Instead of canceling class sessions, professors with conflicts at Old Dominion University may now schedule guest lectures on substance use, stress management, nutrition, safe sex and sleep.
xavierarnau/E+/Getty Images
“Hello faculty! Are you attending a conference, going on vacation, taking a sick day or want to take a break from your usual lecture? Consider having staff from the Recreation and Wellness Health Promotion team come in and lead an engaging and educational presentation during your class time!”
So reads a circulating announcement from Old Dominion University’s Rec Well staff, inviting professors to consider their guest-lecturer services when conflicts with teaching schedules arise.
What it is: Health educator Steven Gunzelman says that the new service—called “Don’t Cancel That Class!”—is also available to conflict-free professors who simply see value in connecting their students with key health information they might not otherwise get.
“One of our strategic cornerstones is health and well-being, so we really wanted to develop something that would go into the classrooms and meet with students in that kind of setting, where we can talk about these kinds of things that they might not learn other ways, like feeling stress or sleep issues,” he explains. “Students are here to, of course, get their academics. But in order to be able to graduate and get those life skills, they need health and well-being. It’s a big component of [student success], as well.”
ODU follows the collective impact approach to well-being, meaning that no single department or office on campus owns this responsibility, or—to put it another way—that everyone owns this responsibility. Rec Well, for its part, offers programs throughout campus on a wide variety of topics. But the “Don’t Cancel That Class!” initiative allows professors to pick a guest talk from the following list of five, starting with one concerning the use of alcohol and other drugs:
AOD & Me: Safety With Substances
Burn Bright, Not Out: Strategies for Managing Stress
Food for Thought: Nutrition 101
Play It Safe: The Lowdown on Safe Sex
Zzz’s for a Better You: A Sleep Hygiene Journey
The why and how: Gunzelman says the list is informed, in part, by the top four health campus health concerns, based on internal data gleaned from the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment: stress, anxiety, depression and sleep.
This tracks with Inside Higher Ed’s own Student Voice survey series, which in 2024 found that nearly all students said stress was impacting their ability to focus, learn and perform well academically, either a great deal (43 percent) or some (42 percent), and fewer than half (42 percent) rated their mental health as excellent or good. And in another 2023 Student Voice survey that asked about sleep, 60 percent of respondents said getting more of it was a top health goal.
ODU professors interested in scheduling a guest lecture can fill out this form. Gunzelman says the first to schedule a guest lecture was a professor of engineering, who wanted students to learn more about managing stress. He expects this to be a particularly popular topic.
While the current “Don’t Cancel That Class” staff is small, Gunzelman’s hope is that it will be able to accommodate as many requests as possible and possibly expand topic options with time. As for measuring impact, Gunzelman initially plans to solicit feedback from students about the usefulness of the information shared and how likely it is to influence their behavior going forward.
The student feedback will also help staff members refine their approach.
“Can we add in more engagement, or can we add in more topics that are more geared toward students?” he says, for example. Gunzelman also suggests that professors encourage student participation, “whether it be surprise, whether it be a plan, whether it’s built into the syllabus for credit, or if they want to be part of it and are still in the room with us.”
Don’t cancel that class: ODU is one of a growing number of institutions to offer a Don’t Cancel That Class–style initiative. The University of Minnesota at Morris, for example, offers one that includes workshops on professional development and academic skills such as time management, financial literacy and résumé building.
Programs of that nature highlight the connection between academics and other pillars of student success, such as health and wellness. But the general practice of finding alternatives to canceling course sessions, especially multiple course sessions, is also considered a best practice in faculty work. The English department at the University of Louisville, for example, suggests rescheduling sessions (including via synchronous online sessions), asking a faculty colleague to fill in or assigning students an independent learning exercise or asynchronous lesson.
Does your institution have a different kind of don’t-cancel-that-class initiative? Tell us about it.
High winds intersecting with historic drought levels are contributing to the dangerous conditions that sparked the multiple fires raging in the Los Angeles area. Dr. Helen Holmlund, an assistant professor of biology at Pepperdine University, joins CBS News with more on the extreme conditions.
Personal life events impact students’ ability to meet academic expectations, which can result in academic dismissal, according to new research.
visualspace/E+/Getty Images
Around 40 million Americans have some college credit but no credential. While some of these students left higher education voluntarily, others left involuntarily due to academic dismissal, or repeated low academic achievement.
Recently published research from a Texas A&M University, San Antonio, faculty member seeks to understand how students who experienced academic dismissal fared and how institutions can support these learners as they return to college.
Author Ripsimé K. Bledsoe found a majority of learners experienced a major life event that contributed to their academic shortfall, including loss of a loved one or illness of self or others. Students who have returned to college after dismissal demonstrated greater self-awareness, help-seeking behaviors and understanding of how to achieve success.
The background: While students stop out for a variety of reasons—with recent studies pointing to the high costs of higher education as a major driver—academic challenges are a common factor. At many colleges, students whose cumulative grade point average falls below 2.0 are placed on academic probation, followed by academic dismissal if they make insufficient academic progress.
Previous research shows a gap in creating a model of academic dismissal reinstatement, one that has created challenges for institutions who want to assess readmission policies or create programs to address the issue, according to the report.
The present study uses community college student survey and interview data to understand the factors that influenced them to return to college and what assisted in this process.
Methodology
All students who participated in the study had left a two- or four-year college due to academic dismissal; re-enrolled at a large, urban community college; and were taking a Strategies for Student Success course. The survey includes 171 respondents from 13 course sections, and researchers conducted semistructured interviews with 11 of the respondents. Data was collected in fall 2018.
Students say: The survey results demonstrated that academic readiness from high school did not directly predict success in college, as a majority of students took key college preparatory coursework in high school, including AP classes or Algebra 2 or higher, and only 40 percent took developmental courses in college.
Further, almost half of students were “downward transfers,” with 45 percent admitted to a four-year college, and 41 percent attended a four-year institution at some point. Around 75 percent of students had enrolled in college within three months of completing high school or a GED, and half of respondents passed some type of first-year seminar.
The greatest share of students on academic dismissal (43 percent) appealed to return immediately after being placed on dismissal. One-third returned a year later or more time.
Two-thirds (67 percent) of dismissed students said a life-changing event was the strongest reason their grades dropped, including the death of someone close to them (26 percent), sickness (24 percent), the birth of a child (17 percent), moving away from home (11 percent), involvement in a violent experience (8 percent), loss of a job (7 percent) or spousal problems (6 percent).
Put in practice: In interviews, researchers identified five factors that affected students’ dismissal and could, conversely, impact academic momentum.
College readiness. For some students, transitioning to college contributed to their dismissal because the environment was more challenging and less structured. To combat this upon their return, students sought more structure and community to ensure academic achievement, including investing in study skills, note taking, time management and self-monitoring.
A critical incident. While many learners experienced dismissal following a challenging experience in their lives, academic dismissal provided a turning point, particularly for learners who spent their time away from college working, to reassess their goals and ambitions. The institution where study participants attended required learners to reflect on their experiences prior to re-enrolling, which also helped students’ self-evaluation. “Consequently, institutions with automatic reinstatement, loose structuring, or no policies at all, can potentially rob students of the critical impact of academic dismissal and an appeal process,” according to the report.
Effective teaching. Students said faculty interactions and support was one of the most important factors of success in the classroom upon their return. Faculty who created an atmosphere for active learning and participation were more engaging and effective. Students also identified their own learning strategies, including metacognition and self-regulation, as previous barriers to success and now a focus area.
Academic resilience. Learners who returned had motivational attributes including a strong growth mindset, clear goals, self-determination and sense of personal responsibility. Students also demonstrated resilience when they faced setbacks and found solutions for the obstacles in their way, including turning to peers, tutors or faculty members.
Supportive guidance. All participants in the study participated in specialized advising to guide them through the appeal process as well as help around course choices, loads and majors. These experiences were relational, not transactional, and helped affirm students’ help-seeking behaviors in positive ways, mitigating students’ feelings of confusion or like they must navigate higher ed on their own.
So what? While this study provides characteristics of students returning from academic dismissal, there is a need for more data around probation, time away after dismissal or forced withdrawals versus voluntary departure, according to the report.
College and university leaders should also consider their appeal process to create greater connections between students and staff or faculty, rather than an automatic reinstatement policy or a loose policy.
“Formulating a well-crafted, institution-specific policy provides a meaningful milestone for students to stop, seek support, and reassess,” Bledsoe wrote.
The study does not advocate for dismissal programs but does ask institutional leaders to create policies with more awareness of the different factors that impact academic success and to tie dismissal to support systems.
Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
The year 2023 was a watershed moment for artificial intelligence. ChatGPT made its way into classrooms, prompting educators to grapple with AI’s potential and pitfalls. Industry leaders like Sundar Pichai declared AI as transformative as fire or electricity, while others voiced caution, warning of ethical dilemmas and societal upheaval.
Two years later, amid the headlines and hype, the deeper question remains: What will AI actually look like in our day-to-day lives in higher ed? Understanding how AI will shape learning, recruitment and operations by 2025 is no longer optional—it’s essential.
Below are five key ways AI is poised to transform higher education in 2025. These predictions aren’t abstract theories; they’re practical insights to guide your strategic planning, help you stay competitive and ensure your institution thrives in an AI-driven era.
AI Agents Will Revolutionize Learning and Administration
AI-powered agents are on the cusp of becoming indispensable tools in higher education. These intelligent systems are already taking on roles as digital mentors, capable of guiding students through complex material with tailored feedback. You may be familiar, for example, with Georgia State University’s AI chat-bot pilot program that answered student questions about financial aid and registration, reducing summer melt by 21 percent. In 2025, such agents will act as personalized tutors, adapting to individual learning styles and offering real-time academic support.
Beyond learning, AI will also streamline administrative operations. Routine tasks like course scheduling, admissions processing and answering common student inquiries will increasingly fall to these systems, freeing human staff to focus on strategic initiatives.
Imagine admissions officers who no longer spend hours manually reviewing applications but instead analyze data-driven insights provided by AI agents to make quicker, more informed decisions.
This year will also bring us a new generation of AI that doesn’t just respond but takes action. For example, with agentic AI, a text might automatically go out to an applicant who needs a nudge to submit remaining documents—without a staff member lifting a finger.
The future of higher education will be defined by AI systems that seamlessly blend proactive support with human expertise, transforming both student success and institutional efficiency.
Generative AI Search Will Reshape Digital Engagement
Generative AI is changing how prospective students discover and interact with institutions online. Platforms like ChatGPT are making it easier for users to ask complex questions and receive synthesized, conversational answers. Instead of clicking through multiple webpages, users increasingly expect clear and direct responses. In 2025, this shift will make traditional SEO strategies less effective, forcing institutions to reimagine their digital presence.
One way they might do that is to incorporate generative AI search into their websites. You’ve likely used generative AI search yourself in Google—it’s the AI overview at the top of the page when you do a search that shows a summary answer of your query drawn from the sites that would traditionally appear in a list of search results.
To prepare for students using AI tools outside of your site (e.g., ChatGPT, Perplexity) to learn about your school or incorporate generative AI search into your own site, there are critical to-dos for your website content teams to make your content as relevant, up-to-date and engaging as possible.
The stakes are high: AI often relies on the most visible or credible content to provide answers. Universities with fragmented or outdated digital strategies risk being left behind, while those with robust, high-quality content will find themselves highlighted in AI-driven searches.
Institutions that prioritize creating unique, authoritative content—such as faculty research profiles or interactive student success stories—will gain an edge in this new search landscape.
Hyperpersonalization Will Redefine Student Engagement
The days of one-size-fits-all communication and student services have ended. In 2025, institutions will rely on AI to create hyperpersonalized experiences that resonate with each student’s unique needs and goals. Drawing inspiration from industries like retail and entertainment, universities will use AI to craft individualized learning paths, anticipate challenges and deliver targeted interventions before students even ask for help.
For example, Purdue University’s Course Signals initiative uses data analytics to identify students who may be at risk of falling behind and sends personalized alerts encouraging them to seek support. This type of proactive engagement not only improves retention rates but also fosters a sense of belonging. As McKinsey aptly describes it, the future of student engagement hinges on embracing the “care of one.”
However, this approach raises ethical concerns. Institutions must carefully manage data privacy and ensure that algorithms do not inadvertently disadvantage certain groups. Transparency about how student data is collected and used will be crucial in maintaining trust.
Faculty and Staff Roles Will Evolve Alongside AI
The integration of AI will not replace faculty and staff but will redefine their roles. In 2025, educators will focus less on rote instruction and more on mentorship, critical thinking and creativity. This shift is already evident in programs like Northeastern University’s Experiential AI initiative, which trains faculty to incorporate AI tools into their teaching to enrich the student experience.
Marketing and admissions teams will also need to adapt. AI insights can reveal patterns in prospective student behavior, allowing teams to craft campaigns that resonate on a deeper level. However, this will require staff to develop new skills in data interpretation and digital strategy.
The transition won’t be without challenges. Institutions must invest in professional development to help their teams thrive in an AI-enhanced environment. Collaborative efforts between IT, academic affairs and marketing will ensure the successful adoption of these technologies.
Ethical Challenges Will Take Center Stage
The adoption of AI presents significant ethical considerations that will shape its implementation in higher education. From ensuring unbiased algorithms to safeguarding student data, institutions will need to tread carefully. Recent incidents, such as the use of biased AI tools in hiring processes, highlight the risks of unchecked AI deployment.
Higher education can lead the way by modeling responsible AI practices. For example, Stanford University has established an Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, emphasizing the ethical use of AI technologies across disciplines. By prioritizing fairness, transparency and accountability, institutions can harness AI’s potential without compromising their values.
Preparing for 2025 and Beyond
AI will ultimately elevate higher ed. Institutions that embrace AI’s changes with foresight and care will enhance their competitiveness, improve operational efficiency and create more meaningful experiences for students and staff alike. Success will depend on a willingness to adapt, invest in ethical practices and put students at the center of every decision.
Mallory Willsea is chief strategist and producer at Enrollify.
A bipartisan effort to update the nation’s workforce development law is dead, depriving hundreds of community colleges of increased funds and opportunities to cut through the red tape surrounding short-term job training.
The Stronger Workforce for America Act would have given community colleges automatic eligibility to enter into training contracts with local workforce development offices, introduced a new federal grant and protected several existing programs from potential budget cuts in the new fiscal year.
The bill’s sponsors were hopeful that the bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act would pass Congress before the end of the year, as it was included in a wider spending package to fund the government. But when Republicans voiced opposition to the omnibus spending bill just over 24 hours before the government shutdown deadline, lawmakers reversed course. They instead passed a pared-down continuing resolution to fund the government through mid-March, and WIOA reauthorization didn’t make the cut.
Leaders on the House education and workforce committee had said the Stronger Workforce for America Act would create “transformative change” for the American workforce, pointing to how WIOA helps American workers keep pace with an ever-changing job market and gain high-demand skills. Reauthorizing WIOA was a top priority for Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chaired the committee until December.
Members of the House and Senate education and workforce committees worked for the last two years to update the workforce bill, which expired in 2020. The House plan overwhelmingly passed last spring, and the Senate released a draft plan over the summer. The Senate bill didn’t move forward, but key lawmakers in the House and Senate reached a compromise in late November to update WIOA.
Groups like the National Association of Workforce Boards and the American Association of Community Colleges say the death of the Stronger Workforce act won’t kill their programs, but nonetheless they expressed concerns about how a lack of reauthorization makes their programs vulnerable. They are trying to remain hopeful that reauthorization will be a priority for this Congress.
“As the session waned, it was clear that getting a bill enacted in 2024 was going to be extremely difficult,” David Baime, senior vice president of government relations at AACC, said in a statement. “However, we are grateful for WIOA’s champions and very optimistic that a reauthorization will be enacted by the next Congress.”
Until then, Inside Higher Ed called Baime to talk about the bill and what it means for community colleges and short-term workforce training. Here are three key obstacles he said remain until WIOA gets an update.
Bureaucracy and Eligibility
One of the largest benefits for community colleges under the Stronger Workforce act was that their training programs would have automatically qualified for federal WIOA grants.
Currently, any training provider—be it a community college, an employer or a for-profit technical institution—must meet certain performance criteria in order to receive WIOA dollars. About $500 million is available for job training vouchers each year.
Often, colleges receive funds by entering a contract with a local workforce board. The process begins with local workforce development agencies identifying key trades or certifications that are in high demand among their community. Then the board picks an approved training provider and contracts with them to train a set number of workers.
But for years, jumping through the hoops required to make that eligibility list kept many underresourced community colleges from receiving those contracts and federal funds.
“The bureaucratic nature of WIOA has made for some presidents not being as engaged as they might be,” Baime said. “In these cases, they just don’t find it worthwhile to invest a lot of time in their local workforce boards.”
The WIOA update would have cut down that red tape.
Increased Funds
But even if community colleges did automatically qualify, Baime said, the funding set aside specifically for training programs is limited, and competition with other providers like for-profit technical institutions and employers is steep.
“In fact, a lot more money for training goes to our students through Pell than through WIOA,” Baime explained.
Since 2020, the Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grant program has provided dedicated funding for training programs at community colleges. Most recently, the Labor Department awarded $65 million to 18 colleges. Through five rounds of funding, more than 200 colleges have received a total $265 million.
But the grant program was never formally authorized. That means there is no mandate requiring Congress to set aside a certain amount of funds each year, and the grant depends entirely on advocacy from specific lawmakers.
The WIOA update would have authorized the grant, providing statutory protection for the funds.
“SCCTG is a really important program for us. The program relies upon a tested model of community colleges working directly with businesses, in coordination with the federal workforce system. It’s not funded at the level we would like, but it reflects an appropriate prioritization of the role that community colleges play in job training,” Baime said.
A few other, less direct funding increases were also lost when the legislation died. For example, one policy would have required 50 percent of all WIOA funds to be spent on training rather than administrative fees, leading local workforce boards to invest more in contracts with outside providers.
Another would have specified that historically broad H1-B grants, which use the revenue from skills-based visas to train American workers, must be used to upskill individuals forced out of their current roles by innovations like AI. Workers would have received up to $5,000 through that change.
“We think a voucher that size may be an attractive inducement for dislocated workers to receive training at community colleges,” Baime said.
Future Vulnerability
Finally, for community colleges, a key concern is how the incoming Congress and Trump administration will approach WIOA, especially now that legislation has failed.
Republicans in Congress have made it clear they want to “substantially reduce funding,” so Baime fears that WIOA funding of all types could face serious cuts.
The SCCTG, for example, which has historically been advocated for by Democrats, may no longer get a budget line at all.
“The importance of workforce education is appreciated by lawmakers across the Hill,” he explained. “But we certainly would have rather gotten that bipartisan, bicameral demonstration of support by being part of this bill and enacted into statute going into the [fiscal year 2026] appropriations process.”
From time to time, we here at FAN post op-eds on various timely issues. One such issue is who decides what is taught in public schools and what are the applicable constitutional restraints placed on attempts to restrict teachers’ educational objectives. A recent court ruling in Concerned Jewish Parents & Teachers of Los Angeles v. Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, et al. (Cen. Dist., Nov. 30, 2024) places this issue in bold relief.
In the piece below,Stephen Rohde, a First Amendment authority, analyzes the case and the First Amendment issues raised in it.
News items and the Supreme Court’s docket follow the op-ed. – rklc
Stephen Rohde
An important recent court ruling rejected attempts by Jewish parents and teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District to remove an ethnic studies curriculum they labelled “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Zionist.” On Nov. 30, 2024, a federal judge reaffirmed that a system of education “which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues” must allow teachers and their students “to explore difficult and conflicting ideas.”
In his 49-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin wrote: “[W]e must be careful not to curb intellectual freedom by imposing dogmatic restrictions that chill teachers from adopting the pedagogical methods they believe are most effective.” Moreover, he stressed that “teachers must be sensitive to students’ personal beliefs and take care not to abuse their positions of authority,” but they “must also be given leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities” (citing C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. (9th. Cir., 2019)).
An international controversy
The lawsuit (filed by Lori Lowenthal Marcus and Robert Patrick Sticht) came in the midst of a national — and indeed international — debate surrounding who controls the telling of the complicated history of Israel and the Palestinians and how criticism of Israel and its policies is being attacked with epithets such as “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Zionism.” It was an unprecedented attempt to convince a federal court to force the second largest public school system in the United States to adopt a single, one-sided interpretation of the hotly-contested political, religious, legal, military, and cultural histories of Judaism (spanning thousands of years), Zionism (which emerged in the late nineteenth century), and the State of Israel (founded in 1948). And all of this has been marked throughout the years by an endless variety of shifting perspectives by Jews and non-Jews alike.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus (Plaintiff’s counsel)
Not incidentally, the ruling also represents a welcome rebuke to the efforts of Republican state legislators and conservative parent groups to restrict the teaching of comprehensive American and world history in public schools. This campaign includes attempts to ban books that examine racism, sexism, and LGBTQ issues as well as their efforts to eliminate programs that seek to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in American education.
The LAUSD lawsuit is part of a well-financed, well-resourced campaign in the United States and around the world to impose an official, dogmatic pro-Israel narrative not only on Israel’s current war in Gaza and the West Bank, but on its entire 76-year history, and to silence any contrary or pro-Palestinian perspectives in the name of fighting “anti-Semitism.”
Ominous nature of lawsuit
The ominous nature of the lawsuit can be seen in the breathtakingly overbroad injunction the plaintiffs had requested. Had it been granted, the injunction, as described in the plaintiffs’ own words, would have enlisted the powerful authority of a federal court to require the indoctrination of an entire school district, and all of its teachers and students, with false, misleading, highly-contested, and controversial claims, by prohibiting the following:
[A]ny language, in any teaching materials, asserting that Zionism is not a Jewish belief; denouncing the Jewish belief in the land of Israel as the land promised by God to the Jewish people, or the Jewish belief in Zionism, or asserting that the State of Israel, as the Nation-State of the Jewish people, is illegitimate, or asserting as a fact that the Jewish State is guilty of committing such horrific crimes against others as ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid or genocide, or that the Jewish people are not indigenous to the land of Israel or to the Middle East, or denying the State of Israel the right to self-defense; and/or denying the historical or religious connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.
Had this handful of parents and teachers succeeded, more than 24,000 LAUSD teachers would have been forced by court order to teach more than 565,000 students the single dogma that Zionism, a movement that emerged a little over a hundred years ago, is “a Jewish belief,” when in fact there is a wide diversity of views among Jews on the issue of Zionism.
In addition, if the injunction had been granted, all LAUSD teachers would have been banned by law from teaching or debating, for example, the fact that in Feb. 2022 Amnesty International issued a comprehensive 280-page investigative report entitled “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity.”As its title indicates, this report “analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and examined its key components: territorial fragmentation; segregation and control; dispossession of land and property; and denial of economic and social rights.” The report then concluded that “Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territory], and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis,” which “amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.”
And if the plaintiffs had had their way, all LAUSD teachers would have been breaking the law if they taught that on Jan. 26, 2024, the United Nations International Court of Justice issued a detailed ruling, which found it “plausible” that Israel has committed “acts of genocide” that violated the Genocide Convention and ordered Israel to ensure that the IDF not commit any of the acts of genocide prohibited by the convention.
And all those teachers would have been prohibited from teaching that on Nov. 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, former Minister of Defence of Israel, accusing them of being “responsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024.”
The plaintiffs and their lawsuit
In May 2022 a group calling itself “Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles,” comprised of what the lawsuit called “Jewish, Zionist” teachers in the LAUSD and “Jewish, Zionist” parents of students in the LAUSD, sued the school district, the United Teachers of Los Angeles, its president Cecily Myart-Cruz, the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, the Consortium’s secretary Theresa Montaño, and Guadalupe Carrasco, its co-founder. The defendants were represented by Mark Kleiman.
As summarized by Judge Olguin, the plaintiffs claimed that the ethnic studies curriculum “denounces capitalism, the nuclear family, and the territorial integrity of the lower 48 states of the United States[,]” and is designed “to expunge the idea of Zionism, and the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel, from the public square[.]” They claimed that the challenged curriculum “seeks to make it unsafe and ultimately impossible for any person to express Zionist ideas or Zionist commitment in public in general and within LAUSD public schools in particular.”
In addition to taking issue with the content of the challenged curriculum, the plaintiffs decried the individual defendants’ support for the challenged curriculum. According to the plaintiffs: “Defendants are injecting their views into the LAUSD curriculum” and “disseminating [the challenged curriculum] to teachers throughout Los Angeles” under the authority of the LAUSD, and “at times through stealth[.]” Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants supported or participated in workshops that “led teachers to bring the [challenged curriculum] to their own classrooms.”
It is noteworthy that the plaintiffs did acknowledge that the LAUSD “has the right to control the content of all Ethnic Studies classes taught in LAUSD schools” and specifically admitted that the LAUSD “has ultimate control over and responsibility for the use and public disclosure of any teaching materials in Los Angeles public schools other than those materials whose use is directed by the California State Board of Education.”
Mark Kleiman (Defense counsel)
The plaintiffs also conceded that the challenged curriculum had not been formally adopted by LAUSD, but nevertheless they claimed that they “are being harmed” and “will be harmed” by it. And they alleged that the challenged curriculum is being taught by at least two LAUSD teachers, one of whom is currently “using the LESMC including the discriminatory, hateful material on Israel at issue in this case.” Additionally, they alleged that defendant Cardona confirmed that “she is teaching from LESMC materials and would continue doing so in her LAUSD classroom.”
As for their legal claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the challenged curriculum is “discriminatory” and violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and California Education Code.
The court ruling
At the outset of his decision, Judge Olguin called the lawsuit “confusing” and noted that the complaint is “difficult to understand and contains a morass of largely irrelevant — and sometimes contradictory — allegations, few of which state with any degree of clarity precisely what plaintiffs believe defendants have done or, more importantly, how plaintiffs have been harmed.” He pointed out that the lack of clarity was particularly troubling given that this was the plaintiffs’ fourth attempt to allege a valid complaint.
The lack of standing issue
Addressing threshold procedural issues, Judge Olguin found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place and that their claims were not ripe for adjudication. He observed that the “essence of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries appears to be that they are aware of the challenged curriculum, disagree with it, and fear it will be adopted or used in LAUSD classrooms.” But he found “it is far from clear that learning about Israel and Palestine or encountering teaching materials with which one disagrees constitutes an injury, citing long-standing Supreme Court and appellate precedents.” And he found that neither the parent-plaintiffs nor the teacher-plaintiffs identified “any personal injury suffered by them as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error.” Plaintiffs may not “sue merely because their legal objection is accompanied by a strong moral, ideological, or policy objection to a [purported] government action.” In other words, “the individual plaintiffs’ potential exposure to ideas with which they disagree is insufficient to support standing.”
At its core, plaintiffs’ lawsuit sought to have the court “weigh in on whether instruction that may be critical of Zionism or Israel is antisemitic.” Judge Olguin recognized that courts do on occasion determine whether beliefs are religious in nature and whether they are sincerely held, but here, without a justiciable case or controversy that presented a cognizable, redressable injury, he could not — and would not — entertain “a generalized grievance.”
Throughout his decision, Judge Olguin relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit appellate decision in Monteiro v. Tempe Union School District(1998). In that case, a parent sued a school district, on behalf of her daughter and other Black students, over the high-school curriculum’s inclusion of certain literary works, such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and A Rose for Emily. The plaintiff in that case argued that because these works contain racially derogatory terms, their inclusion in the curriculum violated the Black students’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument and held that “objections to curriculum assignments cannot form the basis of a viable Equal Protection claim, because curriculum decisions must remain the province of school authorities.” Absent an allegation of an underlying racist policy, “plaintiffs cannot challenge the assignment of material deemed to have educational value by school authorities.”
In Monteiro, no underlying racist policy was found. Similarly, in the LAUSD case, Judge Olguin found that the plaintiffs “do not allege the existence of an underlying racist policy; instead, they challenge unspecified portions of a hypothetical curricular offering.” Although the plaintiffs asserted that they were targeting a curriculum “infected from top to bottom with racism and bias[,]” they did not direct the court to any allegations that supported their assertion. Nor were there any allegations to support an inference of a discriminatory policy. Thus, the lawsuit was a direct attack on curricula, and under Monteiro, “absent evidence of unlawful intentional discrimination, parents are not entitled to bring Equal Protection claims challenging curriculum content.”
Failure to raise a free exercise claim
Judge Olguin also found that the plaintiffs failed to allege a violation of their right to the free exercise of religion. According to the Supreme Court, “a plaintiff may carry the burden of proving a free exercise violation in various ways, including by showing that a government entity has burdened his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable.” But the courts have also held that “offensive content” that “does not penalize, interfere with, or otherwise burden religious exercise does not violate Free Exercise rights,” even where such content contains material that plaintiffs may find “offensive to their religious beliefs.”
In the LAUSD case, the plaintiffs did not allege that they “have somehow been prevented from practicing their faith, or that the parent-plaintiffs have been barred in any way from instructing their children at home.” In effect, the only hardship plaintiffs alleged was that the existence of the challenged curriculum — and its possible adoption — offended them. “But mere offense is insufficient to allege a burden on religious exercise,” stated Judge Olguin, citing court decisions holding that class materials offensive to Hindu or Muslim plaintiffs did not violate Free Exercise Clause. As Chief Judge Pierce Lively put it in a 1987 case: “[D]istinctions must be drawn between those governmental actions that actually interfere with the exercise of religion, and those that merely require or result in exposure to attitudes and outlooks at odds with perspective prompted by religion.”
It is important to note that Judge Olguin could have simply found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit and dismissed it entirely. Instead, he went on to explain that even if the plaintiffs had established standing, they could not overcome the “significant First Amendment” obstacles their complaint presented. Because the non-LAUSD defendants are private parties, their speech and conduct are protected by the First Amendment. The court “cannot enjoin private parties from expressing their views on what an ethnic studies curriculum should or should not contain, let alone from using any ‘elements’ of the challenged curriculum, because doing so would violate the First Amendment.”
Three First Amendment issues
Judge Olguin then explained in detail the various First Amendment violations that the plaintiffs’ requests raised:
First, plaintiffs “take issue with the non-District defendants’ forms of discussion, expression, and petitioning in relation to the challenged curriculum,” such as “various UTLA and Consortium activities, including funding, supporting, promoting, and hosting of workshops and events that discuss Palestine and Israel.” The plaintiffs sought to have the court impose restrictions on the non-District defendants’ protected speech by requesting an injunction “prohibiting all Defendants from using the elements of the LESMC at issue in this case . . . in any training sessions funded by public funds, or for which salary points are awarded by LAUSD.
Judge Olguin made it clear, however, that “the non-District defendants have a right to express their views about the curriculum under the First Amendment and to petition for curricular changes.” And he went even further: “[E]ven if teaching the challenged curriculum were unlawful, and the non-District defendants encouraged the material to be taught, the non-District defendants’ activities would be protected, as plaintiffs have not alleged incitement to imminent lawlessness action.”
Second, the plaintiffs had relied on the seminal 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, arguing that the court may “prevent a speaker from counseling the commission of imminent lawless action [by LAUSD] when such counseling is likely to incite or produce such action.” But Judge Olguin found there were “no plausible allegations” in the complaint “to support such an assertion.” And in any event, “the assertion conflicts with plaintiffs’ contention that they, for example, ‘do not claim that UTLA is acting wrongfully by petitioning the government to include the challenged materials in the classroom, or to discuss with others what the curriculum should be or whether the law should be changed to allow Defendants to teach what they want.” Indeed, according to plaintiffs, “[t]here is no claim that it is illegal for UTLA to speak to teachers about Ethnic Studies and there is no request that this Court order UTLA to stop doing so.” Nor is there any claim “that the law is violated by Defendants’ conduct of seminars showing teachers how to teach [the challenged curriculum], and no relief is sought from the Court asking anyone to stop conducting such seminars.”
Third, plaintiffs specifically targeted “classroom expression by public school teachers, on the clock and paid for with public money” and asked the court to enjoin LAUSD teachers from teaching the challenged curriculum.
Judge Olguin held that “this request raises serious concerns about the First Amendment and principles of academic freedom.” Although high school teachers do not have freedom of speech to the full extent of the First Amendment, nonetheless according to Monteiro, there is no doubt that “allowing the judicial system to process complaints that seek to enjoin or attach civil liability to a school district’s assignment of” curricular material could have broader, potentially chilling effects on speech. In other words, “while teachers’ speech rights in the classroom may be reasonably abridged by their employers, such limitations are fundamentally different than speech restrictions imposed by a court at the behest of a group of private citizens.”
He added: “[S]tudents have a right to receive information and ‘lawsuits threatening to attach civil liability on the basis of the assignment of [curricular material] would severely restrict a student’s right to receive material that his school board or other educational authority determines to be of legitimate educational value,’” citing Monteiro.
Judge Olguin recognized that “determining the content of curricula is a complicated, important matter, and it is for this reason that school boards generally retain broad discretion in doing so.” He stressed that “teachers must have some discretion and academic freedom in implementing and teaching the curriculum,” because “teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” He also warned that “it would be of great concern for the educational project and for academic freedom if every offended party could sue every time they did not like a curriculum or the way it was taught.”
Teaching provocative and challenging ideas is painful but necessary
Citing a 1949 Supreme Court decision that recognized that “[s]peech is often provocative and challenging,” Judge Olguin recognized that while the plaintiffs clearly considered the challenged curriculum to be “provocative and challenging,” nonetheless, “our legal tradition recognizes the importance of speech and other expressive activity even when — perhaps especially when — it is uncomfortable or inconvenient.”
Consequently, Judge Olguin dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, preventing them from filing a fifth amended complaint.
No doubt the Jewish parents and teachers who brought this lawsuit were deeply concerned that their children and students would be exposed to sharply different and indeed highly negative perspectives about the State of Israel and the nature and history of Zionism — perspectives that conflict with what may have been taught at home. But when it comes to public education in America, no particular group of parents or teachers can restrict the curriculum designed for all students based on their personal views or because they are offended by some aspect of the curriculum.
“At their best, public schools in the United States serve to produce a literate and informed citizenry imbued not only with knowledge but with a spirit of inquiry,” according to Jonathan Friedman, Director of Free Expression and Education at PEN America. “Diversity of thought has been the core of our pluralistic identity, and free expression — one of the central tenets of American democracy — is an essential value that ensures both the quality of our children’s education and the ability of our schools to prepare them to become engaged citizens in an increasingly complex world.”
Friedman went on to explain that while there is no question that “parents have a central role in guiding, supporting, nurturing, and educating their children,” the so-called “parents’ rights” movement seeks to elevate “individual parents’ beliefs or preferences over the rights of all other parents.” He also noted that in many parts of the country, “individual parents are demanding the removal of books from schools they find unfavorable.” But in the United States, “it has been an abiding principle of our democracy to side with free speech over those who wish to restrict it. The freedom to learn, the freedom to read, and the freedom to think are inextricably bound.”
“Preventing students from learning about the real world won’t protect them from it,” Friedman pointed out. Students “don’t deserve a chilled environment where teachers are unable to speak honestly for fear of upsetting any one parent.”
Thirty-three years ago, the American Association of University Professors reiterated its long-held view that the “freedom of thought and expression” upon which education is based “often inspires vigorous debate on those social, economic, and political issues that arouse the strongest passions. In the process, views will be expressed that may seem to many wrong, distasteful, or offensive. Such is the nature of freedom to sift and winnow ideas.”
The AAUP reminded us that on “a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed.”
The debate over Israel, Zionism, and the Palestinians, like all debates on serious issues, will not be resolved by convincing courts to mandate the views of one side or to silence the voices of the other side. The debate must be a free and open discussion informed by a rigorous and unflinching examination of history that respects the human rights and dignity of everyone.
Sixth Circuit rules FCC lacked the authority to reinstate Net Neutrality rules
A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s landmark net neutrality rules on Thursday, ending a nearly two-decade effort to regulate broadband internet providers as utilities.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to reinstate rules that prevented broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to internet content. In its opinion, a three-judge panel pointed to a Supreme Court decision in June, known as Loper Bright, that overturned a 1984 legal precedent that gave deference to government agencies on regulations.
“Applying Loper Bright means we can end the F.C.C.’s vacillations,” the court ruled.
Levine and Schafer on ‘central meaning of the First Amendment’
Last month, Carson Holloway argued in Law & Liberty’s forum on New York Times v. Sullivan that the Supreme Court “owes it to the nation” to reconsider and ultimately overrule this defining First Amendment case. He has madethis argument in Law & Liberty before. He is mistaken.
Sullivan declared that the First Amendment has a “central meaning”: that citizens in a democracy have a right to criticize government officials without fear of ruin. The Court made this principle a reality by establishing the “actual malice” requirement. Before enforcing a damages judgment or sending a citizen to jail, courts going forward were to require clear and convincing proof that the alleged defamer of a public official published the defamatory statement knowing it was false or with a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity.
The rule has proven a potent protection for press freedom. But for Holloway, it is a modern invention that is not “based on the original understanding of the First Amendment.” We agree with Angel Eduardo that this argument is “at best . . . highly contested.” Having spent our careers defending press freedom (in the case of one of us, that includes two trips to the Supreme Court), we write to explain what exactly Holloway got wrong.
Initially, Holloway’s originalism argument is a red herring. The defamation tort is a creature of state law and the First Amendment at the Founding only imposed limits on the federal government. (It is noteworthy, though, that Madison viewed his unsuccessful amendment that would have prohibited state infringements on liberty of the press as more valuable than the First Amendment.) So it should be expected that there is no evidence that the Founding generation understood the First Amendment as a limit on state libel law. (Even so, Jefferson, perhaps anticipating the Sedition Act of 1798, thought the First Amendment ought to impose limits on libel.)
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).”)
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.
What is a climate justice university, and how can our universities transform into institutions that truly promote the well-being of the earth and humanity? Jennie C. Stephens’s new book, Climate Justice and the University: Shaping a Hopeful Future for All (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024), sets out to answer that question. It outlines where today’s universities fall short in their handling not only of the climate crisis but also a wealth of other modern social issues.
The book lays out broad ideas for transforming how universities function in society, such as shifting research practices to collaborate with people and communities affected by the issues, like the climate crisis, at the center of that research. Stephens, who is a professor at both the National University of Ireland Maynoonth and Northeastern University, acknowledges in the introduction that such a transformation would be a major undertaking, and one that many universities would be disinclined to tackle. “Because of the internal pressure within higher education to maintain institutional norms, this book and its proposal for climate justice universities are, in some ways, radical acts of resistance,” she writes.
In a phone interview, Stephens spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her vision for climate justice universities—and how modern institutions fail to meet it. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: It was interesting reading that your perspective on these issues comes both from your scholarly work and from a time that you worked on the administrative side of academia. Could you describe how those experiences came together to inspire this book?
A: I’ve been working in academia my whole career—more than 30 years—and during that time, I’ve been focused on climate and energy issues and sustainability from a very social justice perspective. What has happened through my experiences over time is that I see part of society’s inadequate response to the climate crisis mirrored in academia.
I think higher education has a really big role in society—in what we are doing and what we’re not doing, in how we’re teaching and learning, in what we’re doing research on and what we’re not doing research on—and I think that our collective insufficient response to the climate crisis is related to what’s been happening in our higher education institutions, which are increasingly very financialized. They’re driven by profit-seeking priorities and new tech and start-ups and focused on job training. We’ve drifted away from a public-good mission of higher education: What does society need in this very disruptive time, and how can our higher education institutions better respond to the needs of society, particularly of vulnerable and marginalized communities and people and households who are increasingly struggling with all kinds of precarity and vulnerabilities?
Q: How would you define the term “climate justice university”?
A: The idea of a climate justice university is a university with a mission and a purpose to create more healthy, equitable, sustainable futures for everyone. So, that is a very public-good mission. The idea is to connect the climate crisis with all the other injustices and the … multiple different crises that are happening right now; the climate crisis is just one among many. We also have a cost of living crisis; we have a mental health crisis, we have financial crises; we have a plastic pollution crisis and a biodiversity crisis; we have a crisis in international law and a militarization crisis. We have all of these crises, and yet what we’re doing in our universities tends to continue to be quite siloed and trying to address parts of specific problems, rather than acknowledging that these crises are symptoms of larger systemic challenges.
For me, climate justice is a paradigm shift toward a transformative lens, acknowledging that things are getting worse and worse in so many dimensions, and that if we want a better future for humanity and for societies around the world, we actually need big, transformative change. A lot of things we do in our universities are reinforcing the status quo and not promoting or endorsing transformative change. So, climate justice is a paradigm shift with a transformative lens that focuses less on individual behavior, more on collective action, less on technological change, more on social change, and less on profit-seeking priorities, more on well-being priorities. What do human beings need to live meaningful, healthy lives, and how can society be more oriented toward that?
Q: Can you talk a bit more about how the current structure of the university maintains the status quo with regard to climate?
A: One of the ways that I think universities kind of perpetuate the status quo is by not acknowledging what a disruptive time we’re in with regard to climate crisis, but other crises as well. There’s an encouragement on many campuses for kind of being complacent, like, “Oh, this is the way the world is.” Not necessarily encouraging students and researchers to imagine alternative futures.
There’s also a focus on doing research that billionaires or corporate interests want us to do, and—in particular, in the climate space—what this has led to is a lot of climate and energy research that is funded by big companies and other wealthy donors who actually don’t want change. We have more and more research to show who has been obstructing climate action and transformative change for a more stable climate future. We know many of those same companies and same fossil fuel interests have also been very strategically investing in our universities. What that does is constrain the research and also the public discourse about climate and energy futures toward very fossil fuel–friendly futures.
Early on in my own career, I worked on projects that were funded by the fossil fuel industry on carbon capture and storage, and a lot of the climate and energy research in our universities is focused on carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal technology, geoengineering—all these technical fixes that assume we’re just going to keep using fossil fuels. What we really need, if we had more climate justice universities that were focused on the public good and what the climate science has been telling us for decades, is to phase out fossil fuels. We need a global initiative to phase out fossil fuels. But we don’t have in our universities much research on how to phase out fossil fuels.
Q: In your book, you discuss the concept of exnovation—the process of phasing out inefficient or harmful technologies. Why is research into exnovation not already more common in higher education, and what are the main barriers for researchers who want to take this approach?
A: I do think funding has a lot to do with it. There’s a whole chapter in the book about the financialization of higher education institutions, which has resulted from kind of a decline in public support toward more private sector support, which means that universities are beholden to private sector interests, increasingly, and they’re encouraged and incentivized to cater to and partner with … private sector interests. I think that has really changed the kinds of impact that higher education institutions and research has had.
Of course, there are a lot of people within universities who are interested in the public good and doing research on exnovation. But the incentive structure, even among those of us who would want to contribute in those ways, is such that we are increasingly incentivized and promoted based on how much money we can bring in, how many papers can we get published and the scale of resources available to do research. So, there’s a larger, long-term strategy to orient research toward the technical fixes, particularly when it comes to climate and energy, and a lot less funding available for social change or governance research on how to bring back the public-good priorities in our policies, our funding, in our universities. It’s really a longer-term trend that has led to this financialization.
Q: You lay out a lot of alternative ideas for financing universities, which is important given that anxiety over funding is at an all-time high at some institutions. Walk me through some of your ideas and talk about the feasibility of restructuring how universities are funded.
A: One idea in the chapter on new ways of engaging and being more relevant is what if we imagine higher education institutions more like public libraries? Public libraries, we all kind of recognize as valuable resources for everyone; every community should have some access to a public library. What if higher education could be [better] invested in that sense of being a resource and not being an ivory tower that is really hard to get into and only some privileged people get access to? What if our higher education institutions were designed and funded to provide more accessible and relevant resources, co-created with communities? That’s kind of one of the big ideas of imagining what this really valuable resource could be more relevant and more connected to the needs of society and of communities.
You also asked about feasibility, and one of the things that I want to point out is that this book is not a how-to; every context and region and different place in the world has different things going on with their higher education institutions. The idea with this book is to invite us all to kind of think about, what is the purpose of higher education institutions? And how can we better leverage all the public investment that is already spent on higher education institutions? How can that be oriented toward better futures for everyone?
At higher education institutions that are feeling very vulnerable, having a lot of anxiety about funding levels—the ideas in this book don’t provide a prescription on how to fix that in the near term. But the ideas in the book are really to encourage us all—and especially those involved in higher education policy and higher education funding—to re-evaluate and reclaim the public-good mission of higher education and reconsider how to restructure higher education so that the value and the resources are more accessible, more relevant and more transformative, in terms of fitting the needs of a very disruptive time for humanity and for societies and communities around the country and around the world.
The Dartmouth College men’s basketball team is dropping its historic bid to form a union, months after voting to do so.
The decision, announced Tuesday, comes as Republicans are poised to take control of the National Labor Relations Board, which could affect who is allowed to unionize on college campuses. A regional office of the board cleared the way earlier this year for the players to vote on the petition, ruling that the student-athletes were employees and thus allowed to unionize.
Dartmouth disagreed with that opinion and refused to bargain with the team until the five-member NLRB ruled on the issue. Currently, the five-member panel has two vacancies, so incoming President Donald Trump could quickly reshape the board. In withdrawing the petition, the Service Employees International Union, Local 560, which represents the players, decided not to gamble with the new board and potentially risk a negative opinion.
“By filing a request to withdraw our petition today, we seek to preserve the precedent set by this exceptional group of young people on the men’s varsity basketball team,” local president Chris Peck said in a statement to the Associated Press. “They have pushed the conversation on employment and collective bargaining in college sports forward and made history by being classified as employees, winning their union election 13-2, and becoming the first certified bargaining unit of college athletes in the country.”
The Dartmouth team union threatened to upend college sports and added more urgency to the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s efforts to settle the question of whether student athletes are employees who can collectively bargain. The NCAA has lobbied Congress to pass a law affirming that college athletes aren’t employees. The incoming Congress seems likely to grant that request.
The Biden administration’s regulations changing how colleges are held accountable and adding new requirements for institutions to access federal financial aid are now in place, though legal challenges loom.
Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post/Getty Images
Colleges will have to submit to the federal government new data on their distance education programs under a batch of new rules the Biden administration finalized Monday.
The rules, which will take effect July 1, 2026, will likely be the president’s last package of new regulations for colleges and universities before Trump takes office Jan. 20.
The new regulations carry out Biden’s plan to increase federal oversight of online programs, but the final version doesn’t go as far as the president initially intended After receiving significant pushback from online education lobbyists, the Education Department conceded, backing off a plan to disallow asynchronous options for clock-hour courses or require colleges to take attendance in online classes.
The package does, however, still include rules that require colleges to report more data on enrollment in distance education classes, which include those offered online or via correspondence. Higher ed institutions won’t have to begin submitting the data until July 1, 2027.
“Online learning can reach more students and sometimes at a lower cost to students, but what we know about the outcomes of online education compared to traditional in-person instruction is woefully inadequate,” Under Secretary James Kvaal said in the release. “The new reporting in this final rule will help the department and the public better assess student outcomes at online programs and help students make informed choices.”
The final rule also included technical changes to federal college prep programs known as TRIO. But the department decided not to move forward with a plan to open eligibility to some TRIO programs to undocumented students—a long-sought goal of some TRIO directors and advocates, as well as higher education associations.
Distance Education
But one of the most controversial parts of the rule for colleges and universities was whether Biden would decide to end any asynchronous options for students in online clock-hour programs, which are typically short-term workforce training programs that lead to a certificate.
A Trump-era rule allowed asynchronous learning activities—such as watching a prerecorded video—to count toward the required number of credits in short-term clock-hour programs. But the department said in its proposal that because of the hand-on nature of many clock-hour programs, the change often results in a “substandard education” that “puts students and taxpayers at risk.”
Hundreds of professors and higher education groups disagreed. Some, particularly those representing for-profit programs, argued in public comments that the proposal exceeded the department’s authority and would burden institutions. Others said the new rules reflected an antiquated mindset about college modality, arguing that disallowing asynchronous options could limit access for students who benefit from the flexibility that online education provides.
While the department decided not to end asynchronous distance ed programs, the agency intends to keep a close eye on the courses.
“The department refined these final rules based upon extensive public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking published over the summer,” department officials said in a news release. “However, we remind institutions that asynchronous clock hours cannot be used for homework and that there must be robust verification of regular and substantive interaction with an instructor.”
No Expanded TRIO
Although the decision not to expand eligibility for TRIO has fewer implications for colleges, the move is a blow for the TRIO directors and immigration equity advocates who have been working for years to open up the program.
Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, told Inside Higher Ed that nearly 100,000 undocumented students graduate from high school each year, many of whom could benefit from TRIO services.
But Republicans opposed the idea. Six GOP members of Congress, including Virginia Foxx, a North Carolinian and former chair of the House education committee, blasted the concept in a letter to Secretary Miguel Cardona in August.
“The proposed expansion is a blatant attempt to provide additional taxpayer-funded services to those not seeking citizenship in the name of reducing ‘burden.’ The department’s proposed expansion will stretch funding thin and risk those currently eligible for TRIO,” they wrote.
Some college administrators and TRIO directors in red states are worried about the potential political backlash Biden’s new regulation could cause for their programs.
“The fighter in me thinks that this is a tough time to go to battle and have an unforced error or a target on our backs and [on] TRIO, given the contentious nature of immigration policy right now,” Geoffrey Garner, a TRIO program director from Oregon, said in at January 2024 advisory committee meeting. “We just think right now is not the best time for this proposal, as much as it breaks my heart to say that out loud.”
That advisory committee ended up backing the changes to expand some TRIO programs to undocumented students.
Education Department officials said its decision wasn’t due to political tensions. Rather, they said the proposal “was too narrow … in scope of additional populations to be served.”
Under the department’s proposed rule, high school students who aren’t citizens or permanent residents could qualify for Upward Bound, Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers but not Student Support Services or the McNair Scholars Program.
“An expansion of student eligibility under only certain TRIO programs would create confusion, as many grantees administer grants under more than one TRIO program,” officials wrote in the final rule. “Eligibility for only certain TRIO programs would increase administrative burden by requiring grantees to deny similarly situated noncitizens from participating under certain TRIO programs, but not others.”
