Tag: News

  • Four ways to help students return from a leave of absence

    Four ways to help students return from a leave of absence

    Some students may need to take a leave of absence for their mental health before returning to an institution. Here’s how the institution can help.

    Brothers91/E+/Getty Images

    In the past few years, more students have shared the toll their mental health can take on their academic pursuits. Recent surveys of students who left higher education prior to completing a credential or degree reveal that mental health challenges or stress are primary reasons why they discontinue their education.

    Some learners opt to take a pause, withdrawing from the university for a semester or longer to prioritize their health and wellness.

    To promote student completion and success, institutions can consider formal procedures and initiatives targeted toward easing the transition of re-enrollment after a voluntary mental health leave of absence.

    The background: Colleges have historically offered students the opportunity to temporarily unenroll to address health conditions, but only more recently has that definition expanded to include students’ mental health.

    At some institutions, students who withdrew found it difficult to return. Other institutions prioritized risk mitigation versus student success and pushed learners to withdraw rather than providing solutions.

    “Such policies and practices actually discourage students—not just the student with a mental health condition, but all others—from seeking help,” according to a 2021 report from Boston University and the Ruderman Family Foundation.

    A recent survey from the Princeton Review found 43 percent of colleges and universities now have an official support program in place for students returning from mental health leave of absence.

    However, there is little consistency in policies and practices regarding medical or psychiatric leaves of absence, according to the BU report: “Students are often left to confusing, conflicting information and sometimes, discriminatory policies and practices that make a return to higher education difficult.”

    State policymakers have worked to expand the conditions included in leave-of-absence policies at institutions to recognize mental health difficulties.

    In May 2024, Maryland passed legislation that expanded formal health withdrawal policies at public institutions to include mental health. The legislation also requires institutions to provide partial refunds for students who withdraw for physical or mental health reasons in the middle of the term.

    A 2022 bill introduced to the New York State Legislature would require university systems to review enrollment and re-enrollment policies for students who take extended mental health leaves.

    Students Taking Action

    Active Minds, a youth-led mental health advocacy group, developed a guide for students who are advocating for improved leave-of-absence policies at their institution.

    How to help: Some of the ways institutions assist learners are through:

    • Outlining the return process. The University of Southern California offers a step-by-step outline of the different offices a student must contact to re-enroll. Stanford University also created a Returning to Stanford booklet to answer frequently asked questions.
    • Consolidating resources. Many learners are unaware of the full scope of resources available at the institution. A centralized website, such as this one at Cornell University, can help students during their transition back to campus.
    • Providing coaching services for returners. Institutions, themselves or in partnership with outside organizations, can deliver intentional coaching for skill development and resource coordination to re-enroll learners.
    • Connecting students with peers. Supportive communities can help reconnect students to the institution and affirm their commitments to healthy habits, like engaging in social activities or demonstrating good study behaviors. Georgetown University offers a special support group, Back on the Hilltop, for learners who are returning from a leave of absence or who have recently transferred.

    Do you know of a wellness intervention that might help others encourage student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Post-Bankruptcy, 2U Appoints New CEO

    Post-Bankruptcy, 2U Appoints New CEO

    Post-Bankruptcy, 2U Appoints New CEO

    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

  • Dual leadership controversies plague Seton Hall

    Dual leadership controversies plague Seton Hall

    Seton Hall University president Monsignor Joseph Reilly is facing mounting pressure from public officials and demands for transparency following a report alleging that he looked the other way on sexual abuse cases.

    At the same time, the university is contending with a lawsuit filed last year by former president Joseph Nyre, which alleges retaliation, breach of contract and various other misdeeds by the Board of Regents.

    The regents have remained silent on the Reilly situation and said little about Nyre’s lawsuit, beyond a report issued in July. Now lawmakers are ratcheting up pressure on the private institution to take action, raising questions about how the board is navigating the dual controversies behind closed doors with little public oversight.

    A Bombshell Report

    Reilly, who was hired as president in April, has a long history with Seton Hall.

    The new president earned a psychology degree from the university in 1987; in 2002, he became rector of the College Seminary at St. Andrew’s Hall, the undergraduate seminary of the Archdiocese of Newark, which is part of Seton Hall. A decade later Reilly became rector and dean of the university’s graduate seminary, a position he held until 2022. Then he took a yearlong sabbatical before returning as vice provost of academics and Catholic identity.

    Reilly also served on Seton Hall’s Board of Trustees—one of two governing bodies—during his time as an administrator.

    It was during his time at the graduate School of Theology that Reilly is accused of knowing about sexual abuse allegations that he did not report, according to documents reviewed by Politico. The case is linked to sprawling sexual abuse allegations involving disgraced cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the news outlet reported, who “created a culture of fear and intimidation” and “used his position of power as then–Archbishop of Newark”—which sponsors Seton Hall—“to sexually harass seminarians” for decades, according to a university report released in 2019.

    McCarrick, who sat on both of Seton Hall’s boards, was defrocked by the Vatican after he was found guilty of sexual misconduct in a canonical trial. A criminal case against McCarrick was suspended last year due to his inability to stand trial because of a dementia diagnosis.

    While Seton Hall never released to the public its full report on the abuse McCarrick allegedly committed, Politico’s review of the findings revealed that Reilly knew about the allegations against the cardinal and failed to report to university officials a student complaint about sexual assault by a seminarian. Politico also reported that Reilly dismissed another seminarian in 2012 who had allegedly been sexually abused and that he did not investigate the incident. In another instance, Reilly was allegedly made aware of a 2014 sexual harassment charge and did not report it.

    Politico also reported that Reilly did not fully cooperate with a 2019 investigation into McCarrick’s alleged abuse. A task force set up in 2020 to mete out discipline after the McCarrick scandal reportedly recommended removing Reilly from board and leadership roles.

    As the controversy has unfolded, Seton Hall has said little publicly.

    “As part of the search for the university’s 22nd president, the Board of Regents reviewed several candidates and overwhelmingly selected Monsignor Joseph Reilly to lead Seton Hall in recognition of his decades of effective service and leadership,” a Seton Hall spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “The Board of Regents remains unequivocal in its support of Monsignor Reilly and firmly believes in his ability and vision to enhance Seton Hall’s standing as one of the nation’s foremost Catholic universities.”

    The university did not provide a requested interview with regents, but the spokesperson added that following a 2019 review by a law firm, “the board determined that Monsignor Reilly should remain in his role and eligible for future roles at the University.” Seton Hall declined to provide a copy of the report.

    Demanding Answers

    Seton Hall’s silence has not gone unnoticed by Democratic state senator Andrew Zwecker, who chairs the Senate Oversight Committee and is vice chair of the higher education committee.

    “I’m appalled at the fact that they’ve just doubled down at this point without any transparency, just generic statements about values and doing a good job, et cetera,” he told Inside Higher Ed.

    Though Seton Hall is private, Zwecker noted that it receives about $2.5 million in state funding for certain programs. He added that the state could cut those funds—an option he might pursue if the university doesn’t respond transparently to concerns that Reilly ignored sexual abuse.

    “That is a lever that we must absolutely consider to keep the pressure on,” Zwecker said.

    He’s also weighing a public hearing. But Zwecker said he would rather see Seton Hall address the issue and answer questions about what Reilly knew about sexual abuse and whether the Board of Regents ignored those findings when it voted to hire him.

    If regents knew and “voted to install this president anyway, they should resign immediately,” Zwecker said.

    Democratic governor Phil Murphy also weighed in last week.

    “The Governor is deeply concerned by the allegations and believes that Seton Hall University must release the full report,” press secretary Natalie Hamilton told Inside Higher Ed by email.

    The Star-Ledger editorial board has challenged the university on its opacity, publishing an opinion piece on Monday under the headline “Why is Seton Hall hiding this sex abuse report?”

    Faculty members at Seton Hall are also pressing for transparency.

    Nathaniel Knight, chair of Seton Hall’s Faculty Senate, noted “considerable concern” among the professoriate and said he wants to see a “greater degree of transparency” from the university.

    Knight said he supported Reilly’s hiring when he was named president, noting he “had the institutional memory” given his years of service and seemed to “embody the spirit of Seton Hall.” But now Knight wants the university to fully explain the concerns around the new president.

    “I support Monsignor Reilly. I supported his hiring. I think he’s a good man, a man of integrity and religious faith, and is someone who brought a promise of bringing the university, the community, together around its core values as a Catholic institution of higher education. Whatever is out there, I’d like to be able to weigh that against the positives that I see with Monsignor Reilly,” Knight said.

    An Explosive Lawsuit

    For Seton Hall, the Reilly controversy comes on the heels of Nyre’s unexpected exit in 2023, which shocked many in the community.

    “It was a surprise. I think we were bewildered. He had been brought in with great fanfare not long before,” Knight said. “He saw the university through the COVID years with a steady hand and was in the process of implementing this strategic plan that he had crafted. We saw no indication that there were any problems in the works. It was out of the blue and had us all scratching our heads.”

    Nyre sued Seton Hall last February, alleging breach of contract and retaliation by the board.

    In the lawsuit, Nyre alleges he was pushed out by the Board of Regents following a clash with then-chair Kevin Marino, whom he accused of micromanagement, improperly inserting himself into an embezzlement investigation at the law school and sexually harassing his wife, Kelli Nyre, among other charges. Marino, who is no longer on the board, was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit despite being at the center of many of the allegations.

    “Our litigation centers on the alleged systemic failures of the Board of Regents and their unwillingness to comply with federal laws, including Title IX, Title VII, and Title IV, as well as university bylaws and policies,” Matthew Luber, an attorney representing Nyre, said in a statement. “As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendants prioritized self-preservation, suppressing dissent and retaliating against individuals like Dr. Nyre who reported misconduct and advocated for meaningful change. As further alleged in the Complaint, the Board of Regents not only neglected their fiduciary responsibilities, but exposed the University and its personnel to significant risk. No matter the outcome, change is urgently needed at Seton Hall.”

    The university has pushed back in court. Officials filed a motion to dismiss last March, alleging that Nyre failed to state a claim and that the terms of his exit agreement barred him from filing a lawsuit against Seton Hall and/or its Board of Regents. Lawyers for Seton Hall wrote in a brief that Nyre’s lawsuit “can best be described as gamesmanship, and at worst sheer dishonesty.”

    University officials did not address the Nyre lawsuit in a statement to Inside Higher Ed, but last July they released a report from an outside law firm rejecting the claims against Marino. Attorneys for the firm, Perry Law, wrote that they “found no evidence to substantiate Mrs. Nyre’s allegations regarding Mr. Marino, despite the purported harassment allegedly occurring in public places in close proximity to numerous other individuals.”

    The Perry Law report was issued July 2, one day after Reilly assumed office. The report did not include interviews with the Nyres, who the authors noted did not participate in the investigation. Witnesses present for the alleged incidents told investigators that they did not see Marino engage in the behavior he is accused of, and the former board chair has denied the claims and blasted the lawsuit as “desperate and pathetic.” And, in a statement to Inside Higher Ed last year, Seton Hall said the claims were without merit.

    As controversies around Seton Hall’s current and former leaders play out, more details are likely to emerge in the Nyre case, barring a dismissal or settlement. But the Reilly review may remain shrouded in mystery as Seton Hall hunkers down, ignoring widespread calls for transparency.

    Source link

  • Probabilities of generative AI pale next to individual ideas

    Probabilities of generative AI pale next to individual ideas

    While I was working on the manuscript for More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, I did a significant amount of experimenting with large language models, spending the most time with ChatGPT (and its various successors) and Claude (in its different flavors).

    I anticipated that over time this experimenting would reveal some genuinely useful application of this technology to my work as a writer.

    In truth, it’s been the opposite, and I think it’s interesting to explore why.

    One factor is that I have become more concerned about what I see as a largely uncritical embrace of generative AI in educational contexts. I am not merely talking about egregiously wrongheaded moves like introducing an AI-powered Anne Frank emulator that has only gracious thoughts toward Nazis, but other examples of instructors and institutions assuming that because the technology is something of a wonder, it must have a positive effect on teaching and learning.

    This has pushed me closer to a resistance mindset, if for no other reason than to provide a counterbalance to those who see AI as an inevitability without considering what’s on the other side. In truth, however, rather than being a full-on resister I’m more in line with Marc Watkins, who believes that we should be seeing AI as “unavoidable” but not “inevitable.” While I think throwing a bear hug around generative AI is beyond foolish, I also do not dismiss the technology’s potential utility in helping students learn.

    (Though, a big open question is what and how we want them to learn these things.)

    Another factor has been that the more I worked with the LLMs, the less I trusted them. Part of this was because I was trying to deploy their capabilities to support me on writing in areas where I have significant background knowledge and I found them consistently steering me wrong in subtle yet meaningful ways. This in turn made me fearful of using them in areas where I do not have the necessary knowledge to police their hallucinations.

    Mostly, though, just about every time I tried to use them in the interests of giving myself a shortcut to a faster outcome, I realized by taking the shortcut I’d missed some important experience along the way.

    As one example, in a section where I argue for the importance of cultivating one’s own taste and sense of aesthetic quality, I intended to use some material from New Yorker staff writer Kyle Chayka’s book Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture. I’d read and even reviewed the book several months before, so I thought I had a good handle on it, but still, I needed a refresher on what Chayka calls “algorithmic anxiety” and prompted ChatGPT to remind me what Chayka meant by this.

    The summary delivered by ChatGPT was perfectly fine, accurate and nonhallucinatory, but I couldn’t manage to go from the notion I had in my head about Chayka’s idea to something useful on the page via that summary of Chayka’s idea. In the end, I had to go back and reread the material in the book surrounding the concept to kick my brain into gear in a way that allowed me to articulate a thought of my own.

    Something similar happened several other times, and I began to wonder exactly what was up. It’s possible that my writing process is idiosyncratic, but I discovered that to continue to work the problem of saying (hopefully) interesting and insightful things in the book was not a summary of the ideas of others, but the original expression of others as fuel for my thoughts.

    This phenomenon might be related to the nature of how I view writing, which is that writing is a continual process of discovery where I have initial thoughts that bring me to the page, but the act of bringing the idea to the page alters those initial thoughts.

    I tend to think all writing, or all good writing, anyway, operates this way because it is how you will know that you are getting the output of a unique intelligence on the page. The goal is to uncover something I didn’t know for myself, operating under the theory that this will also deliver something fresh for the audience. If the writer hasn’t discovered something for themselves in the process, what’s the point of the whole exercise?

    When I turned to an LLM for a summary and could find no use for it, I came to recognize that I was interacting not with an intelligence, but a probability. Without an interesting human feature to latch onto, I couldn’t find a way to engage my own humanity.

    I accept that others are having different experiences in working alongside large language models, that they find them truly generative (pardon the pun). Still, I wonder what it means to find a spark in generalized probabilities, rather than the singular intelligence.

    I believe I say a lot of interesting and insightful things in More Than Words. I’m also confident I may have some things wrong and, over time, my beliefs will be changed by exposing myself to the responses of others. This is the process of communication and conversation, processes that are not a capacity of large language models given they have no intention working underneath the hood of their algorithm.

    Believing otherwise is to indulge in a delusion. Maybe it’s a helpful delusion, but a delusion nonetheless.

    The capacities of this technology are amazing and increasing all the time, but to me, for my work, they don’t offer all that much of meaning.

    Source link

  • A troubling moment for public higher ed (opinion)

    A troubling moment for public higher ed (opinion)

    David Kozlowski/Moment Mobile/Getty Images

    Earlier this month, my institution, Southern Methodist University, made headlines by hiring President Jay Hartzell away from the University of Texas at Austin, one of the country’s largest and most prestigious public universities. The move surprised many on both campuses and sent shock waves through higher education.

    While I can’t presume to know all the motivations behind President Hartzell’s decision and I don’t speak for SMU, as a faculty member who studies higher education, I believe this moment demands our attention. Many public universities are under serious threat, and private universities need to realize that their future is closely tied to the success of their public counterparts.

    For more than a decade, SMU has been my academic home. The campus boasts smart and curious students, dedicated faculty who care about teaching and research, and strong leadership from the administration and Board of Trustees. We’re in the middle of a successful capital campaign and enjoying both athletic success after our move to the Atlantic Coast Conference and a growing research profile.

    Yet, even as I anticipate the leadership that President Hartzell will bring to SMU, I can’t ignore the broader context that has made such a move more common and deeply troubling.

    Hartzell isn’t the only example of a major public university president leaving for the relative safety of private higher education. His predecessor at UT Austin Greg Fenves left for Emory University. Carol Folt resigned from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before getting the University of Southern California presidency. Back in 2011, Biddy Martin famously left the University of Wisconsin at Madison for Amherst College in one of the early examples of this trend. So, what is going on and why are major public university presidencies less attractive than they once were?

    The Struggles of Public Universities

    Being a public university president in a red state is the toughest job in higher education today.

    Public universities in these politically charged environments are under siege. They face relentless ideological attacks from state legislators and are constantly forced to navigate resource challenges from years of underfunding.

    Politicians attacking public higher education are not simply questioning the budgets or management—they are attempting to dismantle these institutions. Efforts to reduce tenure protections, anti-DEI legislation and restrictions on what can be taught are all part of a broader effort to strip public universities of their autonomy.

    The goal of these attacks is clear: to reduce the influence and authority of public universities and their leaders and undermine the critical role they play in shaping a well-informed and educated workforce and citizenry.

    At the same time, some institutions are adopting policies of institutional neutrality, reducing the ability of presidents to speak out on these issues.

    The cumulative effect of these efforts is to make public universities and their leaders less effective in advocating for their missions, students and faculty.

    The Short-Term Advantages for Private Higher Ed

    In the short term, these challenges facing public universities have opened opportunities for private institutions. With public universities bogged down in political and financial crises, private universities can poach top faculty and administrators, offering them better resources and less political interference.

    I don’t fault private universities for capitalizing on these opportunities—they are acting in their own self-interest and in the interests of their own missions, students and faculty.

    But I fear that this approach is shortsighted and ultimately damaging to the broader higher education community. At a time when trust in higher education is declining, when the value of a college degree is being questioned and when the public is increasingly disillusioned with the academy, it is vital that we don’t allow attacks on public institutions to further erode public faith in all of higher education.

    Why Private Universities Must Stand Up for Public Higher Ed

    Private universities are uniquely positioned to advocate for the broader value of higher education and the critical role public institutions play.

    First, private universities can use their platforms to champion the ideals of higher education. With public universities under attack from state legislatures and special interest groups, private institutions can and should speak out against the politicization of higher education. Whether through research, advocacy or public statements, private universities can be powerful allies in the fight to protect the autonomy of public institutions.

    Second, private universities can advocate for increased public investments in higher education. They can use their influence to urge policymakers to restore funding for public universities and reject anti–higher education policies. At a time of declining public support, private universities can push for policies that ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to high-quality postsecondary education to develop the skills to succeed in today’s economy.

    Third, private universities can help bridge the divide between public and private higher education by forming partnerships with public two- and four-year institutions. These partnerships could include joint research initiatives, transfer and reciprocal enrollment programs, or shared resources to expand access and opportunity.

    The Time for Action Is Now

    In this critical moment for higher education, private universities need to demonstrate leadership—not just for their own interest, but for the interests of the entire industry. If we want to safeguard the unique contributions of both public and private higher education, we need to work together to ensure both sectors thrive.

    Now is the time for all those who believe in the transformational power of higher education to stand up and take action. The future of higher education depends on it.

    Michael S. Harris is a professor of higher education in the Simmons School of Education and Human Development at Southern Methodist University.

    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

  • Trump’s stated promise: ‘Stop all government censorship’ and his free speech Executive Order — First Amendment News 454

    Trump’s stated promise: ‘Stop all government censorship’ and his free speech Executive Order — First Amendment News 454

    Unprecedented.

    Let’s begin with President Donald Trump’s second inaugural address (Jan. 20), if only to contrast it with last week’s condemnation of his lawsuit against J. Ann Selzer, the Des Moines Register, and its parent company Gannett (see also FAN 451, 449 and 436). 

    Ready? Here it goes: 

    After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.

    Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents, something I know something about. We will not allow that to happen. It will not happen again. Under my leadership, we will restore fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.

    Never again! It will not happen again! Stop all government censorship! 

    And there’s more: When it comes to free speech, all views will be treated with “impartial justice.” Against that promissory note, let us turn to his unprecedented executive order as discussed below.

    Executive Order: Jan. 20, 2025

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    What follows is a brief description of the Executive Order along with some preliminary comments.

    Section 1. Purpose

    This section opens with an attack on the Biden administration’s alleged “trampl[ing of] free speech rights” when it comes to “online platforms.” Such abridgments, it is asserted, were done in the name of combating “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation” in order to advance the Biden administration’s “preferred narrative.” 

    Note at the outset that this section is primarily addressed to reversing the Biden administration’s apparent censorship of online expression. Even so, there is a generalized statement: “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

    Keep that in mind when it comes to what is set out in Section 4 below.

    Section 2. Policy

    This section focuses on four commitments: (i) securing free speech rights of all “American[s]”; (ii) mandating that “no [federal] agent engages in or facilitates” abridgments of free speech; (iii) ensuring that no “taxpayer resources” are used to abridge free speech; and (iv) identify and correct any past federal abridgments of free speech.

    Unlike Section 1, the explicit focus of this section is not confined to any free speech abridgments committed by the previous administration. The focus is on securing free speech rights of “citizens.” Hence, the policy is directed to an affirmative obligation of the Executive branch to protect free speech rights. The operative action words are “secur[ing],” “ensur[ing],” and “identify[ing].”

    Thus, there is a duty to ensure that no federal officers are used or taxpayer dollars expended in violation of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Also, unlike Section 1, much of Section 2 applies to all free speech rights and not those confined to social media. There is also a promise to investigate for any and all existing abridgments of free speech committed by “past misconduct by the Federal Government.”

    Section 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech

    Like Section 1, this section focuses on the actions of the past administration (i.e., abridgments committed “over the past four years”). This section, unlike section 2, explicitly applies to federal departments and agencies, though it also applies to federal officers, agents and employees. Such agencies and departments must comply with the requirements of Section 2.

    The second portion of this section deals with the investigative powers of the attorney general working “in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies.” Again, this investigation is confined to wrongs committed by the past administration. Following such investigations, a “report” shall be submitted to the President suggesting “remedial actions.”

    Much of this section seems repetitive of what is set out in Section 2, save for the references to federal departments and agencies and the need for investigation followed by a report to the President. Note that under Section 3, remedial action is suggested, whereas under Section 4, per this Executive Order, remedial action against the United States and its officers is prohibited.

    Section 4. General Provisions

    In order to appreciate the import of this clause, it is best to quote the final provision (sub-section (c) it in its entirety (with emphasis added):

    This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    The opening provisions of this Section refer to authorizations of grants of executive power. The Order is to be implemented consistent with the “applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

    Importantly, While the First Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government and all its officers, this Executive Order:

    1. applies to free speech wrongs committed during “the last 4 years” or “past misconduct by the Federal Government” or abridgments occurring “over the last 4 years,” though there is a passing mention of securing the free speech rights of all “American[s].” 
    2. Yet even as against such past alleged free speech wrongs, the sole remedy is by way of corrective action taken by the Executive Branch. 
    3. If such corrective action, or any other actions taken by Executive officials in pursuance of this Executive Order, themselves abridge First Amendment rights, there is no independent remedy secured by the Order.

    Related

    FIRE weighs in with its own free speech recommendations to the President

    Below are the four general categories of recommendations made (see link above for specifics):

    1. Support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act
    2. Address the abuse of campus anti-harassment policies
    3. Rein in government jawboning
    4. Protect First Amendment rights when it comes to AI

    “As president, Trump inherits the privilege and the obligation to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint — and FIRE stands ready to help in that effort.”

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in free expression mode at the Inauguration?

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at Trump Inauguration in 2024 wearing a distinctive collar adorned with cowrie shells, which are believed to offer protection from evil.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2024. (Imagn Images)

    According to Christopher Webb, such “a distinctive collar adorned with cowrie shells . . . are believed to offer protection from evil in African traditions.” (See also, Josh Blackman, “Justice Jackson Did Not Wear a Dissent Collar To The Inauguration. She Apparently Wore a Talisman To Ward Off Evil,” The Volokh Conspiracy (Jan. 21))

    Excerpts from Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Patel v. CNN, Inc.

    Kash Patel at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference

    Kash Patel, seen here at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference, is President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the FBI. (Consolidated News Photos / Shutterstock.com)

    An excerpt from today’s Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Patel v. CNN, Inc., decided by Judge Rosemarie Annunziata, joined by Judge Vernida Chaney (the opinions weigh in at over 12,000 words, so I only excerpt some key passages).

    Abortion picketing case lingers on docket

    The cert. petition in the abortion picketing case, with Paul Clement as lead counsel, has been on the Court’s docket since July 16 of last year. It has been distributed for conferences seven times, the last being Jan. 21. In his petition, Mr. Clement (joined by Erin Murphy) explicitly called on the Court to “overrule Hill v. Colorado.” (See FAN 433, July 31, 2024))

    Paul Clements and Erin Murphy

    Paul Clements and Erin Murphy

    More in the News

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 453: “‘The lawsuit is the punishment’: Reflections on Trump v. Selzer”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • chief education solutions officer at Michigan

    chief education solutions officer at Michigan

    James DeVaney and the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan are no strangers to this community. James has a number of titles at U-M, including special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation. Today, I’m talking to James about a new leadership role he is recruiting for at CAI, that of the chief education solutions officer.

    Q: What is the university’s mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

    A: First of all, thank you for the opportunity to share more about this exciting new position. I’m thrilled about the potential of this role and the chance to welcome a new colleague to the Center for Academic Innovation—an extraordinary organization that I care deeply about—who will join us in shaping the future of education.

    The inaugural chief education solutions officer (CESO) is pivotal to CAI’s mission to collaborate across campus and around the world to create equitable, lifelong educational opportunities for learners everywhere. By helping CAI deliver offerings that are learner-centered, research-driven, scalable and sustainable, the CESO will directly support the University of Michigan’s Vision 2034, particularly the impact area of life-changing education.

    This role is designed for a dynamic leader ready to solve organizational learning and workforce development challenges while driving growth through innovative, impactful solutions. By developing scalable and sustainable educational models, the CESO will ensure U-M remains at the forefront of lifelong learning and talent development on a global scale.

    The CESO is not just about executing current strategies—it’s a leadership role charged with helping to forge a bold new path for education. By addressing emerging trends like workforce transformation, AI and the growing demand for upskilling, this role will help learners and organizations thrive in a rapidly evolving world. The CESO’s work will empower learners and position U-M as a leader in education innovation for generations to come.

    Q: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?

    A: The CESO will report directly to me in my capacity as the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation and will be an additional key member of the senior leadership team at CAI. This role sits at the intersection of education innovation, strategic partnerships and business development, ensuring seamless collaboration between external stakeholders and CAI’s internal teams.

    The CESO will work closely with units that already engage with industry and organizational partners and schools and colleges across campus that extend their reach through innovative programs and initiatives. Through these collaborations, the CESO will help identify and deliver innovative solutions to meet workforce development needs and support sustainable partnerships with organizations looking to support their current and future employees in a rapidly changing economy.

    For example, the CESO might work with a school to design a custom program for an industry partner, collaborate with units across campus to expand U-M’s impact in key markets, help an organization to effectively utilize Michigan Online offerings or integrate CAI’s expertise into new initiatives that benefit learners and organizations alike. This role is about connecting ideas, people and resources to drive impact. By aligning CAI’s innovative capabilities with partner needs, the CESO ensures U-M’s resources create transformative outcomes both on campus and beyond.

    Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

    A: Success in this role is all about creating momentum—whether by building early partnerships, driving measurable growth or laying the groundwork for transformative initiatives. Here’s what we envision at each stage of this journey:

    In one year: The CESO will have established a strong foundation for growth by building early partnerships with industry leaders, meeting key growth targets and launching initial programs that deliver measurable value for learners and organizations. This first year is about setting the stage—building relationships, aligning CAI’s capabilities with external needs and creating momentum for the future. Importantly, the CESO will work alongside a really talented senior leadership team. Year one is also about creating strong connections within this group, building trust and finding ways to support each other.

    In three years: The CESO will have significantly scaled CAI’s impact, with a portfolio of partnerships that reflect innovative, sustainable approaches to workforce development and lifelong learning. Internally, we’ll see streamlined systems for managing partnerships, delivering programs and providing exemplary relationship support. Externally, CAI will be recognized as a trusted leader in educational solutions that address real-world challenges through highly relevant programs that build on interdisciplinary breadth of excellence.

    Beyond three years: Long-term success means driving transformative innovation in education—at both the individual and organizational levels. The CESO’s work will have deepened CAI’s reputation for empowering learners everywhere while also positioning U-M as a leader in lifelong learning and workforce development. The legacy of this role will be an ecosystem of partnerships and programs that inspire and uplift learners across the globe.

    At every stage, success in this role is about creating meaningful, lasting impact for learners and partners. That said, I’m looking to hire a colleague who will not only embrace this vision of success but also challenge it—pushing us to explore uncharted possibilities and reach new heights we haven’t yet imagined.

    Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

    A: The CESO role is an incredible opportunity for someone looking to advance their career in business development, partnership leadership or workforce innovation—whether within higher education or in related industries.

    This role provides direct experience in managing high-impact partnerships, driving revenue growth and designing innovative learning solutions for diverse audiences. It’s a unique combination of strategic thinking, relationship management and educational innovation that builds a strong foundation for future leadership roles.

    The skills developed in this position—including expertise in lifelong learning, workforce transformation and sustainable business growth—are highly transferable to roles in education, industry or even global organizations. Whether leading similar initiatives at another institution or shaping workforce strategies for a global enterprise, the CESO will leave this role with the tools to make an even bigger impact.

    This position enhances vital leadership skills, such as building trust with stakeholders, navigating complex organizational challenges and creating scalable solutions. It’s a perfect launchpad for individuals ready to shape the future of education at the intersection of academia and industry.

    Joining this team means stepping into a vibrant, forward-thinking environment where your contributions will be valued, your ideas will have impact and you’ll have the space to grow, innovate and truly make a difference.

    I’m truly excited to welcome a dynamic new partner to our team—could it be you?

    Source link