Tag: News

  • FIU expected to hire Florida lt. governor as president

    FIU expected to hire Florida lt. governor as president

    Another Florida Republican is reportedly destined for a college presidency. 

    Florida International University is expected to name Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez as interim president at a meeting Friday, The Miami Herald reported. Nuñez, who earned undergraduate and master’s degrees at FIU, is expected to resign from her position Friday to take the job.

    Nuñez, who has served as lieutenant governor since 2018, was previously an adjunct professor at FIU but does not appear to have prior administrative experience in higher education. As a member of Florida’s House of Representatives, Nuñez pushed for legislation to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition but has backed off on her support for that idea in recent years.

    If hired, it seems Nuñez will step into the job right away.

    One anonymous source told the newspaper that the board is seeking to act quickly on the appointment so Nuñez is in place before the Florida legislative session begins on March 4. The thinking behind the move, that source said, was that she can extract more state dollars for FIU.

    FIU is currently led by Kenneth Jessell, who was named interim in January 2022 after then-president Mark Rosenberg resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment. The interim tag was later lifted, and Jessell is on a three-year contract that is set to expire in November.

    If hired, Nuñez will be one of several Republican former lawmakers tapped to lead a Florida university in recent years. Others include Ben Sasse, a U.S. senator from Nebraska—who briefly served as president of the University of Florida but resigned abruptly last fall and has been dogged by questions about his spending—and former state lawmakers Richard Corcoran at New College of Florida, Fred Hawkins at South Florida State College and Mel Ponder at Northwest Florida State College. Ray Rodrigues, another former lawmaker, was hired as chancellor of the State University System of Florida in 2022 following a search that yielded eight applicants.

    Another Republican former lawmaker, Adam Hasner, was recently named as a finalist for the Florida Atlantic University presidency. That search was scuttled by state officials who raised concerns about “anomalies” after FAU did not hire Republican lawmaker Randy Fine last year.

    Florida International University did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Hiring freeze cancels internships with federal agencies

    Hiring freeze cancels internships with federal agencies

    Kristin Comrie is set to graduate this semester with a master’s in health informatics from a fully remote program that she balances with a full-time job. But the federal hiring freeze has thrown a wrench into her plans, prompting the Veterans Health Administration to cancel her unpaid internship, which she needed to fulfill a graduation requirement.

    It wasn’t easy to find an opportunity that fit in with her job and schoolwork, but the VHA internship sounded ideal; she could work remotely, and the team at the VHA seemed happy to accommodate her busy schedule. Slated to start Feb. 10, she had just finished her background check and fingerprinting when she received notice that the internship had been canceled.

    “I got a generic email that they were rescinding the offer because of the federal hiring freeze,” Comrie recalled.

    The news left her “scrambling” to find another internship that she could finish in time to graduate in May. Two weeks later, she hasn’t yet found a new position but said she might be able to coordinate with her current employer to take on additional responsibilities in order to fulfill the requirement.

    Comrie isn’t the only student to have had a federal employment opportunity abruptly rescinded. The hiring freeze appears to have forced federal agencies to cancel numerous internships; most prominently, thousands of legal internships and entry-level positions within the Department of Justice and beyond have been impacted, according to reports on social media and in news outlet like Reuters and Law360.

    “We’ve most definitely seen impacts of the federal hiring freeze and subsequent actions related to college recruiting and internships. We’re hearing from colleges that there have been internships that have been canceled and we have heard that federal agencies have pulled out of going onto campuses to recruit,” said Shawn VanDerziel, executive director of the National Association of Colleges and Employers, an advocacy group for campus career centers and the businesses that work with them. “I would hope once the dust settles over the coming weeks and months that we will have many more answers and that the trajectory will be more positive.”

    It represents a stark contrast from just a year ago, when the federal government finalized regulations to expand internship opportunities in an effort to hire younger talent. Government employees skew Gen X and older, with those over 55 making up a third of federal workers and those under 30 composing just 8 percent. To keep the government well staffed as the aging workforce retires, officials vowed to cultivate a younger demographic.

    “Early career programs are critical to recruit the next generation of government leaders,” then–Office of Personnel Management director Kiran Ahuja told Government Executive, a publication focused on the federal government, in a statement. “The updates to the Pathways Programs will increase opportunities and remove barriers to hire interns, fellows, apprentices, recent students and trainees, which will help federal agencies boost their talent pipelines to serve the American people. No matter what your interests are, the federal government offers opportunities in nearly every sector and every industry.”

    Those rules, finalized last April, went into effect in December, meaning they were in place for just over a month before the hiring freeze began on Inauguration Day.

    For students, working in government is a rare opportunity to explore certain career specializations that are difficult to study elsewhere, like diplomacy. Federal internships often allow students to experience America’s center of government firsthand—and to get their foot in the door for a dream job.

    “If you got a federal government internship, it means you’re quite capable,” said Brian Swarts, director of Pepperdine University’s D.C. program, one of approximately 40 satellite campuses in the capital dedicated to supporting and educating student interns. “It’s much more advanced than other internships. Generally speaking, students who have acquired a government internship are very excited about those opportunities … they’re seeing this as their one opportunity to move forward with a future role in the government.”

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to a handful of the agencies that have reportedly cut internships—the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs.

    In response to a series of questions, an EPA spokesperson responded, “There have been no mass cancellations of EPA internships. The EPA is diligently implementing President Trump’s executive orders and associated guidance.”

    The other three offices did not respond to requests for comment.

    Since the hiring freeze went into effect, the administration has carved out some exceptions, saying that agencies are “permitted” to make allowances for internships through the Pathways Programs, centralized programs that install interns, recent graduates and midcareer fellows across various agencies, aiming to convert them into full-time employees.

    But the majority of interns for federal agencies are not part of the Pathways Programs.

    Other exceptions would have to be carved out by the agencies themselves on a case-by-case basis, McLaurine Pinover, a spokesperson for OPM, said in an email.

    Katie Romano, executive director of the Archer Center, which supports students from the University of Texas system in pursuing internships in D.C., told Inside Higher Ed that two current Archer fellows had spring semester internships rescinded—one a full-time and one a part-time position—but both have been able to transition to other opportunities in the city.

    A director of another college’s D.C. program, who asked to remain anonymous, said no students from her institution had lost federal internships this spring. But she said that’s likely because several students backed out of opportunities with federal agencies after Trump was elected because they disagreed with his politics or feared chaos under his administration.

    “My fear from a macro level is we’re going to turn off an entire generation of young people from civil service as they’re watching all of this. If you were 21 and thinking about what you were going to do after graduation and looking for an internship that would set you up for success and you see this going on, you might just choose to pivot your entire plan,” she said.

    ‘It’s Been Very Stressful’

    Law students, in particular, have found themselves struggling to find new opportunities; since most law interns are hired months before their onboarding date, few private firms have spots left, leaving those who lost internships with minimal options for summer work.

    “In the law school world, not working on your summers is not necessarily going to destroy your future career, but a lot of postgrad employers look at that quizzically,” said Dylan Osborne, a second-year Brooklyn Law School student who was slated to work at the Internal Revenue Service this summer until he received an email that the internship had been canceled due to the hiring freeze.

    Moreover, many of the students with federal job offers in hand had already begun making arrangements to live in D.C. for the summer.

    One second-year law student said that while she was fortunate not to have signed a lease in D.C. before her internship offer was rescinded, she’d already told her current landlord she would not be renewing her lease, which expires in May.

    Now, with no job on the horizon, the student, who requested anonymity out of fear of jeopardizing her career, said she is “in limbo,” unsure where she will live or how much money she will earn over the summer.

    Since she received notice that her internship was canceled, she now spends as many as five hours a day applying for positions and talking on the phone with firms.

    “It’s been very stressful, especially because I took on extra responsibilities knowing I didn’t have to worry about the [job] application process,” she said. “It’s like taking on another job in itself.”

    Andrew Nettels, a third-year law student at George Washington University whose permanent job offer from the DOJ was rescinded, has organized a massive group chat of law students and new lawyers whose employment prospects were impacted by the hiring freeze. He said few members of the group—which maintains a document of opportunities and firms taking interns—have had success finding replacement positions.

    “I’m not personally aware of anyone finding anything new. I’m aware of maybe three people who have had interviews,” he said, noting that members of the chat are encouraged to share their successes. “This isn’t to place any blame at all on the private sector—we’re already several months off the recruitment cycle … their hiring committees have been trying to figure out whether they’d be in a financial position as a firm to commit to hiring one or two or however many students for the summer, and even postgraduates—it’s a huge commitment.”

    Professors, administrators and career center specialists are also working diligently to help students secure replacement positions, with some reaching out to their networks on social media in the hopes of finding leads.

    “The old saying ‘it takes a village’ could not be more appropriate right now. I have no doubt my LinkedIn ‘village’ can help not just William & Mary Law School students but also students at other schools who are anxiously and unexpectedly having to pivot as a result of the hiring freeze,” wrote Michael Ende, associate dean for career services at William & Mary Law School, in a LinkedIn post.

    According to an emailed statement from William & Mary Law School dean A. Benjamin Spencer, 13 students lost their summer internships due to the hiring freeze, and others likely would have secured positions at federal agencies in the coming months.

    “We have met or will be meeting with every student who lost their positions with federal agencies (including graduating 3Ls who lost post-graduation offers). We are helping them to restart their job searches, which includes helping them figure out what types of positions to target and getting them connected to alumni and others in the profession who have been offering their assistance by sharing internship and job openings and expressing a willingness to speak with impacted students to guide them in this time of need,” Spencer wrote.

    Osborne said that he has heard from some law students who are still hoping that their positions might be reinstated after the hiring freeze is slated to end in late April. But it’s a gamble most, including Osborne, aren’t willing to take.

    “There are some people who are hoping to wait the spring out and see if their positions are unfrozen, so to speak,” he said. “But given the attitude the administration has towards the IRS, I don’t think I’m going to be one of those people.”

    Source link

  • Senate schedules Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearing

    Senate schedules Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearing

    Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s nominee for education secretary, will appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week—a key step in her confirmation process.

    And though the former business mogul was originally expected to sail through the confirmation process, she’ll likely have to answer questions at the hearing next Thursday about recent upheavals in the Education Department and the president’s plan to get rid of the agency.

    In the last week, news broke that the Trump administration put dozens of department employees on paid leave and is planning an executive order to shut down the department, setting off alarm bells across the higher ed sphere. At the same time, Trump’s attempts to freeze thousands of federal grants and push agency staff toward “deferred resignation” are caught up in court. Education advocacy groups say that halting the grants violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers and that cutting the number of unionized agency staff is not only illegal but also could hinder key operations like the federal student aid program.

    But while many of Trump’s executive orders remain in limbo, department appointees who don’t require confirmation are quickly moving behind the scenes to carry out Trump’s education agenda. They’ve opened multiple civil rights investigations into colleges over antisemitism and transgender participation in women’s sports, announced changes to the federal aid application, and removed more than 200 DEI-related webpages from the department’s website.

    Trump has yet to announce who will join McMahon and fill other key agency roles, such as under secretary and head of Federal Student Aid, nor has he formally named all the acting officials who will fill those roles in the meantime. The lack of transparency regarding who will lead the department and who is currently serving in temporary roles now has only heightened concerns among higher education officials, policy experts, lobbyists and advocacy groups. The lack of clarity makes it hard to decipher what Trump’s regulatory priorities will be and how colleges, universities, accreditors, students and others should prepare for the next four years. But many are hopeful that McMahon’s hearing will shed some light on the subject.

    The secretary-designate, who is best known as the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has limited experience in education policy aside from serving for one year on the Connecticut State Board of Education and a long-running tenure on the Sacred Heart University Board of Trustees. And to this date, she has made little comment about her views on public education.

    She does, however, have some experience working in Washington. McMahon served as director of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term. Then, in 2021, as the president reluctantly left office, she helped found the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank.

    Now, the billionaire is likely to lead the very department Trump has said he wants to see dismantled. The president told White House reporters Tuesday that he told McMahon, “I hope you do a great job and put yourself out of a job.

    The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the new administration is preparing an executive order about the department’s future, though the specifics are still in the works.

    Sources told the Journal that the order could “shut down all functions of the agency that aren’t written explicitly into statute or move certain functions to other departments,” but other sources familiar with talks about the order told Inside Higher Ed that the order could direct McMahon, once confirmed, to come up with a plan to break up the department entirely. (The second suggested order, and its resulting plan, would have to include legislative action from Capitol Hill, as the department’s existence is written into law.)

    But for now, McMahon is awaiting confirmation and the department still exists. So who’s running the agency and carrying out its statutory duties?

    So far, the White House has only formally announced an acting secretary, Denise Carter, who had previously served as acting head of the Federal Student Aid office. A news release from the department several days later listed 10 other appointees, ranging from chief of staff to deputy general counsel. On Thursday, the department shared the names of six more officials, including deputy under secretary and senior adviser of the communications office.

    But the department’s announcements about appointees haven’t indicated who is temporarily filing some of the top jobs at the department, such as under secretary. Under federal law, the default acting official is the first assistant to the vacant position or the top deputy for that office, though the president can designate someone else who meets the criteria. Details about who is serving as those acting officials has instead come from other department statements.

    For example, James Bergeron—president of the National Council of Higher Education Resources and a Republican former House policy adviser—was named deputy under secretary Thursday. But on Tuesday, the department identified him in a news release as acting under secretary. Before Tuesday’s release, Bergeron had not been listed as an appointee at all. Thursday’s announcement only referred to him as deputy under secretary, not acting.

    In another instance, the department named Craig Trainor—who worked under Trump’s attorney general Pam Bondi as an AFPI senior litigation counsel—deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Office for Civil Rights. And then, in later news releases, the agency identified Trainor as the acting assistant secretary for civil rights.

    Although the department has yet to announce an acting chief operating officer for FSA, a department official told Inside Higher Ed that Carter is wearing two hats and continuing to lead FSA while serving as acting secretary. Phillip Juengst, a longtime FSA official, they said, is also helping lead the agency.

    The Education Department did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for further detail about who is serving in what acting role and why it hasn’t formally been announced. Instead, they pointed reporters back to the news releases mentioned prior.

    Most of the appointees so far are unfamiliar faces to D.C. area policy experts and former department staffers.

    Bergeron, however, is an exception. He worked at the National Council of Higher Education Resources starting in 2014, advocating for higher education service agencies that work in the student loan space. Some debt-relief groups raised concerns about Bergeron’s appointment. But former department officials described Bergeron as a competent and more reasonable choice than some other Trump appointees. Before serving as president of NCHER, he worked as a staffer on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

    Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education, said the day after Trump took office that the initial lack of clarity about who was serving in what role didn’t concern him. He didn’t expect Carter or other acting appointees to carry out substantial policy actions before confirmed appointees took control. Guillory said Thursday that his comments haven’t changed, so he remains unconcerned two weeks later.

    Source link

  • Five ways the Education Department impacts higher ed

    Five ways the Education Department impacts higher ed

    Republicans’ long-sought goal of shuttering the Education Department got a boost this week as several media outlets reported the Trump administration was finalizing plans for an executive order to wind down the agency.

    Trump added to the speculation, telling reporters Tuesday he wanted his education secretary nominee, Linda McMahon, to put herself out of a job. Then, on Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said getting rid of the department is “an idea whose time has come.”

    The specifics and timing of the executive order are still unclear, though media reports say the directive could instruct department officials to shut down some programs not directly approved by Congress or come up with a plan to move functions to other departments in the federal government. At the very least, the Trump administration wants to see a much smaller version of the department, particularly because only Congress can actually eliminate the agency.

    More than 4,000 people currently work for the department, which was created in 1979. In fiscal year 2024, the department had a $80 billion discretionary budget. Its spending makes up just over 2 percent of the federal budget.

    Some conservative think tanks have been planning for the department’s demise for years. Most recently, Project 2025, a policy manual for the second Trump administration, detailed how to dismantle the agency—from which offices to shutter to which ones to move.

    While those plans delve into all the department’s functions, much of the recent commentary about why the agency could go revolves about its role in K-12 education, largely ignoring how shutting it down could affect higher education.

    But the federal government is deeply embedded in higher education, thanks to the billions it sends to colleges and universities each year. Unwinding the department would be complex and likely disruptive for colleges and the students they serve.

    “That’s not something our community could handle at this point in time,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, on an episode of the organization’s podcast this week. “From our perspective, it’s highly unlikely that such a transition would be quick or smooth.”

    As talks ramp up about the department’s future, here are the five key roles the department plays in higher education—and what could happen to them if the agency is shuttered.

    Doles Out Billions in Grants and Loans

    The department’s wide-ranging role in federal financial aid is one of its most important functions for higher education. The botched rollout of the 2024–25 federal aid application showed just how critical the system is to colleges and students.

    Each year, the Education Department issues about $100 billion in student loans and doles out more than $30 billion in Pell Grants to more than six million low-income students. More than 5,000 colleges and universities are eligible for federal financial aid.

    The department’s Office of Federal Student Aid manages the government’s $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio, oversees contractors who service those loans, carries out many of the regulations related to higher education and holds colleges accountable. Under the Biden administration, for example, FSA issued $61.7 million in fines and cut off aid to 35 colleges for violating federal law and rules.

    The Trump administration hasn’t said what would happen to federal financial aid programs, or to the more than 1,600 employees who work for the Office of Federal Student Aid, if the department goes away. But some conservative plans recommend moving the whole system to the Treasury Department.

    Proponents argue that moving the system to the Treasury makes sense given that the department already deals with money and lending. Additionally, they say the switch shouldn’t be too disruptive or leave students and colleges worse off. Critics of that plan disagree and question whether the Treasury has the capacity to administer the federal student aid program.

    Enforces Students’ Civil Rights

    While federal financial aid is key to helping students access college, the department’s Office for Civil Rights helps to ensure they are protected from discrimination once on campus.

    The OCR can have a direct impact on students and colleges through investigations of complaints or guidance that prompts institutions to change their policies or rethink their civil rights offices. Colleges watch the agency’s actions closely to avoid running afoul of federal law.

    In recent years, the office has seen a record number of complaints from students who allege violations of their civil rights, though the agency has struggled to keep up with the growing caseload. Biden administration officials pleaded with Congress last spring for more funding to hire 86 employees who could investigate complaints. As of last March, 557 employees worked for OCR, according to department budget documents.

    The office received 22,687 complaints in fiscal year 2024, and the Biden administration projected that number to grow to nearly 24,000 in 2025. Most of the complaints in the past year related to sex-based discrimination, while 37 percent alleged discrimination based on disability. In many cases, seeking help from the federal office can be a last resort for students.

    Project 2025 recommended moving OCR to the Justice Department and limiting enforcement to litigation.

    Manages Grant Programs

    The Education Department sends millions of dollars appropriated by Congress to colleges and universities that help to support student success, childcare on campus and other priorities for lawmakers.

    In fiscal 2024, Congress allocated $3.3 billion toward higher education programs. That includes a $400 million fund to directly support historically Black colleges and universities as well as a $229 million grant program for Hispanic-serving institutions.

    The department also spends about $2.14 billion on Federal Work-Study and supplemental grants to directly support low-income students.

    Some institutions rely on federal support to stay open. For instance, Gallaudet University, a school for the Deaf in Washington, D.C., gets its own line item in the federal budget. The university was created by Congress and received $167.3 million in fiscal 2024, which was about 65 percent of Gallaudet’s annual revenues, Forbes reported this week.

    Trump sent a shock wave through higher ed last week when his administration threatened to freeze all federal grants and loans. College administrators and lobbyists representing them warned of devastating consequences if that source of funding was turned off.

    While a federal judge blocked the freeze from taking effect, the Education Department is reviewing many of the grant programs for compliance with Trump’s recent executive orders that target diversity, equity and inclusion. That review could threaten to shut off some of the programs, though technically only Congress has that authority.

    Gathers Data on Students and Institutions

    Researchers and policymakers rely on reams of data that the Education Department collects about students and institutions in order to better understand higher ed. As some federal databases have gone dark in recent weeks, some advocates and researchers have worried about the future and security of the department’s data.

    From annual surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics to the National Student Loan Data System, the data offers insights into student enrollment, graduation rates, earnings, student lending and more. In 2015, the department made that data more accessible when it launched the College Scorecard.

    The future of those databases is unclear if the department goes away. Project 2025 and other analysts have recommended moving the National Center for Education Statistics to other agencies—the Bureau of Labor Statistics, perhaps, or the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau.

    But few proposals suggest getting rid of the data-collection responsibilities altogether. In fact, Project 2025 declares that the federal government’s only role in education policy should be “that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states.”

    Oversees Colleges and Universities

    The federal government works with states and accreditors to oversee colleges and universities—a three-pronged system referred to as the triad. Getting rid of the Education Department would throw the triad into flux. That would likely mean less red tape for colleges but fewer protections for students.

    The department recognizes accreditors who in turn recognize colleges. Institutions can only access federal financial aid if they are accredited by a department-recognized accrediting agency and have the necessary approval from state authorizing agencies.

    The Biden administration sought to require accreditors to set benchmarks for student achievement and give states more authority over distance education. Neither of those proposals moved forward, but the push shows the federal government’s role in overseeing other members of the triad in addition to colleges.

    Project 2025 proposed to remove accreditors from the triad or give states more authority to authorize accreditors, breaking the federal government’s hold over the process.

    Source link

  • Freedom is the bedrock for learning

    Freedom is the bedrock for learning

    Two big things, personally, happened this week, and I want to explain how while they may seem different on the surface, they’re sort of inextricable from each other.

    One thing that happened was the release of my book More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI. Regular readers of this space will be well familiar with the subjects and themes of the book, but of course a book is a different thing than a blog or column.

    I do my best to always make what I share here worth reading, but often the ideas I explore in this forum are in a much earlier stage of gestation. Writing is thinking, and while sufficient thinking has to occur for me to get a post onto the page, posting a column does not end the thinking.

    A book is a chance to hone that thinking into an extended argument and experience, seeing those initial individual thoughts join together, and in this joining shift in important ways as I seek greater clarity and more impactful presentation. One of the reasons I don’t really understand people’s enthusiasm for turning their writing over to large language models is that the process of working through my own thoughts is 100 percent necessary to delivering the final product.

    There is no shortcut if I want the book to be as good as possible.

    Anyway, as I wrote at my personal newsletter in a post celebrating the book’s release, I’m proud of it. It’s good! Or the best I can do at this time, anyway, which is its own form of good. If you’re at all concerned about how tools powered by generative AI are encroaching on our spaces of working, learning and thinking, you might find some value in it.

    Kirkus Reviews had this to say:

    The other thing that happened this week is the launch of a new newsletter, Academic Freedom on the Line, that I’ll be helping oversee as part of my fellowship for the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom (CDAF).

    CDAF has been organized around a vision statement and a mission statement.

    Vision Statement

    We believe that teaching, learning, and the pursuit of knowledge are essential to creating and sustaining multi-racial and plurinational societies. For those of us working and studying within institutions of higher education, this means pursuing knowledge wherever it leads, free from intimidation and retaliation. Such freedoms serve as the foundation upon which we educate students, produce and disseminate credible research, nurture artistic expression and foster critical inquiry.

    Mission Statement

    The Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom is committed to preserving and expanding conditions that make it possible to work, teach, learn, create, and share knowledge in ways that promote the common good. The center serves as a resource and knowledge hub for all people—including faculty, students, campus workers, alumni, administrators, trustees, parents, journalists, policymakers, and business leaders—seeking to build a flourishing higher education system, rooted in institutional autonomy, workplace democracy, and freedom from coercion and external interference.

    To work towards these goals we:

    • create practical resources and build strategic partnerships for those engaged in defending academic freedom,
    • produce original research that can serve as the evidentiary basis for this work, and
    • communicate the value of academic freedom and institutional autonomy to wide audiences.

    The first newsletter post is an annotated version of these statements, where some of the other fellows comment on different parts of each, and I encourage you to check it out for yourself to see how important individual perspectives are even inside of communication that is meant to reflect group consensus.

    I also encourage you to sign up for the newsletter ,since we’ll be sharing more information and research all the time.

    A couple of weekends ago, we had an in-person gathering of CDAF, along with some other folks concerned about the attacks on academic freedom (PEN, AAUP, et al. …), and I was struck by how important it is to have all these different perspectives when considering complex and important problems.

    Even though it was a gathering of people with a broad base of shared values, there were many different perspectives, and I lost track of the number of times I experienced a moment of, I hadn’t thought of it that way.

    Here’s how I see these two different strains of my work as intimately related. At the heart of More Than Words is my belief that humans have a right to their own minds, that part of exercising our freedom is being given the chance to interpret the world and then impress ourselves onto the world around us through communication rooted in our unique intelligences. Writing is a great way to achieve this, as I’ve experienced firsthand, not just because I have some public platforms for my writing, but because the act of writing allows me to know what I think and believe.

    The boosters of the syntax-generating technology speak of it in liberatory terms, that the technology frees one up to not have to do difficult and maybe even unrewarding work. But in my view, giving over the work of writing to a probability machine is anti-freedom. The process matters.

    The process of academic freedom matters, too, which is why we sometimes (often) have disputes about what academic freedom means or how it can be supported in institutions. As a baseline, we need people to believe that academic freedom matters, that it is more than an abstract idea and it is, in fact, a way to make possible the work we want our institutions to do. This is what is being threatened at this time.

    One of the consistent themes of the weekend gathering was that deep down, we’re not just defending academic freedom, a term that we all acknowledge comes with some baggage, but we are trying to preserve important parts of our democracy.

    I don’t want to overinflate the importance of this work, either my own with my writing about writing or the efforts of the fellows of CDAF. There are clearly more urgent threats at this moment.

    But at the same time, I don’t want to shy away from the fact that there’s a lot at stake, and that what’s being threatened is our ability to self-govern.

    It matters. It all matters.

    Source link

  • Professors fear DeepSeek “censorship” on students’ work

    Professors fear DeepSeek “censorship” on students’ work

    “Censorship” built into rapidly growing generative artificial intelligence tool DeepSeek could lead to misinformation seeping into students’ work, scholars fear.

    The Chinese-developed chat bot has soared to the top of the download charts, upsetting global financial markets by appearing to rival the performance of ChatGPT and other U.S.-designed tools, at a much lower cost.

    But with students likely to start using the tool for research and help with assignments, concerns have been raised that it is censoring details about topics that are sensitive in China and pushing Communist Party propaganda.

    When asked questions centering on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, reports claim that the chat bot replies that it is “not sure how to approach this type of question yet,” before adding, “Let’s chat about math, coding and logic problems instead!”

    When asked about the status of Taiwan, it replies, “The Chinese government adheres to the One China principle, and any attempts to split the country are doomed to fail.”

    Shushma Patel, pro vice chancellor for artificial intelligence at De Montfort University—said to be the first role of its kind in the U.K.—described DeepSeek as a “black box” that could “significantly” complicate universities’ efforts to tackle misinformation spread by AI.

    “DeepSeek is probably very good at some facts—science, mathematics, etc.—but it’s that other element, the human judgment element and the tacit aspect, where it isn’t. And that’s where the key difference is,” she said.

    Patel said that students need to have “access to factual information, rather than the politicized, censored propaganda information that may exist with DeepSeek versus other tools,” and said that the development heightens the need for universities to ensure AI literacy among their students.

    Thomas Lancaster, principal teaching fellow of computing at Imperial College London, said, “From the universities’ side of things, I think we will be very concerned if potentially biased viewpoints were coming through to students and being treated as facts without any alternative sources or critique or knowledge being there to help the student understand why this is presented in this way.

    “It may be that instructors start seeing these controversial ideas—from a U.K. or Western viewpoint—appearing in student essays and student work. And in that situation, I think they have to settle this directly with the student to try and find out what’s going on.”

    However, Lancaster said, “All AI chat bots are censored in some way,” which can be for “quite legitimate reasons.” This can include censoring material relating to criminal activity, terrorism or self-harm, or even avoiding offensive language.

    He agreed that “the bigger concern” highlighted by DeepSeek was “helping students understand how to use these tools productively and in a way that isn’t considered unfair or academic misconduct.”

    This has potential wider ramifications outside of higher education, he added. “It doesn’t only mean that students could hand in work that is incorrect, but it also has a knock-on effect on society if biased information gets out there. It’s similar to the concerns we have about things like fake news or deepfake videos,” he said.

    Questions have also been raised over the use of data relating to the tool, since China’s national intelligence laws require enterprises to “support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence efforts.” The chat bot is not available on some app stores in Italy due to data-related concerns.

    While Patel conceded there were concerns over DeepSeek and “how that data may be manipulated,” she added, “We don’t know how ChatGPT manipulates that data, either.”

    Source link

  • The big chill for academic medical centers (opinion)

    The big chill for academic medical centers (opinion)

    Recent executive actions by President Trump, most notably a blanket freeze of federal grants and loans, sent chills through higher education. Even though the full funding stoppage was quickly rescinded and subjected to legal challenges, universities probably will continue to face partial pauses on federal funding, as well as questions over the impact of other recent executive actions, like ones aimed at DEI.

    While consequential for all of higher education, pending and potential moves by the Trump administration that implicate funding could especially affect what has become an increasingly dominant aspect of multiple universities in terms of budgets and focus—academic medical centers (AMCs). AMCs are major funding recipients from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. AMCs and their health enterprises also are deeply connected to patient care programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

    For some higher education institutions, AMCs have come to play a central role in campus life and identity, especially as more AMCs have expanded to become full-fledged health systems. While some raise concerns and others celebrate this trend, the fact remains that some research universities are increasingly shaped by their AMCs. Using our own institution, the University of Kentucky, as one example, its health-care enterprises now account for around $5 billion of an $8.4 billion budget.

    Media outlets covered the “confusion and chaos” that beset university presidents, medical center vice presidents, deans and researchers after the initial federal funding freeze. Now that the freeze has been temporarily rescinded, leaders of academic medical centers should move beyond confusion and chaos to focus on public presentations that emphasize their competence, compliance and cooperation with federal reviews. Now is an opportune time to pick up on President Trump’s recent emphasis on “merit” as the key to gaining federal support. University academic medical centers are well positioned to demonstrate and document their case.

    To showcase “merit,” for example, a university academic medical center could cite ratings and commentaries about its successful NIH grant proposals, illustrating the talent and competitive advantages of its principal investigators and research teams. And they should emphasize that the NIH-funded research projects are not isolated: They are inseparable from a cooperative network within university health centers and hospitals. Evaluating these complex applied research alliances helps answer external questions about efficiency, effectiveness and significance of projects. The same kinds of questions are continually monitored in analysis of existing and new university degree programs for the education of medical doctors, nurses, physician assistants, pharmacists, medical technicians and health-care administrators. In addition to evaluating the training and preparation of researchers and health-care practitioners, an AMC pays systematic attention to accountability and responsibility for patient care and treatment as part of its daily and annual operations. These stories need to be told.

    There are other sources that can be used to document AMC merit and performance. One can look at accreditation reports, specialized degree program reviews and financial balance sheets for the mosaic of health services and programs that are housed under the umbrella of an academic medical center. Institutional data can show that an academic medical center that aligns colleges of medicine and health care with such disciplines as biochemistry, physiology, bioengineering and statistics has evolved into a dynamic institution in which practice and advanced research are intertwined with providing professional services within a community.

    A few summary statistics indicate this presence. The top 20 university AMCs each brought in more than $400 million in NIH research grants in fiscal year 2023. Within this group, Johns Hopkins University is first, with $843 million, followed by the University of California, San Francisco, with $789 million, and in third place, the University of Pennsylvania with $703 million. These are the peak of a cluster of 220 university medical centers in which academic programs such as the college of medicine partner with university medical foundations.

    The fusion represents a new academic model in which the medical and health programs typically constitute about 60 percent or more of the total university budget. At universities with this structure, the AMC typically is home to a majority of the university faculty positions and student enrollments. The AMC also becomes a major economic force and employer in metropolitan areas and regional communities.

    The academic health and medical complexes are economic engines. They often are the largest employer in the metropolitan area or even in the state, such as is the case for the University of Alabama at Birmingham and its health system. Universities in this category are the major provider of health services to large constituencies of patients. This academic health organization includes partnerships with Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance companies. Federal grants for research and service to the university often stimulate state financial support in terms of program grants and capital funding from state legislatures and governors and major gifts from foundations and private donors.

    The message for “merit” is that these universities represent a new type of American organization—what might be termed the academic health business model. An abundance of quantitative and qualitative data makes external evaluation and detailed analysis of accountability possible. Sound policy evaluation from several constituencies—the executive branch, Congress, federal and state agencies, university leaders, and patient advocacy groups—calls for thoughtful, informed analysis to review and perhaps renew what has evolved as a distinctive academic enterprise.

    A lively dialogue about the promises and benefits of AMCs that includes consideration of recent executive actions and potential future decisions, such as funding levels for Medicaid, is timely. The events of the last two weeks provide a much-needed moment for academic constituencies to reflect on what the expansion of AMCs means for individual research universities and higher education broadly in the future. If a funding freeze causes a chill for AMCs and their health enterprises, does the rest of the campus catch a cold, or even worse?

    Recent presidential actions from Washington, D.C., have highlighted how much the budgets and identities of some research universities are more and more defined by their AMCs. In addition to helping AMCs continue to sustain and enhance their vital missions, all higher education groups need to contemplate the implications for universities whose mission and purposes are increasingly characterized and shaped by their academic medical centers.

    John R. Thelin is University Research Professor Emeritus at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of several books on the history of higher education.

    Neal H. Hutchens is a professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation at the University of Kentucky. His research focuses on the intersection of higher education law, policy and practice.

    Source link

  • Alumni-in-residence programs aid student development

    Alumni-in-residence programs aid student development

    Alumni-in-residence programs provide career insight and professional skill-building to students.

    SDI Productions/E+/Getty Images

    A May 2024 Student Voice survey found 29 percent of students believe their college or university should prioritize or focus more on connecting students to alumni and other potential mentors.

    Colleges and universities often have connections to a wide range of successful graduates who can provide insight and support to current students, but creating organic relationships between the two groups can be a challenge.

    One initiative institutions have undertaken is establishing alumni-in-residence programs to offer career development opportunities for current students.

    How it works: Similar to a formal mentoring program, alumni in residence hold one-on-one conversations with learners to address the student’s career goals and answer questions related to work or life after college.

    The alumni-in-residence program, however, asks alums to serve in a variety of functions, including panel presentations, etiquette dinners and a networking reception, as needed.

    What’s the value: Alumni can offer specific insights into career pathways from their alma mater into their current role, helping highlight the student journey in a unique way. Involving former students in career services can also increase funding and support for the institution. A 2024 survey by Gravyty found alumni who have participated in a mentoring program say they are 200 percent more likely to donate in the future.

    Effective career services can also impact a student’s perception of their institution after graduation; 19 percent of alumni reported receiving strong career support from their institution, and those alumni are 2.8 times more likely to say their degree is worth the tuition, according to the 2023 National Alumni Career Mobility Annual Report.

    A 2025 analysis by Gravyty also found 46 percent of alumni rank career support and networking as the most valuable services their alma mater can provide, yet only 40 percent of engagement programs at universities include mentoring opportunities.

    Who’s doing it: Some of the institutions hosting an alumni-in-residence program include:

    Do you have a career prep tip that might help others encourage student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Lessons for new leaders from longtime marcomm staff

    Lessons for new leaders from longtime marcomm staff

    Over the past five years of conducting organizational capability assessments of higher education marketing and communications departments, my colleagues and I have interviewed hundreds of internal stakeholders. It’s the most fascinating aspect of the work, hearing directly from campus colleagues both inside and outside the department about their perspectives and experiences related to organizational life and departmental effectiveness.

    Through these conversations, valuable insights have emerged thanks to longtime marcomm staff—those team members who have contributed 10 or more years of professional service to their departments. (Note: I use the term “marcomm” to reflect that a blended marketing and communications structure is the typical model in higher education. The nuance and complexity of marketing and communications as distinct but related functions are topics for another post.)

    These insights, framed as reflection questions below, are especially relevant for leaders beginning a new senior role, such as a cabinet-level VP, CMCO or an executive director leading the marcomm function for an academic college or school.

    1. Is “restructuring” an end or a means?

    When longtime staff members discuss organizational structure changes, their healthy skepticism is palpable. They invariably associate these changes with leadership transitions. A “re-org” happened because there was a new VP (just as strategic plans often coincide with new presidents). The perceived impetus for change is simply having new leadership rather than any larger strategic purpose. We frequently hear some version of, “The structure changes and then eventually changes back with a different VP.”

    I’d much rather staff members describe those structural changes as enabling their function to fulfill a more strategic role and more meaningfully advance the institution’s highest priorities. It’s a reminder to leaders that structure should follow strategy, so the task is to ensure that the strategy is clear, reinforced and reflected in decision-making.

    Moreover, leaders should move beyond thinking in terms of discrete “restructures” or “re-orgs.” Organizational change isn’t a periodic event; top-performing departments are constantly adapting and evolving to best serve their guiding purpose amidst changing conditions.

    1. What is the real value of institutional knowledge?

    We undervalue institutional knowledge. Your longtime staff members possess deep institutional knowledge, which we unfortunately may dismiss as outdated or irrelevant. Instead, think of institutional knowledge as a source for critical context and sense making to help you navigate the road ahead and lead positive change.

    ​​In The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Heifetz, Linsky and Grashow emphasize that “successful adaptive changes build on the past rather than jettison it.” The challenge for leaders lies in “distinguishing what is essential to preserve from their organization’s heritage from what is expendable.” Long-tenured staff members’ insights and institutional knowledge are invaluable in building this understanding.

    As the authors note, “Successful adaptations are thus both conservative and progressive. They make the best possible use of previous wisdom and know-how. The most effective leadership anchors change in the values, competencies and strategic orientations that should endure in the organization.” New senior leaders, eager to deliver results or serve as change agents, may overlook this crucial balance.

    1. What does upskilling require of the organization?

    The responsibilities of longtime staff members have likely evolved significantly since their initial hiring. New or different types of work are needed as marcomm’s scope expands, audience preferences shift and technologies emerge. Growing these competencies is a shared responsibility requiring genuine organizational commitment. The onus cannot rest solely on individual staff members. Upskilling or reskilling demands adequate time and resources—even when workloads are heavy and budgets are constrained.

    Professional development funding is often the first casualty of budget reductions. But if the organizational approach to professional development has been mostly reactive, then we shouldn’t be surprised by the lack of budget prioritization. This ad hoc approach to professional development points to a larger issue: the absence of formalized talent management practices in marketing and communications.

    Where can you build more intentionality into your organization’s efforts to recruit, develop, support and retain staff? Look to your central human resources team for guidance and learn from your colleagues in advancement, where larger and more mature advancement operations have dedicated talent management functions. Start small by operationalizing your department’s practices in a specific area such as orientation and onboarding. These focused efforts can create momentum for broader talent management initiatives.

    Long-serving staff members serve as both historians and bridges to the future, stewarding institutional values while helping new executives thoughtfully evolve their organizations. When properly engaged and supported, these veteran team members can be catalysts in your efforts to build—or further build—a high-performing department that drives lasting institutional progress. I hope these reflection questions prompt ideas that help your marketing and communications department be people centered and future ready.

    Rob Zinkan is vice president for marketing leadership at RHB, a division of Strata Information Group. He joined RHB in 2019 after more than 20 years in higher education administration with senior positions in marketing and advancement. He also teaches graduate courses as an adjunct in strategic communications and higher education leadership.

    Source link

  • The left should reclaim free speech mantle (opinion)

    The left should reclaim free speech mantle (opinion)

    If progressive or even not-so-progressive Jewish students invited comedian Sacha Baron Cohen to their university to perform his riotous parody “In My Country There Is Problem,” with its call-and-pogrom chorus “throw the Jew down the well / so my country can be free,” would Cohen be allowed on campus? If the song were indeed sung, and a few humorless, unthinking listeners were distressed by the lyrics, or at least claimed to be, would the Jewish students face discrimination and harassment charges under the university’s disciplinary code?

    Today, probably. Would they be found responsible for discrimination and harassment based on national origin? Again, probably. And what if a student band wished to parody the parody with a song titled something like, “Throw Chris Rufo Down the Well So My University Can Be Free”? Could the song be sung against the backdrop of students’ sensitivities and the reciprocated rage of today’s young conservative white men?

    In her recently published opinion essay for Inside Higher Ed, Joan W. Scott skewered the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and its vice president for campus advocacy, Alex Morey, for condemning the American Association of University Professors. Scott’s criticism of Morey’s criticism goes like this: Morey lambasted AAUP president Todd Wolfson’s expression of “disappointment” over Donald Trump’s re-election, arguing that Wolfson’s explicit partisanship betrays the AAUP’s purported commitment to academic freedom. Scott countered that FIRE is a libertarian wolf donning academic freedom drag. FIRE, explains Scott, is “dedicated to the absolutist principle of individual free speech,” a principle that is “not,” Scott italicizes, synonymous with academic freedom. In turn, Scott elaborates on academic freedom as “individual and collective rights of faculty as they pursue the mission of higher education in a democracy.”

    We agree with Scott that FIRE—with its many right-wing funding sources as Scott lists them—is unlikely to have our backs if and when the federal government comes to shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs and cultural studies departments on campus (i.e., queer and Black studies). We respect, too, that Scott knows more about the history and purpose of academic freedom than we do.

    And yet, we worry that the line she draws between free speech and academic freedom—the former ideological and libertarian, the latter true and good—cedes too much. Indeed, her distinction hands “free speech” over to the conservative groups championing their anti-educational causes under its banner, and her dismissal of free speech defenses as apologia for racism lets stand, unnuanced, the left-originating but now right-appropriated proposition that combative, controversial speech is necessarily harmful in an egalitarian university environment. It is the quick conversion of (at times highly provocative) political speech into hate speech that allows “from the river to the sea” to be branded as categorically harassing antisemitism—a conversion that would so quickly ban Jews from sending up antisemitism (“throw the Jew down the well”), ban musicians from joking about drowning Rufo or prohibit, for that matter, marginalized groups from reappropriating slurs to divest them of their injurious force.

    In short, we think there is still good reason—several good reasons—for the academic left to defend speech, both as elemental to academic freedom and as a democratic value unto itself.

    We and nearly every colleague we know have stories of students hastily claiming talk—talk of sex, Israel, Palestine and criticism of affirmative action—as intimidating, harassing or discriminating. It seems to us that a robust defense of academic freedom must include healthy skepticism, but not outright cynicism, of the proposition that words injure. Skepticism, not cynicism, because words may hurt people, further subordinate marginalized groups and erode democratic ideals. David Beaver’s and Jason Stanley’s recently published The Politics of Language draws on critical race and feminist theory to show how some speech acts—affective, nondeliberative and/or racist dog whistles—function to polarize and degrade.

    But we also know, especially in the wake of spurious discrimination claims against campus activists and academics protesting Israel’s military campaigns, that conservative stakeholders are weaponizing the idea of words as weapons, alleging atmospheres of harassment to chill political speech—a project, we must concede, that the left paved the way for.

    Indeed, around 2013, as trigger warnings gained traction on college campuses, the right repackaged “free speech” as the inalienable freedom of anyone to speak on any topic without consequence, especially if that consequence is the loss of a platform. Instead of drawing on the left’s history of free speech advocacy, scholars of “identity knowledges” centered attention on the moral wrongness of offensive speech and the intolerability of feeling unsafe. This shift left progressives defending feelings rather than ideas, collapsing political discord with dehumanization—or, as Sarah Schulman argues, conflict with abuse. Now, with free speech reduced to melodrama, even the Christian right claims to protect its constituents against “harm”—whether from critical race theory or drag shows—rendering the issue a conceit of the culture wars.

    In his much-ridiculed op-ed for The New York Times published last year, linguist John McWhorter lamented that he and his students were unable to listen to John Cage’s silent “4:33” during class, as the silence would have been interrupted by the sound of student protests. The irony that McWhorter chided the protesters for impeding his students from appreciating Cage’s invitation to listen to “the surrounding noise” of the environs was not lost on McWhorter’s critics.

    What was not commented on, though, was McWhorter’s contention that if a group of students had been shouting “DEI has got to die” with the same fervor with which they were shouting for Palestine’s self-determination, then the protests “would have lasted roughly five minutes before masses of students shouted them down and drove them off the campus. Chants like that would have been condemned as a grave rupture of civilized exchange, heralded as threatening resegregation and branded as a form of violence.”

    Whether correct or not, McWhorter’s speculation is not baseless. We want to insist, though, that there are left, not just libertarian, grounds to defend, for example, a student protest against DEI initiatives. They include: respecting and celebrating the university as a space of open dialogue and debate; the possibility that you might learn something from someone with whom you disagree; the opportunity to lampoon, parody or otherwise countermand whatever worse-than-foolish statement the opposition is making; the opportunity, as John Stuart Mill taught us, to strengthen your own ideas and arguments alongside and against the ideas of others; and finally, avoiding the inevitable backlash of “the cancel,” whereby censored conservatives rebrand themselves as truth-telling victims of the “woke.”

    Granted, some of these grounds for defending speech tilt more liberal or libertarian than pure left, whatever that means, but we nonetheless maintain that it is self-defeating for us to carry the banner for “academic freedom” while consigning “free speech” to the province of white grievance. This is especially true for those of us teaching queer and critical sexuality studies, where classrooms and related spaces of activism and dialogue are increasingly circumscribed, the harm principle ever more unprincipled. Consider the case of Aneil Rallin, who in 2022 was accused by Soka University of America of teaching “triggering” sexual materials to his students in a course called Writing the Body, and whose case—while taken up by FIRE—was met with little alarm from the academic left.

    It also applies to those of us who still recognize satire, irony and social commentary in an age of breathtaking literalism. In 2011, the Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing” (1985) was temporarily banned from Canadian radio for its use of the f-slur, even though the term was intended as a commentary on working-class homophobia. The drive to censor and demonize without regard for social context has arguably gotten stronger in the years since.

    From the recent historical record, it seems to us that the enforcement of bureaucratic speech restrictions often damages campus culture and democratic norms more than the speech acts themselves. Indeed, the better question than is X speech act harmful is, to crib from Wendy Brown, when—if ever and at what costs—are speech restrictions the remedy for injury?

    Debating DEI programs, myths of meritocracy and so on is the stuff of academic freedom. A speech act like “DEI must die” is provocative, abrasive and worth publicly disparaging, but it is not the same as hate speech. Song parodies will not save us from the dark years ahead for public education, academic freedom and egalitarian pedagogies of all kinds. But our battle preparations demand standing up for, not surrendering, free speech.

    Joseph J. Fischel is an associate professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies at Yale University.

    Kyler Chittick is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.

    Source link