosure of such documents would directly implicate the right of students and their parents to control the disclose [sic] of such confidential educational records as well as the confidentiality rights of university employees.”
Pushback
In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, Nyre attorney Matthew Luber called the lawsuit “a desperate, retaliatory ploy designed to silence a whistleblower and distract from the university’s own corruption and misconduct.”
Luber did not specifically address the allegations that Nyre had inappropriately leaked confidential documents but accused Seton Hall of ignoring red flags in hiring Reilly and overlooking Title IX infractions.
“Let’s be clear: Dr. Nyre was not at Seton Hall when Monsignor Reilly engaged in misconduct, nor when the board knowingly violated its own policies and Title IX to install him as President,” Luber wrote. “But he was the one who warned university officials about Reilly’s disqualifying history during his presidential search—warnings that were deliberately ignored by board leadership. Instead of addressing their own failures, Seton Hall is now attempting to smear and intimidate Dr. Nyre.”
As of publication, a judge has not set to a hearing to consider the request for a restraining order.
I never intended to become a poster boy for cancel culture. Nor do I intend to let those four months of Georgetown farce define my life or career. But I’m using this chance to expose the institutional rot in academia and trace it to the illiberal winds blowing across America.
Those words are from Ilya Shapiro’s latest book, about which more will be said in a moment. But a few “set up” words first.
Today, Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. Previously he was executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, and before that a vice president of the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies. And as before, Shapiro continues to file briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ilya Shapiro speaking at the 2016 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com)
But his today comes against the backdrop of a quarrelsome yesterday involving a ‘cancel culture’ dispute at Georgetown Law School where he was slated to work with Professor Randy Barnett and others at the School’s Center for the Constitution. But things started to go south after Shapiro wrote that “we’ll get lesser black woman” instead of Biden’s pick of Judge Sri Srinivasan. He later apologized. Following a four-month law school investigation, Shapiro was reinstated, only thereafter to resign on June 6, 2022:
After full consideration of the report of the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Affirmative Action (“IDEAA Report”), and upon consultation with counsel, family, and trusted advisers, it has become apparent that my remaining at Georgetown has become untenable. Although I celebrated my “technical victory” in the Wall Street Journal, further analysis shows that you’ve made it impossible for me to fulfill the duties of my appointed post.
[ . . . ]
I cannot again subject my family to the public attacks on my character and livelihood that you and IDEAA have now made foreseeable, indeed inevitable. As a result of the hostile work environment that you and they have created, I have no choice but to resign.
Ilya Shapiro resigns from Georgetown following reinstatement after 122-day investigation of tweets
News
After a more than four-month investigation that led to his reinstatement last week, Ilya Shapiro resigned today from Georgetown University Law Center.
In the midst of the controversy, FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff and Adam Goldstein wrote:
Shapiro’s targeting marks the 10th attempt to get a professor sanctioned for ideological reasons at Georgetown University since 2015. Five attempts have been successful, with sanctions involving investigation, resignation, suspension and termination. . . . Higher education’s credibility rests on the public belief that it is a place where all sides of every argument are subject to robust debate, disputation and discussion. If it becomes clear that these discussions are impossible on campuses, the reputation of higher education — and the shared world of facts it was intended to create — will suffer.
In the past, Columbia Law School produced leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now it produces window-smashing activists.
When protestors at Columbia broke into a building and created illegal encampments, the student-led Columbia Law Review demanded that finals be canceled because of “distress.”
Law schools used to teach students how to think critically, advance logical arguments, and respect opponents. Now those students cannot tolerate disagreement and reject the validity of the law itself. Rioting Ivy Leaguers are the same people who will soon:
Be America’s judges, DAs, and prosecutors
File and fight constitutional lawsuits
Advise Fortune 500 companies
Hire other left-wing diversity candidates to staff law firms and government offices
Run for higher office with an agenda of only enforcing laws that suit left-wing whims
In Lawless, Ilya Shapiro explains how we got here and what we can do about it. The problem is bigger than radical students and biased faculty — it’s institutional weakness. Shapiro met the mob firsthand when he posted a controversial tweet that led to calls for his firing from Georgetown Law. A four-month investigation eventually cleared him on a technicality but declared that if he offended anyone in the future, he’d create a “hostile educational environment” and be subject to the inquisition again. Unable to do the job he was hired for, he resigned.
This cannot continue. In Lawless, Shapiro reveals how the illiberal takeover of legal education is transforming our country. Unless we stop it now, the consequences will be with us for decades.
A few selected quotes:
Is there anything we can do to stop or reverse . . . ill liberal tendencies? Should we — those of us who care about universities’ traditional truth-seeking mission and law schools’ commitment to the American constitutional order — just throw up our hands, gird our loins, and regroup to fight elsewhere? Surely we need to develop novel responses to heterodox challenges, ones that involve culture, legislation, and institution building.
The real issue here is taking exclusionary action — real discrimination, not a mere assertion that someone’s position on Israel (or anything) is ‘harmful’ or denies someone’s right to exist.
More than a 100 institutions have endorsed a version of the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago (known as the Chicago Statement), which is the gold standard. The problem is that, as I experienced personally, so many of these speech-and-expression policies aren’t worth the paper (or pixels) they’re written on, falling by the wayside when seeming to conflict with the demands of DEI.
Cancellation victims, and others who make national news are the tip of the iceberg. As we see from survey results, self-censorship pervades academia, detracting from any intellectual mission, to say the least. Knowledge is never developed, and many old-school professors leave academia entirely — such as the famed First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh’s move from the UCLA school of law to the Hoover Institution and the early retirement of five right-of-center law professors from the University of San Diego (which used to be a bastion of originalism). Universities are at best failing to resist these illiberal forces and at worst encouraging them.
Forthcoming book on ideology, science, and free speech
An unparalleled group of prominent scholars from wide-ranging disciplines detail ongoing efforts to impose ideological restrictions on science and scholarship throughout western society.
From assaults on merit-based hiring to the policing of language and replacing well-established, disciplinary scholarship by ideological mantras, current science and scholarship is under threat throughout western institutions.
As this group of prominent scholars ranging across many different disciplines and political leanings detail, the very future of free inquiry and scientific progress is at risk. Many who have spoken up against this threat have lost their positions, and a climate of fear has arisen that strikes at the heart of modern education and research. Banding together to finally speak out, this brave and unprecedented group of scholars issues a clarion call for change.
“Higher education isn’t what it used to be. Cancel Culture and DEI have caused many to keep their mouths shut. Not so the authors of this book. This collection of essays tells of threats to open inquiry, free speech, and the scientific process itself. A much-needed book.” — Sabine Hossenfelder, Physicist and Author of Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions
Campus speech conflicts continue
Campus free speech podcasts
In recent weeks, the Academic Freedom Podcast has released two new episodes focusing on campus free speech issues.
First up was a conversation with Timothy Zick, the John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship at William & Mary Law School. He is the author most recently of Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protests. The episode focuses on the law surrounding public protests on and off college campuses.
The White House barred a credentialed Associated Press reporter and photographer from boarding the presidential airplane Friday for a weekend trip with Donald Trump, saying the news agency’s stance on how to refer to the Gulf of Mexico was to blame for the exclusion. It represented a significant escalation by the White House in a four-day dispute with the AP over access to the presidency.
The administration has blocked the AP from covering a handful of events at the White House this week, including a news conference with India’s leader and several times in the Oval Office. It’s all because the news outlet has not followed Trump’s lead in renaming the body of water, which lies partially outside U.S. territory, to the “Gulf of America.”
Volokh weighs in on AP exclusion controversy
[1.] The Administration has no First Amendment obligation to provide any press conferences or interviews. The question, though, is whether, once it starts doing that, it may exclude the press based on its viewpoint, or on its supposedly unfair coverage, or on its use of terms that are seen as expressing a viewpoint.
[2.] It seems pretty clear that government officials can choose — including in viewpoint-based ways — whom they will sit down with for interviews. The President may choose to give interviews to journalists whose views he likes, and to refuse to speak with those whose views he dislikes. Indeed, a government official may even order employees not to talk to certain reporters, without thereby violating the reporters’ rights. Baltimore Sun v. Ehrlich (4th Cir. 2006).
[ . . . ]
[3.] It also seems pretty clear that government officials, even in large press conferences, can choose to ignore questions that express views they dislike, or to ignore questioners who have expressed those views. . .
[4.] This having been said, there are precedents (Sherrill, TGP, and John K. Maciver Inst. for Public Policy v. Evers (7th Cir. 2021)) that recognize a right not to be excluded based on viewpoint from large press conferences that are generally open to a wide range of reporters. Those precedents treat those press conferences more or less like “limited public fora” or “nonpublic fora” — government property where the government may impose viewpoint-neutral restrictions but not viewpoint-based ones.
[ . . . ]
[5.] But what about in-between events, which are open only to a small set of reporters? Air Force One apparently has 13 press seats, and I take it the Oval Office is likewise limited.
[ . . . ]
[6.] So I think that for Air Force One and Oval Office appearances, the best I can say is that the First Amendment analysis is unsettled.
FIRE weighs in on AP exclusion controversy
As one federal court proclaimed, “Neither the courts nor any other branch of the government can be allowed to affect the content or tenor of the news by choreographing which news organizations have access to relevant information.”
And because denying press access involves the potential deprivation of First Amendment rights, any decision about who’s in or out must also satisfy due process. That means the government must establish clear, impartial criteria and procedures, and reporters must receive notice of why they were denied access and have a fair opportunity to challenge that decision.
The AP — a major news agency that produces and distributes reports to thousands of newspapers, radio stations, and TV broadcasters around the world — has had long-standing access to the White House. It is now losing that access because its exercise of editorial discretion doesn’t align with the administration’s preferred messaging.
That’s viewpoint discrimination, and it’s unconstitutional.
This isn’t the first time the White House has sent a journalist packing for reporting critically, asking tough questions, or failing to toe the government line. During Trump’s first term, the White House suspended CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass after he interrogated the president about his views on immigration. After the network sued, a federal court ordered the administration to restore Acosta’s pass.
Related
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs sues NBC
Sean “Diddy” Combs is suing NBC Universal over a documentary that he says falsely accuses him of being a serial murderer who had sex with underage girls as he awaits trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in New York state court says the documentary, “Diddy: Making of a Bad Boy,” included statements that NBC Universal either knew were false or published with reckless disregard for the truth in order to defame the founder of Bad Boy Records.
“Indeed, the entire premise of the Documentary assumes that Mr. Combs has committed numerous heinous crimes, including serial murder, rape of minors, and sex trafficking of minors, and attempts to crudely psychologize him,” the complaint reads. “It maliciously and baselessly jumps to the conclusion that Mr. Combs is a ‘monster’ and ‘an embodiment of Lucifer’ with ‘a lot of similarities’ to Jeffrey Epstein.”
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
Founded in 1957, Cabrini University, a small, tuition-driven Roman Catholic liberal arts institution located outside of Philadelphia, closed last June after providing a year’s notice of its impending closure. One of at least 14 nonprofit four-year colleges that announced closures in 2023, Cabrini announced a memorandum of understanding with Villanova University in June 2023, signed a definitive agreement in November 2023 and closed the transaction in June 2024.
Through this transaction, Cabrini was afforded a final year of operation prior to closure. Villanova acquired Cabrini’s assets, including a 112-acre property, and committed to preserving the legacy of Cabrini through commitments like naming its new campus Villanova University Cabrini Campus, providing Cabrini representatives two seats on the Villanova board for up to two successive five-year terms, stewarding the Mother Cabrini special collections and planning events for Cabrini alumni.
In this three-part essay, we—Cabrini’s former interim president, Helen Drinan, and former members of the academic leadership team—describe our decision to seek a strategic partner, the planning that went into a dignified closure and the ways we supported employees and students through a mission-driven plan to help them transition in terms of their careers and academic studies.
High acceptance rate: It increased from 72 percent in 2018 to 79 percent in 2022.
Low yield on offers of admission: It declined from 17 percent in 2018 to 11 percent in 2022.
Falling enrollment: 29.3 percent decline between 2018 (2,283) and 2022 (1,613).
Rising institutional aid: Institutional aid awards increased by about 38 percent from 2018 to 2022 ($10,595 per student in 2018 to $14,638 per student in 2022), outpacing small increases in tuition. In 2022–23, 39 percent of Cabrini’s undergraduate students were receiving Pell Grants and 99 percent received institutional grant or scholarship aid.
Persistent operating losses: Eight years of operating losses from 2015 to 2022, ranging between $1.9 million and $10 million, topped off by a fiscal year 2023 budget awaiting approval that included its highest-ever multimillion-dollar operating loss.
Enrollment and financial operating data of course tell only part of the story of a troubled institution. Many leadership decisions made over time cumulatively result in these kinds of outcomes. At least three common practices have emerged as critical leadership traps in higher education: nonstrategic launches of initiatives intended to increase revenues or decrease costs, consistent drawdowns of the endowment to cover annual losses and accumulation of deferred maintenance. All three of these institution-threatening practices were occurring at Cabrini over the eight years leading to the summer of 2022, when we realized time was running out.
The Road to Closure
Sound strategic planning for a tuition-dependent, modestly endowed, indebted institution like Cabrini depends on choosing opportunities that expand on existing expertise, require minimal capital outlays and are tested for success within a three-year time frame. At Cabrini, too many new initiatives, well beyond historic areas of expertise, were launched in the eight years prior to closure, resulting in a laundry list of only loosely related activities: a targeted international student recruitment program, graduate online education, revived adult degree completion offerings, new doctoral programs, a new residence hall and parking garage, efforts to qualify as a Hispanic-serving institution, and the start-up of a new undergraduate nursing program. All this occurred while the university took on additional debt for construction activity and used federal pandemic relief funding to fill revenue gaps, pushing the institution to the point where it faced its largest-ever annual deficit and rapidly declining cash on hand going into fiscal year 2023.
In summer 2022, Cabrini’s Board of Trustees approved a four-month budget delay, and the senior leadership team sought to identify $10 million in revenue and expense improvements. In September, the senior leadership team presented the board with two alternative paths: 1) a plan to operate for three-plus years to assess the financial feasibility of staying independent or 2) a plan to find the best possible partner to help support the institution financially. Past strategies such as voluntary separation programs, involuntary separations and the hiring of external consultants all yielded unsuccessful results and negatively impacted employee morale. The best opportunities for maintaining independence involved growing revenues, reducing costs (with the understanding that previous attempts to do so were insufficient), capitalizing on real estate and seeking nontraditional revenue streams.
The Penultimate Year
Prior to the decision to close, while institutional leaders remained focused on staying viable, senior leadership offered an exclusive interview to ThePhiladelphia Inquirer in the spirit of transparency, announcing very aggressive organizational changes and plans for new programs and publicly expressing an interest in partnerships. Such an approach, we realized, would raise further questions about the future of the institution: The truth is that once an institution acknowledges difficulties, questions will proliferate, and it is best to be transparent and open when responding.
As fall 2022 moved into winter, our leadership team became aware of three negative trends: 1) efforts to recruit the new first-year class were falling short of enrollment targets, 2) new program launches took longer than expected, creating a lag in new revenue, attributable in large part to reduced marketing resources, and 3) partnership conversations yielded few opportunities serious enough to pursue. Two institutions were seriously considering partnering with us, allowing for academic and possibly athletic continuity. However, in both cases, potential partner boards determined they were “unable to buy Cabrini’s problems” because of its declining cash and indebtedness.
Given the direction of these conversations, we concluded that the institution was not financially viable. We determined that the best opportunity to preserve Cabrini’s legacy and ensure students, faculty and staff would experience a full academic year prior to closure was to readily agree to the MOU with Villanova, the initial step toward an asset purchase agreement and a graceful closure.
Villanova’s strategic direction proved key to the partnership decision. Villanova’s strength as an Augustinian institution in the Catholic tradition aligned beautifully with Cabrini’s heritage, and the missions of both institutions made for wonderful integration opportunities in such areas as immigration, leadership and services for marginalized populations. Cabrini’s real estate offered the expansion opportunities Villanova desired in close proximity to its beautifully built-out campus. And Villanova’s financial resources enabled Cabrini to deliver a robust final year to all its students, faculty and staff, the value of which is beyond measure.
The university graduated a senior class in May 2024, offered placements to every student interested in continuing their education and supported its workforce with a combination of job-seeking resources, retention payments and severance, none of which would have been possible without Villanova’s remarkable engagement. (Part 2 of this series provides further detail about Cabrini’s final year and transition planning.)
Part of why we think the partnership worked was because we, as the institutional leadership team, effectively checked our egos at the door. We knew our focus had to be on what was best for the institution, not our own personal outcomes, to credibly lead the university through closure. A key lesson for other institutions exploring acquisitions or mergers is that the future expectations of the sitting president as well as of board members in a new organization should be clarified early in partner conversations; otherwise, personal expectations could present an obstacle to the transaction’s success.
Another lesson for any struggling institution is to think critically about the kinds of partner institutions that would find you attractive, how much leverage you might have and how much you can do to minimize your downsides. This is not typically work you can do as you face the threat of immediate closure. For institutions that may be financially stable but are experiencing some of the indicators of risk and stress mentioned at the start of this essay, the task of thoughtfully identifying potential partners could be an important activity for trustees and senior leadership teams to pursue.
Editor’s note: The second and third installments of the series will be published on the next two Wednesdays.
Helen Drinan served as interim president of Cabrini University. Previously, she served as president of Simmons University.
Michelle Filling-Brown is associate vice provost for integrated student experience and a teaching professor in the Department of English at Villanova University. She formerly served as chief academic officer/dean for academic affairs at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Richie Gebauer is dean of student success at Bryn Mawr College. He formerly served as assistant dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University.
Erin McLaughlin is the interim dean of the College of Arts, Education and Humanities at DeSales University. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Business, Education and Professional Studies at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Kimberly Boyd is assistant professor of biology and anatomy and physiology at Delaware County Community College. She formerly served as dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 25 years.
Missy Terlecki is dean of the School of Professional and Applied Psychology at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Arts and Sciences at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 19 years.
Lynda Buzzard is associate vice president and controller at Villanova University. Previously, she served as the vice president of finance and administration at Cabrini University in its final year.
I had the pleasure recently to participate in a lifelong learning session with a group of mostly current or retired educators at my nearby Lincoln Land Community College. The topic was AI in education. It became clear to me that many in our field are challenged to keep up with the rapidly emerging developments in AI.
The audience was eager to learn, however, many were unaware of the current models and capabilities of AI available to them. I had mentioned in the previous edition of “Online: Trending Now” that we are now in the third of a five-step development of AI as envisioned by the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman:
Level 1: Chat bots, AI with conversational language
Level 2: Reasoners, human-level problem solving
Level 3: Agents, systems that can take actions
Level 4: Innovators, AI that can aid in invention
Level 5: Organizations, AI that can do the work of an organization
Most Popular
Level 1, chat bots, are the question (prompt) and answer version that many users still think of as generative AI. Famously, on Nov. 30, 2022, OpenAI released GPT-3.5 featuring ChatGPT, an interactive, conversational AI trained with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and fine-tuned safety measures, derived from the GPT-3.5 model. That became the inflection point for this technology that has rapidly spread around the world:
“ChatGPT stands out as the undisputed leader of this boom, capturing over 82.5% of the total traffic, with over two billion global visits and 500 million users each month. The pace of adoption is particularly noteworthy. ChatGPT set a record as the fastest-growing consumer software in history, reaching 100 million users just 64 days after the release of the updated ChatGPT3.5 in May 2023. It’s not alone in this surge; Baidu’s AI chatbot, ‘Ernie Bot,’ surpassed 200 million users within just eight months of its launch.”
Yet, this technology has, importantly, developed beyond earlier versions to stage 2, which Sam Altman called “reasoners,” such as the more recently released OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o3-mini. Every version of GPT engages in some form of text-based pattern recognition that can look like reasoning. The newer versions exhibit markedly stronger logical consistency, better multistep problem-solving and better handling of extended context. This is why Altman calls the latest iterations “reasoner” models: They integrate more advanced techniques, larger context windows and improved training methods to produce answers that seem more logically sound. Ultimately, these “reasoner” capabilities reflect the evolution of large language models toward more complex forms of textual analysis and response.
The newer model OpenAI o3-mini is available to all users (paid and unpaid). I encourage you test out this reasoner model. You are welcome to use the GPT I trained for higher education emphasis, Ray’s eduAI Advisor, or the general ChatGPT site. In either case, try running a deep, questioning prompt that requires interpretation and significant research in its response. You will be able to briefly view the thought process that o3 is taking flash onto the top of your screen. The model shares this thought process with you as it assesses your question and context, then gathers data and ultimately responds to your question. What is unique about this level of AI is that you can see how the application is thinking about your inquiry. This will give you hints as to how you might craft follow-up prompts to add insights and perspectives to your inquiry.
On Feb. 2, 2025, OpenAI announced a highly advanced application built upon 03-mini named “Deep Research,” saying:
“Today we are launching our next agent capable of doing work for you independently—deep research. Give it a prompt and ChatGPT will find, analyze & synthesize hundreds of online sources to create a comprehensive report in tens of minutes vs what would take a human many hours … Powered by a version of OpenAI o3 optimized for web browsing and python analysis, deep research uses reasoning to intelligently and extensively browse text, images, and PDFs across the internet. Deep Research is built for people who do intensive knowledge work in areas like finance, science, policy & engineering and need thorough & reliable research.”
While Deep Research is not available to the general public at this time, online demonstrations show that this very powerful tool conducts both reasoning and far-reaching analysis. In her podcast of Feb. 9, AI expert Julia McCoy reports that the release of Deep Research puts us on the cusp of artificial general intelligence (summarized by Gemini 2.0 Flash):
“The podcast talks about OpenAI’s new deep learning models, 03 mini and Deep Research. 03 mini is a groundbreaking reasoning Powerhouse that fundamentally changes how AI approaches problems. Unlike previous models, 03 mini actually thinks before it speaks, methodically working through complex tasks with unprecedented precision. Deep Research is an autonomous research assistant that can spend up to 30 minutes deeply analyzing information, something previously unheard of in AI systems. What makes Deep Research truly special is its ability to dynamically adapt its research path, combining multiple sources and presenting its findings in fully cited comprehensive reports in seconds. The podcast discusses how Deep Research can be used to provide medical diagnoses and treatment recommendations. It can also be used for other knowledge work, such as market research and product development. The podcast concludes by discussing the implications of these new models for the future of AI. The host believes that we will see AGI [Artificial General Intelligence] this year and ASI [Artificial Super Intelligence] possibly as soon as 2027.”
“We will next ship GPT-4.5, the model we called Orion internally, as our last non-chain-of-thought model. After that, a top goal for us is to unify o-series models and GPT-series models by creating systems that can use all our tools, know when to think for a long time or not, and generally be useful for a very wide range of tasks. In both ChatGPT and our API, we will release GPT-5 as a system that integrates a lot of our technology, including o3. We will no longer ship o3 as a standalone model. The free tier of ChatGPT will get unlimited chat access to GPT-5 at the standard intelligence setting (!!), subject to abuse thresholds. Plus subscribers will be able to run GPT-5 at a higher level of intelligence, and Pro subscribers will be able to run GPT-5 at an even higher level of intelligence. These models will incorporate voice, canvas, search, deep research, and more.”
The funneling of all of the capabilities of OpenAI technologies into the GPT-5 track shows a maturing of the technology. The three levels of intelligence most likely point to true AGI in the higher levels that will be released with GPT-5 later this year! Clearly, advancements are taking place very rapidly.
In addition, with the advent of new competitors both here and abroad, we are seeing new options for open-source models and alternative approaches. As these become more efficient and reliable, prices are headed lower while features continue to expand. McCoy’s vision of AGI seems only months, not years, away.
How are these highly advanced tools being used by your university to enhance teaching, learning, research and other mission-centric tasks? Are most of your faculty, staff and administrators well versed on the recent developments and potential of AI? Are they prepared for the full release of GPT-5? What can you do to help your institution remain efficient, effective and competitive?
Having successful career outcomes is important for colleges and also for students, but getting students to engage in career services can feel like an uphill battle.
A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Edfound just about one-third of college students had no experience with or no opinions on their career center staff. Research from the National Association of Colleges and Employers shows a correlation between students who utilize their career center and the number of job offers a student receives.
Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania decided to bring careers to students with an event called the LVC Success Expo. On the day of the expo, LVC cancels classes so students can engage in an all-day career fair or meet with academic support staff to ensure their success in and after college.
In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader spoke with Tomomi “T” Horning, vice president of college partnerships and strategic initiatives, and Jasmine Bucher, senior director of the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development, to learn more about the event and campus partnerships and how it contributes to a larger institutional mission.
An edited version of the podcast appears below.
Inside Higher Ed: Give me the 30,000-foot view of the Success Expo. Where did this idea come from?
Tomomi “T” Horning, vice president of college partnerships and strategic initiatives
Horning: This is our third year undertaking this initiative, and we’re so pleased at how it’s developed and changed and improved over that time period.
The original genesis was we wanted to make sure that students had dedicated time to develop a success plan, whether it involved academic advising, career and professional development services. So [staff at] the provost office and the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development got our brains together and said, “What if we canceled classes on a day in the spring and really dedicated, marshaled all of our resources together to make this happen?”
This includes a whole variety of programming, events, presentations, interactive workshops, some fun, but mostly on that adulting 101 idea around making sure that our graduates are as optimally prepared to enter the workforce as possible.
Jasmine Bucher, senior director of the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development
Bucher: One of the things that I think is so extraordinary, not only is it that we do have this dedication of truly not having classes that day, and our students know that is worked right into their academic schedule, but also that the career and success expo really reaches beyond just our doors here on campus as well.
Not only inviting our community members, [but] K-12 leaders in those different areas as well as high school students come with those leaders to really see what [college] could be [like]—even the questions to ask when starting your career plan. But also our alumni and our faculty, who are a huge part of this day.
Not only do our faculty come to support our students in their advising and what comes next in their career exploration, but they’re really reminded about the resources that we have, the services we provide and how that weaves in and out of not only the time that students are here at Lebanon Valley College, but also beyond … graduation. We have alumni who are welcome—they come back and they learn so many incredible things, as well as make connections with potential employers.
Inside Higher Ed: A lot of colleges and universities will have career fairs throughout the academic year—I’m thinking about new student orientation, where there’s club fairs and different ways to get plugged in on campus. But I love the timing of this event, and that it’s in the spring term, and maybe when students already have questions, or they’re thinking about internships.
I wonder if you can talk about how the timing is strategic and making sure that all students are captured and those different interests or questions that may be coming up during that point in their academic experience?
Horning: I would say it’s not only strategic in terms of in the calendar year, helping maybe graduating seniors prepare for that entry into the workforce, but as you indicated, preparing for summer internships, which is a very popular time for students to be out in the field.
But also it operationally manages some opportunities we have in the fall and then making sure that those same opportunities are spread out in the spring. So sometimes, based on student schedules, they just can’t get around to it in the fall, and some of our fall events are more dedicated to specific lines of career or specific industries.
This pathways to professions, all-majors career fair—which is part of the larger success expo event itself—gives that opportunity for everyone at the key time that they need to be thinking about these things, to have access to the resources and as well as the employers through specifically the career fair itself. It’s an opportune time for those students to make those connections.
The Success Expo takes place each spring, allowing students to devote a day not to attending classes but to considering their future academic and career plans.
Bucher: And it really helps our students be well prepared for it. They’ve been working throughout the year on résumés, cover letters, even mock interviewing skills and knowing what that is like, having their elevator speeches ready so that they can really speak about the skills that they’re learning, not only in the classroom, but also through our services here in the Breen Center. I really like this time of year. I think it fits well with where the student brain is, but I think it also works really well so that we can help support them in the success of that day.
Inside Higher Ed: Totally. I think about lower-level students who might still be career exploring and trying to understand how their major ties into that first job after college. By the spring, they might have figured it out by March, or at least have an idea of where they’re going, versus that first week of first semester, where it’s like, “What is happening right now?”
Bucher: Or at least have an idea at that point of sort of the fields they would like to continue to explore. It’s not at all about finding the end of a journey. It’s about the next steps on that journey. So this day provides wherever that is—if they’re going off into the employment world, we have information in sessions that help them with decisions around insurance and the next steps of what comes in repayment of loans and all of the things that is that adulting 101 piece.
But also, if it’s students who are just getting into [career thinking], what would it be like to have a meal with future employers? We have an etiquette dinner that day where we can help to teach those skills as well. It’s really hitting up all of wherever they are in their career journey and whatever that is, really trying to make sure that we are thinking about how they’re best prepared to take that as well. Because nothing is worse than when you’re getting all this information thrown at you and you’re not ready for it, right?That’s why we want to be there, making sure they’re well prepared.
Inside Higher Ed: You bring up an interesting point in that sometimes these events can be overwhelming for students. A career fair, I know as a college student, was a very scary experience. You never know how to dress or how to prepare, and obviously your career center is there to guide you in that experience and prep you for that.
But at the success expo, how do you make sure that students know how to navigate these situations? What are some of those forward-looking messages that you’re giving to students to make sure that this is something that they are taking advantage of and are getting the most out of?
Bucher: Absolutely, as someone who spends a great deal of time figuring out how we communicate that to students who are in all different places, and alumni and all of the different pieces—making sure that we have a schedule that can be broken down very well. Making sure our communication is very much around providing those opportunities for wherever you are.
If you’re looking for sessions that help support and prepare you, those are there. If you’re ready to jump in and meet future employers, we have all of these wonderful employers. We make sure that we are communicating to the students who [the employers are] are ahead of time, so they’re not coming in blindly.
We have a robust website that has information on it; our social media campaign will be very robust this year to help with that messaging as well. So that may be, instead of it being overwhelming, because they [feel they] have to incorporate the entire day on all those pieces, but really being able to see where they can make the most of their time.
They’re busy, and even a day without classes, they could be studying, they could be preparing for finals, they could be doing a lot of things, so making sure that they know the choices.
And also making sure we’ve got some fun in there. We’ve got some great speakers. We have Tunji [Adebayo] who’s coming in, talking about picking yourself up from failure. Where you are anywhere on the journey, we all need to know how to be resilient and do that. So some things that aren’t so much about, “this is what you do in the career,” but “this is what you do in life.”
Jack Hubley is coming in and is going to speak not only about what it’s like to work with the birds that he has trained all this time. He’s such a celebrity in this area, people are pretty familiar with he does. But also, how do you do that and stay on brand? If you’re working with live animals and you’re in environments that are not always predictable?
So trying to make sure that we have this clear idea of skills beyond just what you see as career is also an area where we think would help students to not be as overwhelmed and know that we’re there to help them through this process.
Throughout the Success Expo, students can participate in workshops or informational sessions about topics like resiliency and financial literacy.
Inside Higher Ed: You’re going into year three of this event. When it comes to logistics, or how the event has scaled up, can you talk a little bit about those partners that are involved in this work? We’ve mentioned a few different groups and stakeholders on and off campus, but who’s going to be there in the spring?
Horning: We do extend an invitation to K-12 partners, and mostly it’s going to be high school students who are interested in a field trip opportunity to get to understand what higher ed is like. But also, some of the sessions that Jasmine mentioned, those we purposefully choose to make sure that it’s a broad-reaching topic that any of our K-12 partners would benefit from hearing, not only the educators that bring the students as chaperones, but also the students themselves, right? Picking yourself up from failure is one of those life lessons that anybody can benefit from.
We also try to make sure that the concept of career development is woven into the day as well. Some of our high school students will get exposure to how internships themselves may help direct someone deeper into the trajectory of what they had hoped to achieve upon graduation, and sometimes completely flip it, 180 degrees through an internship experience. They learn those life lessons that, through experiential learning and high-impact opportunities, they may want to readjust what their career outlook is like.
Through the community, we also connect with the Chamber of Commerce to make sure that if there are things like venture capital or even some of the entrepreneurship opportunities. That if there are businesses with young people, or maybe recently just graduated college—maybe the alumni want to start their own business—that they have access to some of these workshops where they can talk to experts or talk to students who want to get into that business, maybe to do some idea sharing, networking.
We all know that professional networking is just one of those great benefits of bringing people together.
The college community, and even within Annville, it’s a small little quaint town here, but we make sure that our employer partners know about our restaurant and eateries that are in town. We make sure that those venues and opportunities of connection [are known] to make sure that we’re pushing business to make our local community thrive as well.
Inside Higher Ed: I don’t want to get too high-level here, because this is obviously focused on a specific event, but it seems like this is really fulfilling a lot of those goals of higher education, right? Helping students navigate their pathways to and through college, helping students thrive while they’re enrolled but also beyond college. But then continuing to invest in your local community with that socioeconomic development and those community partnerships. This is one day, but it seems like it’s connecting a lot of these bigger pieces of the puzzle to the institutional vision, which is really exciting.
Bucher: It’s very true to the Lebanon Valley College mission and method of what has always been very true and practical and hands-on and community-oriented, and so it stays very true to who we are. There are so many incredible initiatives that T has in mind and has been brainstorming for years. Me, as a new person on this staff, I’m incredibly excited for all those things, but we always bring them back to the mission, exactly what you’re saying, which is that they have to be true to the mission, otherwise we would be spinning our wheels in 100 directions that don’t make sense.
Inside Higher Ed: One group that we have alluded to but haven’t talked about a lot is faculty on campus. I wonder if you can talk about their role in this event and how they’re incorporated.
Bucher: We work very closely with our faculty to incorporate curriculum directly into their classroom, and we are as helpful as possible. Several of us on the staff here are educators ourselves; we teach courses.
Some of the specific ways are students who need to come [to the event] and interview specific employers and then provide reflections and pieces like that. So we help to provide the structure to that to faculty members who are very happy to partner with us.
But then we even have exciting things going on, like we are piloting an app this year for wayfinding through [the event]. So we’ve partnered with a marketing professor who is going to have a portion of her class use the app, a portion of the class use nothing and a portion of the class explore other items.
We’ve really taken the opportunity to not just do sort of the traditional, yes, you can come and attend and reflect and do it, which is wonderful, of course, but also to really integrate into the curriculum in meaningful ways and in ways that give the students experience on that day for true, real-life experience. Our faculty are very keen on this. They’re thrilled for the partnership, and so are we. It’s one of the things that a school this size and energy of Lebanon Valley College really allows you to do.
Horning: Something else that I would add, too, is some of our specific academic programs are able to incorporate opportunities to marry not only their academic program, but also employers and create opportunities for the collaboration.
For example, we have the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Protection coming, so [the faculty member is] weaving that into environmental sciences, the academic curriculum. Also as an employer, they’re looking to recruit interns and potential future employees. So really connecting all of those dots to make sure that we’re optimizing the program time that we have on this day.
Specifically because classes are canceled, we know that that also puts a hardship on some of the faculty to make sure that they’re covering all of their academic points. So finding creative ways to incorporate that, just like Jasmine said, with marketing, there are definitely ways that faculty are creatively making sure that they’re driving participation also to our events. We’re very appreciative of, just generally, the partnership that happens across campus.
And of course, a lot of the sessions, like I said, are relevant to any audience. So if they wanted to do some sort of professional development, we have something on customer service, and that’s something that we’re rolling out as an institution that could be relevant for any staff person or faculty.
Inside Higher Ed: What kind of feedback have you heard from students over the past few years as you’ve created and led the event, and how has that driven decision-making, if at all?
Horning: Wealways try to keep our surveying or feedback assessment from students to the point: “Would you recommend coming to this event? Why or why not?” Or “Did you have any recommendations for changes? Why are you making those recommendations?”
And I think over all, the feedback has been very positive. Mostly all of the suggestions are logistical in nature, which can be easily addressed. I think students are hungry for it. This is our third year doing it, so I think there is now a knowledge and an understanding of what students can expect. So maybe coming in future years, they’ll have more substantive feedback, like, “I would like a session on fill-in-the-blank,” but we try to hit those high-level adulting 101 topics as best as possible with the input from our student workers.
Some of our student workers will actually go upstairs [on campus] and survey some of the students: “Hey, if it was a choice between this session and this session, what would you prefer?” We try to [work in] real time as we’re developing programming and workshop ideas, make sure that that student voice is incorporated from the get-go.
Inside Higher Ed: When you talk about adulting 101, can you give a few examples of what those subject matters are?
Bucher: Some of the items that we have going on: understanding your student loans and repayments. Pieces like that obviously are in the forefront of our students’ minds. They work hard. Every dollar means something and how that repayment is, and really understanding it afterwards, is not easy.
Some of the other things I mentioned before, discussions around insurance, so in their next stages of life, they’re going to be having to choose [insurance coverage], and I was saying to T this morning, it doesn’t get any easier. I’ve been doing it for 20 years now, and it changes all the time, our choices in insurance, whether that’s health insurance and the other pieces of that. I was just talking about pet insurance yesterday. So there’s so many decisions to be making, and what’s worthwhile and not.
In many ways I think the etiquette dinner really calls into that as well. Once you’re outside of the walls of school, expectations change, and you expect something different of yourself, [but] just having that confidence and knowing what comes next. That has been an event that has been around the college for quite some time, and I really appreciate that it’s been incorporated into this day, remembering that it’s part of the next steps. So sort of from morning to night, it’s woven into all of our many, many events throughout the day.
Horning: I would just add there are other things that, you know, the event happens in April, and so we’re still going through the process of adding some additional workshops.
Some things that we have brought back from year one are things like credit cards, car loans and common-sense investing. So just a primer; we’re not trying to overwhelm students, but present to them what options and what type of decisions they will have to make as an adult.
And along with that, Jasmine mentioned about insurances, and we actually have a senior who is going to go into personal financial planning as a career track; he will be employed by a wealth management firm. And we thought, “Hey, why don’t we pair entrepreneurship with a hands-on workshop?” So he’ll be providing consultations. It helps him practice his skill set becoming an entrepreneur and providing those professional services along with the students, so they get an understanding of, “Gee, when I’m out there, these are the types of questions I will be asked if I have an appointment with a personal financial planner.”
A lot of just realistically making sure that students understand the variety of adulting 101 decisions they will have to make, and then hopefully educating them to be better prepared.
Inside Higher Ed: I love that idea of a peer who can support in those ways, because it’s a little less intimidating than asking somebody you’ve never met before, somebody who’s decades older than you. There’re no silly questions when it’s a classmate.
Bucher: And then they tend to continue that conversation, then with other peers, which is really what we want, right? We want to put this out there in a nonscary way, so that it can infuse out to the student body.
Horning: You really bring up a strong point there. We have recognized that the peer-to-peer learning and education is really important. Whether it’s mentoring, trying to identify peers with common experiences that you can start a conversation with the comfort of knowing, “Oh, you had my professor. You lived in my dorm.” Those types of connections are so invaluable.
Even the program about credit cards and car loans, we specifically tap into one of our corporate sponsors that runs a management trainee program so it’s employment at that particular place of business. And we ask those individuals so they’re like, one to three years out from graduating college, they’re the ones that present on those topics because those are also the decisions they recently made, and now, with the backing of their employer, which is a financial institution, they’re able to speak a little bit more eloquently about what those options might be.
Inside Higher Ed: If you had to give advice to a colleague at a different institution or someone else who wanted to model this on their campus, what’s something that you’ve learned or advice that you would give?
Horning: I think the biggest piece of advice is make sure that the communication and the collaboration across campus is set at the highest levels of leadership. Without the support of the entire community, people are going to wonder what the benefit is or what the return is for their areas. But this truly is a multistakeholder, an entire-campus event, and it has to be treated with that level of engagement. So leadership and just making sure the communication and the coordination, also that everything is moving without a hitch, occurs.
Bucher: I completely agree. This was an initiative started before I worked in this office, and I remember being incredibly impressed knowing that the institution was fully behind it, and that was clear because it was from the top down.
I think really remembering the audiences that it’s serving has also served us really well. I think I would just remind people to really keep in mind who those audiences are, making sure you know that that pairing of young alumni with students, so that they’re not feeling fearful of what’s coming next or intimidated—all of those pieces really lead to success.
Inside Higher Ed: The event is looming; it’s in the next few months. What is something that you’re excited for or something that you would like to tease our audience with as you’re preparing for the event in April?
Bucher: I’m extremely excited for the wide variety of items that are offered here and scheduled, if I could say so, in a really smart manner, so that students can sort of pick and choose throughout the day what creates the best journey for them on that day.
I’m really excited for the communication that’s coming to say, you want to work on your personal brand? Here you go. Looking for an internship? Come and hear how interns have been successful and what has led to that.
I’m just really excited for sort of that audience-speak that really gets to offering to people the really nice variety of pieces that are making up this exciting day.
Horning: Because this is our third year, I’m just excited that it feels like we have found our groove, and people are anticipating this event. People are excited and they want to get in on the action. And I think that is exciting to us in the Breen Center, because we do this because we want it to be of value to the community, and the fact that people are eagerly waiting for this and asking about it, talking about it, just builds the energy, builds the enthusiasm.
I’m looking forward to a great third year and making sure that, again, we’re delivering on the promise of making sure our graduates are really well prepared and that we are behind them 100 percent.
Edward Blum isn’t quite a household name. But at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., he’s a minor celebrity.
The conservative think tank has played host to an array of high-profile politicos, pundits, journalists and businesspeople over the years: Bill Gates, Mike Pence, Jordan Peterson, the Dalai Lama. Blum, who took affirmative action to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 and won, spoke at the institute earlier this month about his decades of legal activism.
It was something of a homecoming for the president of Students for Fair Admissions, who lives in Florida but has been a visiting fellow at AEI since 2005. It was also, in many ways, a victory lap.
Since the court ruled in his favor in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Blum’s vision of what he calls a “colorblind covenant in public policy” has been ascendant, and in the new Trump administration, Blum’s zealous opposition to race-conscious programs has become a domineering force driving education policy.
Over the weekend, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a letter outlining an expansive interpretation of the SFFA ruling and its plans to enforce a ban on all race-conscious programming in higher ed; colleges that don’t comply in 14 days could lose their federal funding. During her confirmation hearing Thursday, Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon said ending “race-based programming” would be a priority if she were confirmed.
Blum, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed before the OCR letter was published, believes that affirmative action has long been unpopular—winning the public relations battle, he said, was “the easiest part of my job.” Still, he said the political, legal and cultural backlash against affirmative action and DEI over the past few years was affirming. In Trump’s Washington, Blum, who fought the courts unsuccessfully for decades, feels like an insider at last.
“It’s gratifying for those of us who have labored in this movement to see that now, rather than these policies being whispered about as unfair and illegal, there’s a full-throated cry against them,” he said.
The Trump administration’s adoption of Blum’s views on race in higher ed has also prompted another wave of backlash from Blum’s many critics, who say his work is undoing decades of progress toward racial equality and integration.
During his AEI session, Blum was asked about his own views on racial diversity on college campuses, constitutional law notwithstanding. He rejected the premise outright.
“The question implies that someone’s skin color is going to tell me something very fundamental about who they are as an individual. I don’t believe that’s the case,” Blum said. “Your skin color, the shape of your eyes, the texture of your hair tells me nothing about who you are. For some people, being on a campus with racial diversity is important … There are others that don’t seem to care about that.”
From Outsider to Agenda Setter
Blum has railed against race-conscious admissions for two decades. A former businessman in Houston, Blum, who has no law degree, founded the legal defense fund Project on Fair Representation in the mid-2000s. He challenged Texas’s reinstatement of race-based admissions in the second Fisher v. the University of Texas case; the case went to the Supreme Court but was ultimately defeated in 2016 when justices ruled that the university’s admission practices were constitutional.
Now, he’s not alone. A corps of public interest law groups has sprung up to litigate the SFFA decision in higher ed at prestigious law firms, on Wall Street and beyond. This month, a brand-new public interest legal group filed a lawsuit against the University of California system accusing it of secretly using racial preferences in admissions, citing increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its most selective colleges.
Blum said SFFA isn’t passing the buck and is committed to challenging universities on their compliance with the law, but a groundswell of efforts has lightened his load.
“The SFFA decision has energized the public interest law apparatus,” Blum said. He predicted that under Trump, the Education Department will also play a bigger role in investigating institutions for their compliance with the affirmative action ban. That forecast appears to be coming true with Friday’s Dear Colleague letter, though the agency still has to enforce the directive, a complicated prospect considering its broad scope.
Edward Blum (left) at the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 5, with moderator Frederick Hess.
Blum supports the intensifying attacks on DEI and said that with more state laws forbidding spending on diversity and equity programs, there’s room for legal work to ensure colleges aren’t spending on “DEI by another name.”
But despite the high-profile political implications of his work, he doesn’t see himself as a political actor. In the late 1990s, he ran a failed congressional campaign in Houston, but the thought of running for office now evokes “overwhelming negative emotions.” And he’s careful to draw a line between his legal advocacy work and the anti-DEI crusades of conservative lawmakers.
“There is a 20-foot wall between the political people in the movement and the public interest groups,” he said.
‘A Forever Endeavor’
Blum is not finished suing colleges over affirmative action, or at least those he believes could be flouting the law. He’s particularly interested in selective colleges that reported similar or higher rates of Black and Hispanic enrollment this year, such as Yale, Duke and Princeton—a sure sign, he believes, that they’ve been “cheating.” SFFA has a “vibrant role to play,” he added, in holding them to account.
“So many of us are befuddled and concerned that in the first admissions cycle post-SFFA, schools that said getting rid of affirmative action would cause their minority admissions to plummet didn’t see that happen,” he said.
When asked if recent expansions to financial aid offerings at these universities could account for the change, Blum was circumspect. He’s not opposed to economically progressive admissions initiatives; he calls Rick Kahlenberg, a liberal proponent of “class-based affirmative action,” a like-minded friend. But he said the onus was on colleges to prove that’s the source of their continued racial diversity. He also said that geographic diversity initiatives would be unconstitutional if they only applied to “Harlem and the South Side of Chicago, and not also rural Missouri and northern Maine.”
Since the Supreme Court ruling, experts, college administrators and lawyers have debated whether the SFFA decision applies to race-conscious scholarships, internships and precollege programs as well as admissions. In the months after the ruling, attorneys general in Ohio and Missouri issued orders saying it did, and some colleges have begun to revise racial eligibility requirements on scholarships. At the same time, scholars and lawyers said implementing changes to nonadmissions programs amounted to overreach from state lawmakers and institutions alike.
Blum doesn’t actually believe the decision itself extends to those programs. He does think they’re illegal—there just hasn’t been a successful case challenging them yet.
“I haven’t really made myself clear on this, which is my fault, but the SFFA opinion didn’t change the law for those policies” in internships and scholarships, he said. “But those policies have always been, in my opinion, outside of the scope of our civil rights law and actionable in court.”
He’s still looking for a case that could enshrine his view in the law—two weeks ago McDonald’s settled a lawsuit he filed against their Latino scholarship program, putting that one out of contention. But he said that for the most part, in the wake of the SFFA decision, colleges have proactively altered or ended those programs themselves.
“Even if the ruling didn’t apply directly, it’s had this cascading effect,” he said.
That effect, Blum said, has spread to cultural and corporate institutions as well as higher ed, contributing to a general chilling effect on what he views as unconstitutional racial preferences in American society. It’s a major turnaround, he acknowledged, from the ubiquity of DEI initiatives and racial reckoning just five years ago after the murder of George Floyd.
While he’s relishing in the legal, political and cultural victory of his crusade, he’s not resting on his laurels.
“There are no permanent victories in politics,” Blum said, loosely quoting Winston Churchill. “The same applies to legal advocacy. This is a forever endeavor.”
The U.S. Naval Academy’s provost told faculty last week not to use course readings “or other materials that promote” critical race theory, “gender ideology” and other topics targeted by the Trump administration, The Baltimore Banner reported.
The institution pointed to Trump’s multiple executive orders, which include one specifically restricting the curricula of military academies.
Provost Samara Firebaugh told faculty in the email to search materials for “diversity,” “minority” and other words and forbade them from using “materials that can be interpreted to assign blame to generalized groups for enduring social conditions, particularly discrimination or inequality,” the Banner reported. The Naval Academy confirmed the email to Inside Higher Ed but declined to provide a copy, saying it doesn’t share internal emails.
“That was a leak,” a representative from the institution’s public affairs office said.
In an email to Inside Higher Ed, the Naval Academy’s media relations arm said the provost’s message “provided more detailed guidance and clarity to ensure course materials and assignments are in alignment with all executive orders.” Commander Ashley Hockycko, public affairs officer at the Naval Academy, said the provost’s letter wasn’t meant to further restrict curriculum and coursework beyond the presidential executive orders—it’s just meant to provide “amplifying guidance and clarification.”
A Jan. 27 executive order titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” said educational institutions operated or controlled by the Defense Department and military “are prohibited from promoting, advancing or otherwise inculcating the following un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist and irrational theories.” It then went on to list “gender ideology,” “divisive concepts,” “race or sex stereotyping,” “race or sex scapegoating” and the idea “that America’s founding documents are racist or sexist.”
On Jan. 29, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo saying, “No element within DoD will provide instruction on critical race theory, DEI or gender ideology as part of a curriculum or for purposes of workforce training“ and that military academies “shall teach that America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.”
The U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point didn’t respond to requests for comment Tuesday about whether they’ve released similar guidance.
The University of California Student Association’s request to block Department of Government Efficiency staffers from accessing student data at the Department of Education was denied Monday by a federal district judge.
The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, accused the department of illegally sharing confidential student data, arguing it violated the 1974 Privacy Act and confidentiality provisions of the Internal Revenue Code by giving DOGE access to records that contain tax information.
But Judge Randolph D. Moss of the District Court for the District of Columbia said there wasn’t an immediate threat, citing testimony from Adam Ramada, a DOGE staffer, who said that he and his team were only assisting the department with auditing for waste, fraud and abuse and that DOGE staffers understood the need to comply with data privacy laws.
“None of those initiatives should involve disclosure of any sensitive, personal information about any UCSA members,” Moss, an Obama appointee, wrote in his ruling. “The future injuries that UCSA’s members fear are, therefore, far from likely, let alone certain and great.”
Other higher education groups have raised concerns about DOGE’s access to education data, as the department’s databases house students’ personal information, including dates of birth, contact information and Social Security numbers. Some student advocates worry the data could be illegally shared with other agencies and used for immigration enforcement. Moss, however, called those harms “entirely conjectural,” saying Ramada had attested that the data was not being used in such ways.
Although the temporary restraining order was denied, the overall lawsuit will continue to work its way through the courts, and other legal challenges are emerging, The Washington Post reported.
A coalition of labor unions, including the American Federation of Teachers, is also suing to block DOGE’s access to the sensitive data. This latest lawsuit argues that agencies—including Education, Labor and Personnel Management—are improperly disclosing the records of millions of Americans in violation of the Privacy Act.
The reason that I wanted to do this Q&A with Joe Diamond, CEO of AllCampus, is that I don’t know too much about AllCampus. I’m frequently asked to speak about the status of the online program management industry, and my lack of knowledge about AllCampus is a blind spot.
Q: Where does AllCampus fit in the OPM ecosystem? How many universities and online programs do you partner with? How is AllCampus differentiated from 2U, Noodle and other companies in this space?
A: “OPM” has come to mean something negative to many because of the high revenue share and highly public shortcomings of the most prominent players in the space. We never felt the term fit us because we are so different from what people associate with OPM—high revenue shares, a one-size-fits-all model and the high up-front costs associated with fee-for-service (FFS) agencies. Yet, it’s fair to say we help schools with a similar range of services and sometimes compete for deals, but we are just so different, which I’ll explain below.
We’re a mission-driven company that has quietly been making an impact for our university partners for 14 years. Our mission is to make education more affordable and accessible for all. We’ve been growing slowly and steadily all along. We didn’t raise hundreds of millions of capital and then go and spend it all on Google ads. We invested in our technology, our people, and prioritized servicing our clients really well. We’ve been highly disciplined and careful with our expansion.
AllCampus offers a flexible and partnership-driven approach rather than a one-size-fits-all model. We help the partner select the best fit for them—from revenue share, fee-for-service and hybrid/co-investment options—and tailor the services to each institution’s unique needs. Our approach prioritizes affordability and accessibility for students and collaboration with our university partners to meet their mission and goals. Beyond supporting online programs, we also help drive campus enrollment through a wide range of media expertise, brand building, consultation and technology solutions that make us more efficient than if the university were to do this on its own. We know that if we aren’t more efficient than a school can be, we are out of business. So, our mission is also at the heart of our business case for our partners.
We have built top-tier programs with schools like UCLA, Northeastern University, George Washington University, the University of Florida and dozens more. Our regional offerings include Indiana Wesleyan University; Middle Tennessee State University; University of Missouri, St. Louis; West Texas A&M and many others. In all, we have about 50 partners, with 25 universities and 140 programs in the bundle of services people think of as OPM.
We service another 25 universities in our Workplace Network, which has over 1,200 programs. On this network, the aim is for low-cost or even no-cost degrees that their employer pays for. The platform gives employees access to programs that help them develop or expand their skill sets, reach career goals, and, for many, return to school to finish their degree. Employees and their employers gain access to a tool that simplifies the complex process of selecting the right program and navigating tuition reimbursement through hands-on guidance. Fourteen million people have student debt and no degree, so we’re certain our Workplace offering can help address that personal crisis for millions and help reduce the education divide in our country.
In short, we’re content with who and where we are, and we don’t mind that we remained under the radar and even an insider like you doesn’t know much about us. It’s probably because we’re just different and less provocative than others that are classified as OPMs. I’m most proud that we have an impeccable reputation for integrity.
Q: How much of the partnerships with universities for online programs are based on revenue share versus fee for service? One of the criticisms of the OPM industry is that the companies take a high percentage of tuition and require long contract lock-ins. How is AllCampus different?
A: Just like OPMs, not all revenue-share agreements are created equal. AllCampus has the lowest tuition-sharing fees in the industry—typically between 25 and 35 percent compared to our competitors at 40 to 50 percent—which enables us to offer universities a cost-effective way to deliver online education.
We are neutral to our partners’ preference between revenue share, FFS, co-investment, hybrid, etc. In fact, we share very detailed pro formas with our partners to transparently understand the trade-offs. Among those trade-offs are contract length and required up-front investment. Those are all levers that the university controls in setting up the agreement with us so that we arrive at a partnership that fits their needs and has their buy-in. As to which model is most popular, most universities opt for revenue share, and to be candid, it would be better for us if it were more balanced, because it would make managing cash easier.
I believe the reason universities usually opt for revenue share is that fee-for-service models place the up-front financial burden on the university. FFS also carries the criticism that it’s a risk-free structure for the vendor (the OPM)—they get their money no matter what and have historically behaved accordingly. We’ve won many frustrated former FFS clients whose prior agencies overpromised and underdelivered. Revenue share has the benefit of pure alignment with student and program success. I will say that our hybrid and co-investment models have been gaining traction, as they seem to strike the right balance for some new partners.
Counter to the narrative for OPMs, at AllCampus, we always advocate for affordable and accessible education for all students. We routinely provide data to help schools evaluate their pricing against the market, ensuring their programs remain accessible, affordable and attractive to students. We often recommend that our partner institutions lower the cost of tuition and have refused to sign partnerships with universities unless they agree to drop the price of their programs. In the end, it’s the ultimate win-win because the university gains in overall revenue, and more students get access to these fantastic programs at a more affordable price.
Q: Where do you see the online degree market going in the next five years? What do you tell university leaders how they need to position their institutions to be competitive?
A: I anticipate the online degree market growing significantly in the next five years. Pre-pandemic projections estimated the market would reach $74 billion by 2025, doubling from $36 billion in 2019. The pandemic accelerated this trajectory and will cause the market to grow well beyond this estimate.
University leaders need to consider a variety of strategies to remain competitive:
Embracing flexibility and accessibility: With a plateau of traditional undergraduate students, universities should consider attracting adult learners through flexible, affordable and career-focused online programs. Students are demanding more offerings that accommodate a variety of schedules and learning styles. Offering a blend of synchronous and asynchronous courses can help cater to the needs of diverse learners.
Expanding nondegree and accelerated degree programs: Accelerated degree programs are on the rise due to their lower cost, increased flexibility and changing employer demands. There is also a growing demand for short-term, more skill-specific courses to help students in fields like AI and cybersecurity. Developing these types of programs can help universities attract professionals seeking targeted skill development.
Aligning education offerings with workplace needs: By carefully analyzing employee market trends and skill gaps, universities can design programs that directly address employer skill demands. Partnering with employers—either independently or through organizations like ours—ensures their new and existing programs attract a broader student base and their outcomes are relevant for the evolving workplace.
