Tag: News

  • Trump announces 10 new Education Department appointees

    Trump announces 10 new Education Department appointees

    The Trump administration named 10 new Education Department appointees Thursday, four of whom have previously worked with the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank formed in 2021 as the president ended his first term in office. 

    Education secretary nominee Linda McMahon was a co-founder of AFPI and served as the group’s president and CEO until she was selected to head the department.

    Thursday’s announcement offers more insight into who will help carry out Trump’s education agenda. Until McMahon and Deputy Secretary–designate Penny Schwinn are confirmed by the Senate, a veteran agency official, Denise Carter, will serve as acting secretary.  

    The newest cohort of appointees includes:

    • Rachel Oglesby, a former AFPI chief state action officer, as chief of staff.
    • Jonathan Pidluzny, AFPI’s former director of higher education reform, as deputy chief of staff for policy and programs.
    • Virginia “Chase” Forrester, former AFPI chief events officer, as deputy chief of staff for operations.
    • Craig Trainor, a former congressional senior special counsel and AFPI senior litigation counsel, as deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Office for Civil Rights. (During his time at AFPI, Trainor worked under Pam Bondi, whom Trump has nominated as his attorney general.)
    • Steve Warzoha as White House liaison.
    • Tom Wheeler as principal deputy general counsel.
    • Madi Biedermann as deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Communications and Outreach.
    • Candice Jackson, who served in the first Trump administration, as deputy general counsel.
    • Joshua Kleinfeld as deputy general counsel.
    • Hannah Ruth Earl as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.    

    Source link

  • AAUP opposes “anticipatory obedience” to Trump, GOP

    AAUP opposes “anticipatory obedience” to Trump, GOP

    The American Association of University Professors released a statement Thursday urging universities not to engage in “anticipatory obedience,” which it defined as “acting to comply in advance of any pressure to do so.”

    “As Donald Trump assumes the presidency for a second time, the outlook for higher education is dire,” begins the statement, which the AAUP said its elected national council approved this month.

    “The Trump administration and many Republican-led state governments appear poised to accelerate attacks on academic freedom, shared governance and higher education as a public good,” the statement says. “They will attack the curricular authority of the faculty on a number of fronts … It is the higher education community’s responsibility not to surrender to such attacks—and not to surrender in anticipation of them. Instead, we must vigorously and loudly oppose them.”

    The White House did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. Before JD Vance was elected vice president, AAUP president Todd Wolfson called him a “fascist.”

    In the fall, media reported that the University of North Texas removed words such as “race” from course titles, despite Texas’s anti–diversity, equity and inclusion law specifically exempting “course instruction.” The AAUP statement says that was part of a trend.

    “Under no circumstances should an institution go further than the law demands,” the AAUP wrote. “Yet, the examples above depict an eagerness to obey on the part of administrative officers, portending a bleak future.”

    The association recommended that faculty act by reviewing “handbooks and contracts to strengthen and reinforce faculty rights” in employment decisions and curricular changes. It also suggested reforming “policies to strengthen faculty oversight in areas currently being used to exercise excessive and undue discipline against faculty, staff and students,” including policies on Title IX, Title VI, acceptable use of institutional resources, outside speakers and campus protests.

    Source link

  • North Idaho College awaits its fate

    North Idaho College awaits its fate

    After years of scrutiny over governance issues that included violations of open meetings laws and other infractions, North Idaho College will soon learn whether it will keep or lose accreditation.

    The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities will convene Tuesday through Friday for its January meeting. Commissioners will determine whether NIC adequately resolved outstanding concerns driven by a former board majority that emphasized culture war issues at the rural Idaho college, tried to push out its president and hired personnel with political connections to board members.

    A decision on the college’s accreditation status will be delivered within 30 days of the meeting.

    College officials hope the commissioners see the progress they say NIC has made over the last year, resolving various governance issues raised by NWCCU as it sought to comply with accreditation standards after a flurry of warnings that culminated in a show-cause status in February 2023, meaning the college must “present evidence why its accreditation should not be withdrawn.” The sanction highlighted multiple governance issues driven by an exceptionally erratic board.

    Years of Conflict

    North Idaho’s clash with its accreditor came as a result of thorny governance issues marked by bitter clashes on its five-member elected Board of Trustees, with meetings that occasionally devolved into name-calling and appeared at times to be fueled by personal and ideological agendas.

    The high drama began at the small college in Coeur d’Alene in 2021 with allegations of abuse and aggressive behavior toward employees and others by then-chair Todd Banducci. The firing of former president Rick MacLennan without cause that same year prompted a successful lawsuit against the college, and the resignation of three board members (one amid residency questions) in 2022 prompted the state to temporarily appoint three new trustees who served out the remainder of their predecessors’ terms.

    While the reconstituted board managed to hire a new president in 2022, membership was reshuffled after elections that year. Two members who often voted together—Banducci and Greg McKenzie—were joined by Mike Waggoner, all of whom had ties to the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee, a group some considered far-right even for rural Idaho. With a new board majority in place, governance issues at NIC escalated rapidly in 2023.

    The new majority seated after Election Day in 2022 began by hiring Art Macomber as the college’s attorney in a surprise move that the board would later admit violated open meetings laws. The college’s prior attorney, Marc Lyons, had resigned after the election, writing that his services were “no longer desired” by the board majority. Macomber, who has since resigned, had political connections to the board majority.

    The board’s next act was to sideline President Nick Swayne, placing him on administrative leave in December after he cautioned trustees that they had violated open meetings and procurement law by abruptly picking Macomber without public notice or a bidding process. In Swayne’s place, the board hired an interim president while Macomber conducted a nebulous investigation into Swayne’s hiring by the prior board. (The interim president was given a contract that paid him more than $235,000 a year, $5,000 more than Swayne’s annual salary.) However, Swayne was reinstated in March 2023 after a successful legal challenge to the board’s attempted ouster.

    Amid the volatility, NWCCU issued a series of escalating warnings.

    The accreditor first contacted North Idaho leadership in April 2021 in response to complaints about alleged noncompliance with nondiscrimination, governing board and academic freedom standards. The accreditor then raised further concerns about governance standards in December 2021 related to MacLennan’s firing. (The Idaho State Board of Education also raised concerns about “the current trajectory” of NIC that same month.) In April 2022, NWCCU officially sanctioned NIC with a warning letter about noncompliance with governance and institutional integrity standards. In December of that year, after Swayne was temporarily sidelined, the accreditor threatened NIC with show-cause status. By February 2023, NWCCU followed through, slapping NIC with a show- cause sanction that was later extended in July of that year.

    In a May 2023 report, accreditors wrote that “NIC’s governing board’s actions over the past two years have created risks to institutional quality and integrity.” Among their concerns were “multiple lawsuits resulting from Board actions” and violations of open meetings laws; high leadership turnover, including having two presidents under contract; the hiring process for Macomber; and multiple votes of no confidence in the board by faculty and staff that trustees had not responded to.

    When NWCCU extended NIC’s show-cause status in July, it called on the board to address the no-confidence resolutions and “resolve current litigation, governance, and accreditation issues that have had a current and immediate impact” on college finances, among various other issues.

    Swayne, in an interview with Inside Higher Ed, noted that the issues fell on the governance side, which is also reflected in NWCCU’s findings. Academics at the college, he said, are strong.

    An Optimistic Outlook

    As the concerns about the loss of accreditation continued—often becoming a heated focal point in public comments at board meetings—NIC hired outside consultants, such as the Association of Community College Trustees to help develop board policies and interpersonal relationships.

    While that process seemed to help, Swayne doesn’t believe a lack of training was the issue.

    “I don’t want to discount the value of the consulting, but two years of consulting to try to teach board members, adults—well-educated adults—how to behave properly in a board meeting doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Swayne said. “So there was something else going on. I can’t tell you what that was—I don’t know.”

    The notion of something sinister underlying the actions of the former board majority has been a common theme at meetings in recent years, with speakers questioning the trustees’ motives. Local residents often demanded the board majority explain their motivations and offered theories of their own, sometimes tinged with conspiracy, including speculation that the three trustees aimed to shut the college down in order to free up prime real estate for development.

    Swayne suggested there was a “hangover from COVID” at play given that opposition to masks and vaccines was a “main issue” for the majority bloc of trustees until the coronavirus pandemic waned. Emboldened trustees, he suspects, were in search of another cause after that fight ended. And some, like Banducci, had alleged the existence of a liberal “deep state” at the community college, particularly among faculty.

    After some employees voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement, Banducci claimed on a podcast that “those agendas are being woven into the curriculum. And, you know, who controls the kids, who controls their minds, who controls the college student, you know, controls the voter of the future and controls the populace.” Banducci also allegedly berated MacLennan’s wife for being a Hillary Clinton support, according to a former trustee who called for Banducci to step down in 2021.

    But with increasing accreditor scrutiny, there appeared to be a softening of the board, starting with Waggoner, who often sided with Banducci and McKenzie but later emerged as a swing vote.

    Swayne said he noticed the change around May 2024. And once Waggoner’s voting patterns shifted, Banducci and McKenzie fell in behind him. Meetings, which had often stretched on for hours due to heated public comment periods and legal wrangling, became shorter, more cordial and nonconfrontational.

    Last fall, Banducci and Waggoner decided not to run for re-election and McKenzie lost his bid for another term, putting an end to the board majority that was behind many of the decisions that prompted scrutiny from accreditors as three new trustees were seated. (McKenzie and Banducci did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed. Waggoner could not be reached.)

    Swayne said there were “seven months of relatively normalized meetings with the old board.” And now, with a reconfigured board, he believes NIC’s governance issues have been resolved.

    If NIC does lose accreditation over governance issues, it would be an anomaly. Typically, accreditation is stripped due to severe financial or academic issues, which NWCCU has not found. Governance concerns are typically met with warnings, which NWCCU issued in multiple cases before taking further action.

    NWCCU president Sonny Ramaswamy wrote by email that it would be “inappropriate to speak about any decisions the Board of Commissioners will make [on] North Idaho College, before they have acted” and noted that the process will follow an established accreditation actions policy.

    While Swayne declined to predict the outcome, he believes the college has made significant progress on accreditation concerns and “started meeting the standards back in May of 2024.” He’s hopeful that a room full of more than two dozen commissioners will see it the same way.

    Source link

  • Carnegie Foundation launches sustainability classification pilot

    Carnegie Foundation launches sustainability classification pilot

    The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the American Council on Education announced Thursday that they have launched a pilot of their new Sustainability Elective Classification, a designation that will recognize institutions of higher education that “embed sustainability and climate action into their core missions,” according to the announcement.

    The pilot program will include 21 colleges and universities from across the 50 states and Puerto Rico and will aim to refine the criteria for the classification while working to guarantee that it is attainable to institutions of all sizes and types. The classification is expected to consider “institutional efforts across curriculum, research, operations, community engagement, and workforce development, with an emphasis on preparing students for careers in sustainability fields.”

    “The Elective Classification for Sustainability recognizes how institutions of higher education are essential to the future of American innovation and progress, within and beyond their classrooms,” Timothy F. C. Knowles, president of the Carnegie Foundation, said in the announcement. “These pilot institutions are helping to forge the way.”

    The Sustainability Elective Classification is scheduled to launch in early 2026. The Carnegie Foundation and ACE are also looking for a university or institution to serve as the classification’s administrative and operational host.

    Source link

  • Trump’s sex and gender order could create risk for colleges

    Trump’s sex and gender order could create risk for colleges

    While running for president, Donald Trump pledged to fight the Biden administration’s efforts to expand protections for transgender students. On day one of his second term in office, he got to work fulfilling that promise.

    In an executive order, which is part of a broader effort to restrict the rights of transgender people, Trump declared that there are only two sexes and banned the federal funding of “gender ideology.” His supporters hailed the move as a return to common sense, while LGBTQ+ advocates saw it as an attack seeking to erase the existence of trans people.

    For colleges and universities, the order raises more questions than it answers, and its immediate implications are unclear. As with other executive orders, it includes many provisions that require the Education Department to take action and issue guidance about how colleges should comply. But depending on how the department responds, the order could complicate institutions’ efforts to accommodate transgender students and eventually change how the federal government enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

    Susan​​​​ Friedfel, a higher education attorney at Jackson Lewis, a New York City law firm that works with colleges and other employers, said more information is needed from the Education Department to determine how the order will affect higher ed institutions, especially since other federal and state laws protect LGBTQ+ students.

    “We have a lot of questions,” she said. “It’s challenging because we have conflicting laws that apply to the same space.”

    In the meantime, she encouraged colleges to revisit their Title IX policies to ensure they are in compliance with the 2020 regulations put in place by the first Trump administration and to think about how best to accommodate everybody.

    The order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” defines “sex,” “male” and “female,” among other terms, and orders federal agencies to use those definitions when “interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.”

    The order is likely to face legal challenges, said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, who argues that it’s unlawful.

    “It is important that people not give this executive order more credence than it deserves,” she said.

    Other LGBTQ+ advocates echoed Oakley, emphasizing that executive orders don’t create or change laws.

    “Discrimination based on sex, including discrimination against transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, remains illegal, and it cannot be legalized through this executive order,” Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement.

    But Republican lawmakers, conservative legal organizations and other anti-trans advocates applauded Trump’s order, saying it would protect women and girls from discrimination and ground federal law in “biological fact.”

    “Blatant and deliberate attempts to redefine our sons’ and daughters’ identities by questioning biology itself has done significant harm to our children and society,” said Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House education committee. “[The] action by the Trump administration acknowledges the biological differences between men and women. In doing so, it is protecting women from discrimination and securing the progress women have made over the decades.”

    What’s in the Order

    In addition to defining “sex” and other terms, the order outlines a plan to combat “gender ideology,” which the Trump administration defines as replacing “the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”

    Federal officials were told to remove any internal or external documents that “inculcate gender ideology” and take “any necessary steps to end the federal funding of gender ideology.” Additionally, agencies will now only use the term “sex” instead of “gender” in all applicable federal policies and documents, according to the order. The Biden administration gave people the option on passport applications to mark their gender as X rather than choose male or female. That option is now being eliminated.

    On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the State Department wouldn’t process any passport applications seeking to change the applicant’s gender from male to female or requesting the X option, The Guardian reported.

    Agencies are required to give an update on their efforts to implement the order in 120 days.

    The Trump administration also directed the attorney general to correct the Biden administration’s “misapplication” of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which said that LGBTQ+ individuals were protected from discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The first Trump administration said that Bostock didn’t apply to Title IX, which bars sex-based discrimination in education settings. But the Biden administration reversed that guidance in June 2021.

    The Bostock decision was key to the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulations, which clarified that the law also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the new Title IX rule was unlawful and wiped the regulations off the books.

    Trump’s executive order also requires the education secretary to rescind a number of guidance documents related to the now-vacated Title IX regulations, as well as resources for supporting LGBTQ+ students. That includes the Education Department’s June 2021 Dear Colleague letter that said Title IX protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    In addition, the Trump administration is rescinding a back-to-school message for transgender students from the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services that provided resources for students who experience bullying or discrimination.

    ‘Nothing Radical’

    Kim Hermann, the executive director of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative legal organization that sued the Biden administration over the Title IX regulations, said Trump’s order immediately restores the privacy and physical safety rights of women, so colleges that don’t comply could face federal civil rights investigations or lawsuits.

    “There’s nothing radical about this executive order,” she said. “All it does is solidify Congress’s original intent when they passed the laws … Our girls and our women on college campuses are sick of their rights being eroded.”

    Friedfel said the current Trump administration will likely investigate complaints from cisgender students who are uncomfortable sharing spaces with transgender students.

    “That doesn’t mean that they necessarily have to do anything radically different, but recognize that there’s that risk there,” she said.

    Oakley said that guidance from the department is necessary for universities to understand what’s expected of them and how the Office for Civil Rights will enforce Title IX. She doesn’t expect OCR to take discrimination against LGBTQ+ faculty, staff and students seriously.

    “It’s also going to be very difficult to understand how to be in compliance when the folks who are enforcing the law are not respecting the actual case law,” she said. “So it is going to create a tremendous amount of confusion.”

    Source link

  • Scientists worried after Trump halts NIH grant reviews

    Scientists worried after Trump halts NIH grant reviews

    Orders to freeze travel, meetings, communications and hiring at the National Institutes of Health—and all other agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services—has some federally funded researchers on edge just days into President Donald Trump’s second term.

    Scholars say they’ve received emails canceling key meetings that determine which research projects to fund and they’re worried about how those and other disruptions could stall the billions of dollars in NIH-funded projects universities oversee.

    “I suspect that folks outside the sciences don’t understand just how disruptive even a short delay in funding decisions can be,” Adam Forte, an associate professor of geology at Louisiana State University who runs his own lab, posted on BlueSky Thursday alongside numerous other concerned scholars. “This is how we lose huge amounts of scientific capacity, scientific capacity we as a collective have already invested huge amounts of time and money in, just lighting it on fire to watch the flames.”

    If they leave, it’s not like there is much chance they’re coming back to that, or a similar position. That expertise is just gone as they are forced to move onto something else to pay the bills. A spectacular waste from a “short” delay in the machinery that funds science. 5/6

    — Adam Forte (@topoismyforte.bsky.social) 2025-01-23T12:23:24.069Z

    Some research policy experts say a pause is typical for the initial days of a new administration and that it’s too soon to tell whether this week’s order is a cause for concern. Others, however, are interpreting it as part of a larger message from Trump, who has repeatedly undermined scientific findings about COVID-19 and climate change and nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who falsely claims there are no safe or effective vaccines, to lead the HHS.

    While Kennedy, who previously vowed to enact mass layoffs at the NIH, and Trump’s other cabinet nominees await Senate confirmation, Trump has already issued a blitz of executive orders—including some that roll back diversity and environmental justice initiatives, as well as protections for federal workers and immigrants—since retaking the White House Monday. (In addition to those in HHS, all federal agencies are also under a hiring freeze.)

    “It’s not unheard-of to see some things paused when a new administration takes over, but when we look at the whole package of language and executive orders that have come out this week, they’re all tied up together,” said Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The goal is to intimidate, chill and create this exact sort of fear.”

    A Communications Freeze

    That fear for NIH-affiliated researchers came after Dorothy Fink, acting secretary of HHS, sent a memo Tuesday to all HHS division heads, including the directors of the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration.

    “As the new administration considers its plan for managing the federal policy and public communications processes, it is important that the President’s appointees and designees have the opportunity to review and approve any regulations, guidance, documents, and other public documents and communications (including social media),” explained the memo, which instructed agency employees to refrain from numerous forms of communications, including issuing grant award announcements and public speaking, until a presidential appointee can review them. The memo is in effect until Feb. 1.

    An NIH spokesperson clarified to Inside Higher Ed via email that the restrictions apply to communication “not directly related to emergencies or critical to preserving health,” and that any “exceptions for announcements that HHS divisions believe are mission critical” will be made “on a case-by-case basis.”

    On Wednesday, Glenda Conroy, a senior travel official for NIH, emailed NIH employees notifying them that all sponsored travel for HHS employees is also suspended until further notice.

    Disruptions to Research

    As of right now, all these restrictions mean that scheduled meetings have been canceled or postponed, including NIH study sections, which convene scientific experts to decide which projects to fund.

    And university-affiliated researchers make up a sizable portion of the grant application pool. The $44 billion NIH is the largest federal research funding source for colleges and universities, which receive billions in NIH grants each year to support medical and other scientific research projects, including those that have advanced treatments for common diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s.

    Chrystal Starbird, an assistant professor of biology and a cancer researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Medicine, had been planning for months to attend a study section next week where nearly 60 grants were set to be reviewed, but she got word a couple of days ago that it was canceled.

    “Ultimately, the NIH will continue to function, so maybe it’s not a huge issue, but for the people being reviewed now it is,” she said. “None of those grants will be reviewed on time. The question is: How are they going to get all of us together again to review the grant?”

    And rescheduling the study sections for weeks or months after the communication restrictions lift may disrupt certain ongoing projects.

    “Some people may be using this funding to do research that may have more time pressure,” Starbird said, noting that clinical research typically adheres to strict patient-monitoring timelines. “We have to acknowledge that there’s already a significant impact from this pause.”

    ‘Too Soon to Assume’ Worst-Case Scenario?

    Carrie Wolinetz, a science and health policy consultant who worked for the NIH between 2015 and 2023, said in an email that the communications freeze is similar to memos from previous transitions. Although she acknowledged that pausing study section meetings seems broader than previous transitions, it doesn’t strike her “as tremendously outside the norm of activities that might be paused while a new team is transitioning.”

    And though it’s understandable that all of these restrictions are “causing anxiety,” she said it’s “too soon to assume that worst case scenario.”

    “It becomes a concern if there is a long cessation of activity, of the sort you might experience if there was an extended government shutdown,” she said. “There is likely to be minimal impact in the short term—other than for folks who hopped on flights only to discover their meeting was cancelled, which I imagine was pretty irritating.”

    But others caution that having such restrictions in place for even a short time could force people out of their jobs, create a talent void and potentially stall innovation.

    “Even if this is short-lived bumpiness, the uncertainty in funding can have career-altering implications, especially for young scientists,” Erica Goldman, a former academic and director of policy entrepreneurship for the Federation of American Scientists, said in an email.

    “If conferences or travel are canceled, for example, the inability to present new ideas and network with senior colleagues can have cascading effects,” she continued. “I’m reminded of the experiments, data, and professionals who left the field during COVID-19. Even temporary pauses can have lasting consequences.”

    Source link

  • Should universities cash in on cryptocurrency donations?

    Should universities cash in on cryptocurrency donations?

    In 2023, Korean video game company WeMade pledged to donate the equivalent of one billion Korean won ($695,988) in Wemix tokens—a cryptocurrency linked to the blockchain platform of the same name—to Seoul National University.

    What seemed like a moment for celebration quickly descended into controversy, with the university eventually ceasing to accept cryptocurrency donations altogether.

    So, what happened? Shortly after the donation was made, WeMade reportedly liquidated a large share of its coins, causing a significant currency devaluation and meaning SNU’s donation was no longer worth so much—a problem given that the funds had been earmarked for a specific project.

    That wasn’t the only barrier. Under South Korean financial regulations, the university was also unable to open a corporate account for virtual asset exchange. With calls to change the law unanswered, the university was left holding a volatile currency it was unable to convert to cash.

    Now Korean regulators are reportedly considering allowing the country’s universities to convert cryptocurrency for the first time—potentially opening a significant new fundraising stream for the country’s financially ailing sector.

    Elsewhere, universities are already cashing in on the crypto craze, most notably in the U.S. In 2021, the University of Pennsylvania received $5 million in Bitcoin from an unnamed donor. A year later, Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, a leading blockchain, donated the equivalent of $9.4 million in USDC coin to the University of Maryland to fund public health research in the wake of the pandemic.

    The Giving Block, a U.S.-based platform that facilitates cryptocurrency donations to nonprofit organizations, said that the higher education sector has been one of its “biggest growth areas” over the past two years, with Washington State University and Northeastern University among the company’s clients.

    “There are several things driving this, like the booming crypto market and broader mainstream adoption, but the biggest driver for schools is simply following the money,” said Pat Duffy, its co-founder.

    With analysts suggesting popular currencies like Bitcoin will continue to grow in value this year, spurred on by newly inaugurated Donald Trump’s crypto-friendly rhetoric, universities could be set to benefit—if they are prepared to manage the risks that come with the volatile landscape.

    “For donors in the U.S., the biggest driver is the tax incentive,” said Duffy. “You can skip capital gains taxes on appreciated assets and still get a deduction for the full market value.

    “The donor pays no taxes on their appreciated crypto, and neither does the school. Donors across the country are eliminating tens of millions of dollars in tax liability by choosing to give with crypto, and giving larger gifts … as a result.”

    For universities, accepting cryptocurrency may also allow them to target their fundraising at a younger, tech-savvy market. “They can attract more people if they accept crypto payments,” said Nir Kshetri, professor of management at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

    It’s not just donations where universities are capitalizing. Some, like Bentley University, have begun accepting tuition fees in cryptocurrency, with significant implications for international students.

    In Nigeria, for example, converting the naira to the U.S. dollar to make fee payments can be a complicated process. For some, paying in decentralized cryptocurrency is simpler and faster, according to Kshetri.

    However, a key risk for universities is the unpredictability of cryptocurrency markets, with fears compounded by the volatility of Bitcoin in recent years. While the market is recovering, crashes such as the one experienced in 2022 have left a lasting impact and made some universities wary.

    “Right now it’s at a peak, but who’s to say we won’t see a return to what we saw two years ago when the bottom fell out?” cautioned Bill Stanczykiewicz, director of the Fund Raising School at Indiana University Indianapolis’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

    According to Stanczykiewicz, best practice is to avoid holding on to cryptocurrency, even if it is predicted to increase in value. “What we say to fundraisers is if you get crypto, turn it into your national currency as quickly as you can,” he said, or use a platform like the Giving Block, which does this for you.

    However, this approach isn’t universal. In Paraguay, Universidad Americana is less risk-averse than some, evaluating the market before converting any cryptocurrency payments.

    Universities considering going down this avenue also need to consider the ethical aspects, said Stanczykiewicz, and whether such donations adhere to their institution’s values.

    Specifically, the environmental impact of currencies like Bitcoin is a concern for some. However, Kshetri argued, the coin has already been mined prior to the donation—that is, the damage has already been done. “Just to transfer that Bitcoin from you to me consumes very little … electricity,” he said.

    Whatever your ethical view, those interviewed for this article agreed on this: Cryptocurrency is here to stay and, for universities, it’s simply a question of how quickly they embrace it.

    “Historically, it was regulatory uncertainty that made universities nervous about crypto acceptance and investing,” said Duffy. Today, he continued, in the U.S., “regulatory clarity and the political support we see on both sides of the aisle have cleared up those concerns.”

    With countries like South Korea set to provide a regulatory green light, too, it may not be long before institutions around the globe follow in the footsteps of their U.S. counterparts.

    Source link

  • ‘Sobering news’: Sonoma State University makes broad cuts to tackle $24M deficit

    ‘Sobering news’: Sonoma State University makes broad cuts to tackle $24M deficit

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Sonoma State University is moving to cut staff, faculty, programs, departments and its athletics programs as it faces a larger-than-expected deficit of nearly $24 million.
    • Interim President Emily Cutrer described the depth of the university’s budget hole as “sobering news.” To manage it, the university is cutting four management positions and 12 staff positions, and it will not renew contracts of 46 tenured and adjunct faculty members for the 2025-26 academic year. 
    • It also plans to axe about two dozen undergraduate and graduate programs. Additionally, it will eliminate its departments of art history, economics, geology, philosophy, theater and dance, and women and gender studies, while consolidating other programs and schools.

    Dive Insight:

    In announcing the cuts at Sonoma State, Cutrer outlined several forces behind the university’s growing budget gap. She cited, in part, inflation — in personnel costs, as well as supplies and utilities. Recent cost escalations led the university to the “unfortunate realization” that its yearslong deficit was even larger than expected, the president said. 

    But the public institution’s chief challenge is enrollment, Cutrer said, noting a 38% decline since its peak in 2015. (Fall headcount stood at just under 6,000 in 2023, per federal data.) Those decreases hit the university’s revenue in tuition and fees as well as in enrollment-based funding from the California State University system. 

    To cope, Sonoma over the past two years has offered buyouts, made “strategic” job cuts and frozen hiring, among other operational moves, Cutrer said. 

    “Unfortunately, the actions taken so far, difficult though they have been, are not enough,” she added. “Further steps must be taken to fully close the budget gap and ensure Sonoma State’s financial capacity to best serve its current and future students and adapt to a changing higher education landscape.” 

    Those steps entail broad-based cuts. On the chopping block is a wide range of programs, including bachelor’s programs in art, economics, physics, philosophy and many others. Some master’s programs are also slated to be cut, among them Spanish, English and public administration. 

    Meanwhile, other programs will be consolidated. For example, Sonoma’s departments of American multicultural studies, Chicano and Latino studies, and Native American studies are set to merge into an ethnic studies department with a single major under it. 

    Also making headlines is Sonoma’s decision to end its Division II NCAA athletics programs after the current academic year, which was made after a “thorough review of the university’s financial necessities and long-term sustainability,” the institution said. Sonoma plans to honor the scholarships of current student athletes and to support those who decide to transfer to another school, such as by helping them obtain their transcripts.

    Expected savings from the cuts include:

    • $8 million in reduced instructional costs. 
    • $3.8 million from reorganization.
    • $3.7 million from cutting athletics. 
    • $3.3 million from hiring freeze.  
    • $1.3 million from university-wide budget reductions.

    Cutrer said the round of cuts likely represent the “large majority” Sonoma will have to make this year, but she warned more could be necessary as it discusses shared services with Cal State.

    Sonoma is by no means the only public institution in California making cuts. The Cal State and University of California systems are both scrambling to manage potential reductions in state funding amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars after Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his latest budget proposal for the 2025-26 fiscal year. 

    After the proposal’s release earlier this month, Cal State — facing a state funding reduction of $375 million — said that a “shortfall of this magnitude will negatively impact academic programming, student services, course offerings and the CSU workforce.”

    Source link

  • Trump administration allows immigration arrests at colleges

    Trump administration allows immigration arrests at colleges

    The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday rescinded guidance that prevented immigration arrests at schools, churches and colleges.

    Since 1993, federal policy has barred immigration enforcement actions near or at these so-called sensitive areas. The decision to end the policy comes as the Trump administration is moving to crack down on illegal immigration and stoking fears of mass deportations. 

    “This action empowers the brave men and women in [Customs and Border Protection] and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country,” acting DHS secretary Benjamine Huffman said in a statement. “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

    Advocates for undocumented people have warned that such a policy change was possible, and some college leaders have said they won’t voluntarily assist in any effort to deport students or faculty solely because of their citizenship status, although they said they would comply with the law. On Wednesday, the Justice Department said it would investigate state and local officials who don’t enforce Trump’s immigration policies.

    Source link

  • Building common ground in higher education

    Building common ground in higher education

    Welcome to year four of the “Beyond Transfer” blog on Inside Higher Ed. We’re humbled by and thankful for the lively and passionate community this has become. We continue to be impressed with the levels of readership, the exemplary work that various authors describe, the connections that are made as people respond to one another’s work and the dedication to students that jumps off the page. We begin 2025 feeling truly grateful to all those working hard every day to ensure fair treatment of students and their learning. Thank you for all you do.

    Each year, we kick off the “Beyond Transfer” blog with some reflections on what we’ve learned from you and all our partners on the ground and what that means for the year ahead. We are excited to welcome Sova’s new partner Marty Alvarado to this endeavor. Marty has a long history of leading impactful transfer and learning mobility work, and while she’s new to Sova, her insights have long guided our work.

    In 2024, Sova’s transfer and learning mobility team was far-flung and working deeply in many contexts. As a result, we begin 2025 midstride on a variety of fronts:

    • In states: The Sova team is embedded in truly consequential transfer and learning mobility work in several states. This hard, on-the-ground work includes facilitating state-level, cross-sector leadership tables, providing technical assistance for institutional collaborations, supporting implementation of legislatively mandated reforms and serving as a thought partner to state agencies and system offices in diverse political and governance contexts.

    The new year is a time when people reflect on the year that passed and make commitments for the year ahead. This year, we thought we’d play on that theme by sharing some reflections on the past year and what that means for our team’s commitments in the year ahead.

    You may have heard that Merriam-Webster’s 2024 Word of the Year was “polarization,” which Merriam-Webster defined as “division into two sharply distinct opposites; especially, a state in which the opinions, beliefs or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes.” For anyone who lived through the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the selection of this word of the year probably comes as no surprise.

    This led us to reflect on a hard lesson we have learned through our transfer and learning mobility work, which is that this, too, is a space that can quickly lead to polarization. So often, we hear blame placed on receiving institutions for not taking enough credits or on sending institutions for not preparing students well enough. We see examples of administration pitted against faculty for control over decision-making related to transfer credits. We even see the needs of transfer students held up against the needs of students who started and stayed at an institution. Sound familiar?

    So our first commitment for 2025 is to practice the art of depolarization. What do we mean by that? In many ways, this feels like a recommitment to values we already hold, but (being human) sometimes don’t fully live up to. We will welcome hard conversations. We will actively listen, with the goal of building understanding and empathy. We will begin hard conversations with a reminder to honor the perspectives and expertise of all present. We will focus on the human dimensions of change, which includes recognizing that people bring the beauty of their identities and experiences to the work alongside fear of loss, discomfort with conflict and differing styles. We will actively find ways to include all participants. We will transparently document differing perspectives. We will avoid overgeneralizations and stereotypes. We will remember that we work with educators who care about students and welcome being invited into collaborative problem-solving. And when we fall short of these recommitments, we will be open to others holding us accountable.

    Another commitment we have for 2025 is the work of finding and expanding the common ground. This too flows from an interest in depolarization and our shared conviction that common ground exists but can be easily drowned out amid the din of partisan hostility.

    We know that transfer touches many learners—in fact, likely more learners than we previously thought. New data from a survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans, conducted in a partnership between Public Agenda and Sova for “Beyond Transfer,” found that four in 10 respondents tried to transfer some type of credit toward earning an associate degree, bachelor’s degree or certificate. Moreover, those respondents shared that their credit transfer journeys took many forms, including seeking credit transfer for military experience, work-based learning and dual-credit courses in high school. Despite their different journeys, many shared the common experience of credit loss, with 58 percent of respondents indicating they had lost some number of credits when transferring. These data points demonstrate there is a large and diverse population of mobile learners that we should bring into the conversation to build awareness of the high incidence of transfer and generate support for policy action.

    While there are many contentious issues in higher education—including how to improve affordability and how to address ballooning student loan debt—transfer is an area with bipartisan support that, if we can improve, can generate downstream improvements in other areas, such as completion and affordability.

    In the same Public Agenda survey, respondents of all political backgrounds expressed strong support for a variety of policy ideas intended to improve credit transfer. Credit mobility and transfer might well be an issue around which Republicans, Democrats and Independents prove they are capable of agreement and joint action. Improving transfer stands to offer a triple bottom line for learners, institutions and taxpayers:

    • For learners: Recognizing more of their hard-earned credit is the fair thing to do, and research makes clear it will also advance their success by increasing retention and shortening time and cost to completion.
    • For institutions: Public appetite for transparency and accountability clearly cuts across political identities, and institutions would be well served by paying attention to this growing appetite and its relationship to the ongoing decline of public confidence in the value of higher education.
    • For taxpayers: Maximizing the credits earned for students will ensure taxpayer dollars are used to best effect.

    As we dive into 2025, we’ll keep working to dial down the finger-pointing and blaming, cut across silos and divides of our own making, and expand the common ground that already exists on transfer. We hope you’ll join us in finding ways to come together across multiple fronts—within institutions and systems, with government and policymakers at all levels, with accreditors and associations—to serve our students. They deserve it.

    Want to share your commitments for 2025? Please send your thoughts to [email protected] by Feb. 15. We will synthesize your thoughts and reflect them in an upcoming post.

    Source link