Tag: News

  • How colleges engage faculty in student career development

    How colleges engage faculty in student career development

    It’s spring semester and a junior-level student just knocked on a professor’s office door. The student has dropped by to talk about summer internships; they’re considering a career in the faculty member’s discipline, but they feel nervous and a little unsure about navigating the internship hunt. They’ve come to the faculty member for insight, advice and a dash of encouragement that they’re on the right track.

    A fall 2023 survey by the National Association for Colleges and Employers found 92 percent of faculty members have experienced this in the past year—a student in their disciplinary area asking for career advice. But only about half of instructors say they’re very comfortable advising students on careers in their discipline, showing a gap between lived experiences and preparation for navigating these interactions.

    Career readiness is a growing undercurrent in higher education—driven in part by outside pressure from families and students to provide a return on investment for the high costs of tuition—but also pushed by an evolving job market and employers who attribute less weight to a college major or degree for early talent hiring.

    With a fraction of students engaging with the career center on campus, delivering career development and professional skills to all students can seem like an impossible task.

    Enter the career champion.

    The career champion is a trained, often full-time, faculty member who has completed professional development that equipped them to guide students through higher education to their first (or even second) role.

    The career champion identifies the enduring skills students will develop in their syllabus and provides opportunities for learners to articulate career readiness in the context of class projects, presentations or experiential learning.

    The career champion also shepherds their peers along the career integration path, creating a discipleship of industry-cognizant professors who freely give internship advice, make networking connections and argue for the role of higher education in student development.

    Over the past decade, college and university leaders have anointed and empowered champions among their faculty, and some institutions have even built layered models of train-the-trainer roles and responsibilities. The work creates a culture of academics who are engaged and responding to workforce demands, no longer shuffling students to career services for support but creating a through line of careers in the classroom.

    The Recipe for Success

    Career champion initiatives serve a three-pronged approach for institutional goals for career readiness.

    First, such efforts provide much-needed professional development for the faculty member. NACE’s survey of faculty members found 38 percent of respondents said they need professional development in careers and career preparation to improve how they counsel students.

    “Historically, faculty are not incentivized to do this work, nor are they trained to do anything really career readiness–related,” says Punita Bhansali, associate professor at Queensborough Community College and a CUNY Career Success Leadership Fellow. “This program was born out of the idea, let’s create a structured model where faculty get rewarded … they get recognized and they receive support for doing this work.”

    Growing attention has been placed on the underpreparation of faculty to talk socio-emotional health with learners. In the same way, faculty are lacking the tools to talk about jobs and life after college. “As they’re thinking about careers in their own work, [faculty] are used to being experts in the field, and being an expert in careers feels daunting,” explains Brenna Gomez, director of career integration at Oregon State University.

    Second, these programs get ahead of student questions about the value of liberal arts or their general education courses by identifying career skills in class early and often. This works in tandem with shifting general education requirements at some institutions, such as the University of Montana, which require faculty members to establish career as a learning outcome for courses.

    “We knew we weren’t going to move [the] career-readiness needle by being the boutique program that you sometimes go to,” says Brian Reed, associate vice provost for student success at Montana. “If we really want to have an inescapable impact, we’ve gotta get into the classroom.”

    A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found 92 percent of college students believe professors are at least partly responsible for some form of career development—such as sharing how careers in their field are evolving or helping students find internships—in the classroom. Just 8 percent of respondents selected “none of the above” in the list of career development–related tasks that faculty may be responsible for.

    “It’s getting faculty on board with [and] being very clear about the skills that a student is developing that do have applicability beyond that one class and for their career and their life,” says Richard Hardy, associate dean for undergraduate education of the college of arts and sciences at Indiana University Bloomington. IU Bloomington’s College of Arts and Sciences also requires competencies in the curriculum.

    Third, career champions are exceptionally valuable at changing the culture among their peers. “Champion” becomes a literal title when faculty interact with and influence colleagues.

    “That’s a general best practice if you’re looking to develop faculty in any way: to figure out who your champions are to start, and then let faculty talk to faculty,” says Niesha Taylor, director of career readiness at the National Association of Colleges and Employers. “They have the same interests in hand, they speak the same language and they can really help each other get on board in a more authentic way than sometimes an administrator could,” adds Taylor, a former career champion for the City University of New York system.

    Becoming an Expert

    Each institution takes a slightly different approach to how they mint their faculty champions.

    Oregon State University launched its Career Champion program in 2020 as part of a University Innovation Alliance project to better connect learners with career information in the classroom, explains Gomez.

    The six-week program is led by the Career Development Center and runs every academic term, engaging a cohort of five to 15 faculty members and instructors who belong to various colleges and campuses at OSU. During one session and a few hours of work independently, program participants complete collaborative course redesign projects and education around inequities in career development.

    By the end of the quarter, faculty have built three deliverables for their course: a NACE competency career map, a syllabus statement that includes at least one competency and a new or revamped lecture activity or assignment that highlights career skills.

    After completing the program, professors can join a community of practice and receive a monthly newsletter from the career center to continuously engage in career education through research, events or resources for students.

    IU Bloomington and Virginia Commonwealth University are among institutions that have created workshop series for faculty to identify or embed competencies in their courses, as well.

    Training the Trainer

    Creating change on the academic side of a college is a historically difficult task for an administrator, because it can be like leading a horse to water. Getting faculty engaged across campus is the goal, but starting with the existing cheerleaders is the first step, campus leaders say.

    3 Tips for Launching Faculty Development

    For institutions looking to create a champion program, or something similar, NACE’s Taylor encourages administrators to:

    • Get leadership on board
    • Make the professional development process meaningful through incentives or compensation
    • Provide ways for professors to share their stories after completing the work.

    To launch career champions at the University of Montana, Reed relied on the expertise and support of instructors who had previously demonstrated enthusiasm.

    “We found our biggest champions who always come to the programs that we do, who traditionally invited us into the classroom. When we said, ‘Hey, you’ve been a fantastic partner. Would you want to be part of this inaugural cohort?’ they said, ‘Absolutely.’ And so that’s who we went with,” Reed says.

    Montana’s faculty development in careers has expanded to have three tiers of involvement: a community of practice, career champions and Faculty Career Fellows, who Reed jokes are the Green Beret unit of careers. Fellows collaborate with a curriculum coach to research and implement additional events, training and other projects for instructors.

    After completing the championship program, some returned to continue education and involvement, Reed says. “We had [faculty] that wanted to come back and do it again. They wanted to stay part of the community.”

    The City University of New York selects a handful of Career Success Leadership Fellows annually who drive integration, innovation and research around careers across the system. In addition to training other faculty members, each fellow is charged taking the model to present and share with other campuses, as with their own projects for advancing career development growth.

    With added time and energy comes an added institutional financial investment in career fellows. Montana’s fellows receive a $1,000 stipend for their work, drawn from funds donated by the Dennis and Phyllis Washington Foundation, and CUNY’s fellows receive $2,000 for the academic year.

    The Heart Behind It All

    For some of these engaged professors, their involvement is tied to their experiences as learners. That junior knocking on their office door asking about internships? That was them once upon a time, and they wished their professor had the answers.

    “All of us have gone through undergrad. We know that we’ve taken some courses where it’s like, ‘Why did I take that?’ and the professor is just in their heads,” says Jason Hendrickson, professor of English at LaGuardia Community College, part of the CUNY system, and a Career Success Leadership Fellow.

    “[Career champions] are the people who, when you talk to them, they all say, ‘I wish I had had this in my undergrad experience … I didn’t know this stuff existed, the depth of the programs and services that we offer,’” Reed says.

    Faculty are also starting to feel the heat, particularly those belonging to disciplines under attack in mainstream media or that have historically less strong occupational outcomes for learners.

    “I think over time, what’s happened is faculty have seen how this is actually beneficial … from the point of view of our disciplines and allowing students to see why engaging with the liberal arts is actually hugely beneficial for career and life,” IU Bloomington’s Hardy says.

    “The question that keeps me up at night is how to retain college students,” says Bhansali of CUNY’s Queensborough Community College. “The data is bleak in terms of college retention, and each faculty needs to show how the content and skills covered in their classroom are going to help students in the future, regardless of the job they choose.”

    Sometimes instructors can feel overwhelmed by the programs, trying to incorporate eight competencies into their courses, for example, or feeling as if they have to be an expert in all things career related.

    “They can feel like, ‘How can I do all of this?’ And it’s really not any one faculty [member]’s job or any one class’s job. It has to be systemic in the college,” NACE’s Taylor says.

    The best part of the job is seeing students successfully land that job in their field. Sebastian Alvarado, a biology faculty member at Queens College and CUNY Career Success Leadership Fellow, ran into former students from his genetics class at a specialist’s appointment he had.

    “It feels really rewarding—they were really there as a result of their bio major training,” Alvarado says. “When we see students getting placements in their jobs, it feels like we’re doing what we’re supposed to do.”

    Looking Ahead

    There remain some faculty members who push back against careerism in higher education—and some who remain undersupported or -resourced to take on this work, Alvarado points out—but programs have been growing slowly but surely, driven in part by champions.

    Since launching, IU Bloomington has had over 300 faculty complete the program in the College of Arts and Sciences, Hardy says.

    Montana interacted with 235 faculty members in workshops and events in the past year, which Reed expects to only increase as more faculty members rework curriculum for general education requirements.

    OSU has had 105 participants since 2020, and the College of Liberal Arts established a commitment to train at least two faculty members in each school to be Career Champions in their strategic plan for 2023–2028, Gomez says. Campus leaders are also creating professional development for academic advisers and student-employee supervisors to train other student-facing practitioners in career integration.

    Furthering this work requires additional partnerships and collaboration between faculty members and career services staff, Taylor says, where traditionally there are not relationships due to institutional silos.

    “I’m always—and my career success team, they’re always—scanning for these partnerships, and we use our network of existing people to sort of make referrals,” Reed says. “It’s a benevolent Ponzi scheme.”

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our weekday newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Academic freedom doesn’t require college neutrality

    Academic freedom doesn’t require college neutrality

    Amid public campaigns urging universities to commit to “institutional neutrality,” the American Association of University Professors released a lengthy statement Wednesday saying that the term “conceals more than it reveals.”

    The statement, approved by the AAUP’s elected national council last month, says it continues the national scholarly group’s long commitment to emphasizing “the complexity of the issues involved” in the neutrality debate. “Institutional neutrality is neither a necessary condition for academic freedom nor categorically incompatible with it,” it says.

    The push for universities to adopt institutional neutrality policies ramped up as administrators struggled over what, if anything, to say about Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israelis and Israel’s swift retaliation in the Gaza Strip.

    The AAUP statement notes that “institutional neutrality” has varied meanings and that actions—not just words—convey a point of view. For instance, some argue that to be neutral, institutions shouldn’t adjust their financial investments for anything other than maximizing returns. But the AAUP says that “no decision concerning a university’s investment strategy counts as neutral.”

    The AAUP asserts that by taking any position on divestment—which many campus protesters have asked for—a university “makes a substantive decision little different from its decision to issue a statement that reflects its values.”

    “A university’s decision to speak, or not; to limit its departments or other units from speaking; to divest from investments that conflict with its mission; or to limit protest in order to promote other forms of speech are all choices that might either promote or inhibit academic freedom and thus must be made with an eye to those practical results, not to some empty conception of neutrality,” the AAUP statement says. “The defense of academic freedom has never been a neutral act.”

    Steven McGuire, Paul and Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom at the conservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni, called the statement “another unhelpful document from the AAUP.”

    “Institutional neutrality is a long-standing principle that can both protect academic freedom and help colleges and universities to stick to their academic missions,” McGuire told Inside Higher Ed. “It’s critical that institutional neutrality be enforced not only to protect individual faculty members on campus, but also to help to depoliticize American colleges and universities at a time when they have become overpoliticized” and are viewed as biased.

    Source link

  • Trump’s vision for dismantling the Department of Education (PBS News Hour)

    Trump’s vision for dismantling the Department of Education (PBS News Hour)

    The Department of Education is on the Trump chopping block. Details have not been fully released yet, but the president has signaled plans to dismantle it and move some of its key functions elsewhere. The department oversees student loans, federal funds for lower-income students, special education programs and more. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Laura Meckler of The Washington Post.

     

    Source link

  • Timothy Zick’s ‘Executive Watch’: Introduction – First Amendment News 457

    Timothy Zick’s ‘Executive Watch’: Introduction – First Amendment News 457

    By Timothy Zick, William & Mary Law School Robert & Elizabeth Scott Research Professor and John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship.

    I want to thank Ron Collins for inviting me to contribute a regular feature on the Trump administration and the First Amendment. To say I am delighted to be here masks a certain uneasiness with the project. 

    As Ron’s kind introduction noted, six years ago I published a book, “The First Amendment in the Trump Era,” that examined challenges to free speech and press during the 2016 campaign and roughly the first half of the first presidential term for Donald Trump. The fact that there was already enough material by then for a manuscript on the subject was deeply alarming. Matters did not improve. The book was published prior to (among other things) Trump’s threat to use military force to blanketly suppress all Black Lives Matter protests, and before Trump was accused of inciting the January 6 insurrection. 

    Skeptics at the time wondered how long the subject would be relevant — after all, how long could the First Amendment challenges of the “Trump Era” last? With the latest examples of disturbing suppressive actions, we now have at least a partial answer to that question. 

    Prof. Timothy Zick (William and Mary Law School)

    In all of this, it is important to keep at least three preliminary points in mind: First, suppression is not confined to a political party, be it Woodrow Wilson or Richard Nixon, and beyond. Second, since the First Amendment is a constitutional guarantee expressly limiting government power when it comes to free expression and faith, the primary focus is on suppression. Third, in this realm, as with any other controversial one, differences of opinion are inevitable. 

    That said, I have tried to confine my analysis to reasonably demonstrable claims of executive branch overreach and government-related forms of suppression. Although I acknowledge the difficulties in suing a president for First Amendment violations, the present concerns extend to the executive branch as a whole. In any event, I am interested not just in protecting individual rights but also the broader effect of executive actions on First Amendment institutions, values, and principles.

    While presidential actions have historically raised significant First Amendment concerns, the frequency and implications of Trump’s actions in this area are unprecedented. The current Trump administration has been described as “a kind of legal hydra, in which the defenders of the Constitution are facing one body with many heads, and those heads are acting in concert.” 

    While my book focused primarily on Trump, “Executive Watch” will take a broader view of the actions not just of the president himself but those working across the executive branch — as well as those, like Elon Musk and his underlings, who work on Trump’s behalf in a quasi-governmental capacity. While President Trump’s own statements, lawsuits, and executive actions will necessarily be part of the discussion, current threats to free speech and the press emanate from actors, institutions, and agencies beyond the Oval Office. Even early on, the Trump administration has initiated a whole-of-government effort that affects the First Amendment rights and interests of private speakers, reporters, legacy and social media, K-12 teachers and students, university students and faculty, government employees, and the public. 

    Starting to keep a record 

    President Trump’s litany of executive orders, including those relating to free speech and the press, have already received significant attention — some even positive. But given the general character and overall pace of things, it is easy to focus on the moment and miss the broader implications of the present time. When it comes to the First Amendment, in some notable ways the first Trump term and the second are related. However, this time the Trump administration’s actions will often be part of a more comprehensive agenda to challenge, and in some cases upend, bedrock First Amendment principles and values. 

    My hope is that “Executive Watch” will be a valuable resource for those interested in how the administration’s policies affect First Amendment concerns. As Ron notes, it is important that we compile and keep a record of this period for current and future reference. Toward that end, to close out this post I will provide a list of general First Amendment topics, with selected sources concerning each. I will update that repository as events unfold.

    Overview: Eight categories of threats to free expression

    With that introduction, this first installment of “Executive Watch” provides an overview and identifies various categories of First Amendment concerns relating to the Trump administration’s latest agenda. Subsequent contributions (which may be shorter) will place these actions in context and explain how specific executive branch actions relate to broader themes. I might also comment on notable executive policies as they are adopted and implemented, and in which ways they advance or curb free speech freedoms.

    ‘The lawsuit is the punishment’: Reflections on Trump v. Selzer — First Amendment News 453

    Blog

    First Amendment News is a weekly blog and newsletter about free expression issues by Ronald K. L. Collins and is editorially independent from FIRE.


    Read More

    In just a few short weeks, the Trump administration has taken an extraordinary number of actions implicating a range of First Amendment concerns. One of President Trump’s many recent executive orders expresses unwavering support for the First Amendment and promises to end censorship. However, some recent actions by  Trump and his administration are antithetical to those goals.

    1. Threats to the institutional press: “The First Amendment in the Trump Era” identified maintaining a free and independent press as a critically important bulwark against executive abuses of power. That concern has persisted — indeed, it has become more acute. As he did in his first term, Trump has continued to identify many in the institutional press as the “enemy of the American people.” This should not be treated as mere political hyperbole. The Trump administration has promised retribution and is targeting individual journalists. It has threatened to investigate reporters in national security cases, block media mergers, and deny outlets and reporters access to information. There is evidence these threats are already taking a toll on the press’s independence.
    2. Private lawsuits: One of Trump’s preferred strategies for bringing his critics to heel is the private lawsuit. Trump recently sued “60 Minutes” and CBS for allegedly editing an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in ways that obscured or improved her answers to questions, ABC and George Stephanopoulos for statements that Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil case, an Iowa pollster and The Des Moines Register for publishing a flawed poll showing Trump trailing Harris in Iowa, and the Pulitzer Board for recognizing The New York Times for its reporting on the Russia investigation. Fearful of government overreach, some media outlets have already settled defamation lawsuits for millions of dollars, raising serious concerns about press obeisance and lack of independence. High-level executive branch appointees have warned that the press should expect more lawsuits based on allegedly biased or critical press coverage of the administration.
    3. Threats to broadcast media: Broadcast media are also in the Trump administration’s crosshairs. The Federal Communications Commission has instituted investigations of media outlets, ostensibly for violating their obligation to broadcast in the “public interest.” The agency recently compelled CBS to disclose the transcript of the Harris “60 Minutes” interview and is investigating CBS based on that broadcast. Agency officials have also indicated that broadcast licenses may be revoked or suspended based on editorial and advertising activities or simply for alleged “bias.” Trump and his allies have also proposed defunding all public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, which present educational and other content including shows like “Elmo,” “Big Bird,” and “Fresh Air.”
    4. Threats to digital media: The Trump administration has likewise taken steps to influence and control the digital public sphere. Trump recently extracted a $25 million settlement from Meta (formerly Facebook) for banning him for his false and incendiary posts about the 2020 election. As president, Trump has refused to enforce a law requiring that TikTok divest from Chinese ownership, even though the Supreme Court upheld it. Whatever one makes of that ruling, after Trump’s effort to “save” TikTok, digital media moguls lined up to donate millions of dollars to his inaugural. Social media platforms also changed content moderation policies in ways that facilitate election denial, public health misinformation, and hateful expression. One thing Trump gets right in his executive order on free speech is that governmental efforts to coerce social media companies to remove content is problematic. However, unleashing online disinformation, misinformation, and threatening speech will fundamentally alter the culture of online expression.
    5. Threats to educational institutions: Similarly, the Trump administration has taken steps to control curricular and other expression in the nation’s educational institutions. An executive order calls for withholding federal funding from any K-12 school that teaches that the United States is “fundamentally racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory.” Another order purports to “end radical indoctrination” in the nation’s K-12 schools by ordering various federal agencies to develop a plan to eliminate federal funding for instruction relating to “gender ideology” or “discriminatory equity ideology.” The same order requires agencies to adopt “patriotic education measures” for use in K-12 schools. The Education Department has also been ordered to scour the nation’s university campuses and classrooms for anti-Semitism and discussions about race, gender identity, and other disfavored topics. President Trump has also ordered the Department of Justice to crack down on student protesters. The federal government has advised universities to monitor the activities of their foreign students studying on visas — so that officials can deport them if they speak out in favor of Palestine or Hamas.
    6. Threats to government employees: Agency actions and executive orders have threatened the speech rights of agency employees and government contractors. There is a widespread effort underway to purge public employees based on their lack of loyalty to Trump, their real or perceived political biases, or their participation in lawful trainings and other activities. FBI employees recently filed privacy and free speech retaliation lawsuits against the Department of Justice, alleging the agency has targeted them for dismissal based on their work investigating January 6 cases. The DOJ has also fired prosecutors for working on January 6 prosecutions. At executive agencies, new rules bar federal employees, contractors, and agency materials from referencing gender identity or fluidity. Executive orders forbid the federal workforce from engaging in events or discussions relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion and even bar employees from using gender identification in email correspondence.
    7. Suppression of vital information: The federal government provides vital information to the public concerning health, the environment, and other matters. Since the election, however, many agency websites have gone dark. The Trump administration has ordered executive agencies to remove information from their websites concerning gender, gender identity, contraception, climate change, and other topics. It has also ordered agency employees not to share the results of their ongoing work and paused federal funding for scientific and other research. Although the executive branch can set agency policies and formulate public messaging, efforts to broadly curtail the public’s access to information affect both the press’s ability to report on such matters and the public’s ability to receive information about public health, the environment, and other topics.
    8. Imposing official orthodoxies and suppressing dissent: Many Trump administration proposals and measures are aimed at imposing an official orthodoxy concerning various topics and issues. Still others target protected political dissent. The administration is seeking to impose official definitions of gender and approved narratives regarding American history, race, and patriotism. Since his first term, President Trump has made no secret of his desire to crack down on protest and dissent. During the 2024 campaign, Trump vowed to “crush” the pro-Palestinian movement. He has long supported making flag burning a crime. Imposing official orthodoxies and suppressing dissent are two of the broad themes that tie many of the Trump administration’s recent actions together. 

    Media on the run: A sign of things to come in Trump times? — First Amendment News 451

    Blog

    First Amendment News is a weekly blog and newsletter about free expression issues by Ronald K. L. Collins and is editorially independent from FIRE.


    Read More

    Below is a topical sampling of reports and commentary about the risks recent Trump administration actions have posed to free expression. 

    Actions against the press and journalists

    Defamation and related lawsuits

    Broadcast and public media

    Social media

    Education

    Public Employees 

    Data, information, and transparency

    Orthodoxy and dissent

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 456: “Coming soon: ‘Executive Watch’ — Tracking the Trump Administration’s free speech record”

    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

  • When the chair-president “marriage” goes sour (opinion)

    When the chair-president “marriage” goes sour (opinion)

    In a conversation recently with someone whose presidency and mine overlapped (1992–2003), we talked about how even though we worked 24-7 and lost a fair amount of sleep, we mainly loved what we did and even had lots of fun doing it. That is not what I am hearing today from presidents I know, nearly all of whom use language like “I’m worn out” and “I can’t wait to retire.” It is therefore not surprising that the average presidential tenure, according to a recent American Council on Education survey, has decreased significantly in recent years (from 8.5 years to 5.9).

    As I have often learned during my 18 years as a higher ed consultant, short presidential tenures take a toll on their institutions. Even in the best of circumstances, presidential transitions are time-consuming. Searches frequently take nine or more months, during which time planning and even implementation of previously approved plans often get put on hold. Departing presidents are frequently viewed as lame ducks, while interim presidents are often seen as placeholders, whose presence similarly delays institutional progress.

    Then, too, during the first year of a new presidency, campus communities generally are trying to decide if the new president is trustworthy and capable. If the previous president left under negative circumstances, people on campus are likely to be especially skittish about new leadership. Moreover, many new presidents are so focused on learning about the institution and its people that they defer important decisions until their second year.

    That used to make things difficult; now in these fraught times for higher education, it can be catastrophic.

    Successful presidents simultaneously serve a variety of different groups (students, faculty, staff, alumni, the community, donors and the board), many of whom have conflicting interests and concerns. As I tell presidents I coach, their board has the responsibility to hire and fire them, so their board is inevitably their most important constituency.

    Given the array and complexity of presidential responsibilities, many of which require confidentiality, it’s not surprising that a campus community doesn’t know all the ins and outs of how their presidents spend their time and the issues with which they deal. Indeed, on most campuses and even for some board members, the issues presidents must contend with are a black box.

    In this context, the president’s connection to the board is typically opaque to the broader campus community. Indeed, as is also true for most marriages, it’s almost impossible for those not in the relationship to know what really happens inside it. And of course, if a board loses confidence in the president, the result is a divorce in which the president is the one who leaves. (Two personal confessions come to mind in this regard: First, as a former Faulkner scholar, I am mindful of the importance of narrative, am alert to unreliable narrators and am always aware that history, culture and memory affect perception. And second, despite the fact that I have never taken a course in clinical psychology, I sometimes believe that clients with unhealthy board-president relationships may need a marriage counselor in addition to a higher ed consultant.)

    In any case, when the president-chair relationship is troubled, it is almost always presidents who find themselves on shaky ground. And although I am happy to say that the majority of president-chair relationships that I have observed are positive, I have been recently observed what seems to be an uptick in the souring of such relationships.

    Specifically, a dozen presidents—at least half of whom were in a second contract—have described their relationship with their chair as deeply problematic. In a number of these instances, I should stress, the chair who was in place when the president was hired has rotated out of that position and the new chair is for various reasons less invested in the president’s success. (Note: In the interest of confidentiality, none of my examples derive from clients with whom I have begun to work in the last year. In fact, a number of these examples come from institutions with which I’ve not had a consulting relationship but where I know well the president and/or the chair.)

    The most common complaint I hear is from presidents who characterize their chair as a micromanager who is inappropriately engaged in operational decisions—despite the fact that in every institution I know, board bylaws call for the trustees to delegate operational responsibility to the president. As a result, these boards often spend their time in the proverbial weeds rather than focusing on their primary fiduciary responsibility and their responsibilities for strategy and policies.

    I also have heard about chairs who have—without presidential knowledge much less involvement—talked directly with faculty and staff (and sometimes even students), ignoring the best practice that all trustees, including the chair, who wish to interact with those on campus should work with and through the president or, if the president so specifies, the board secretary. (The exception to this is trustee committee chairs who have direct conversations about the work of their committee with their administrative liaison, typically a vice president. At the same time, in healthy institutions presidents are fully informed about and often participate in such conversations.)

    Some examples:

    • A chair at a research university crossed the boundary from governance into management by inappropriately meeting with individual faculty members without the president’s knowledge in his quest to gain support for his personal belief that the provost should be let go, even though he knew the president wished to retain the provost.
    • The board chair at a liberal arts college met with individual faculty members without the president’s knowledge to dissuade them from addressing diversity or gender in their classes.
    • The board chair at a small comprehensive college met with members of the campus community off-site to seek reasons to let the president go.

    The first two presidents subsequently left the institution they were leading, dismayed that their chair was ignoring the fact that as president, they were the board’s only employee and that all other employees essentially work for the president. The third president ended up being fired, based on the chair’s conversations.

    Why has this happened? My suspicion is that it is related to the coarsening of discourse generally and the growing partisanship in this country and beyond. Until roughly the last decade, I was struck by how much those of us in the academy—faculty, staff, administrators and trustees—truly placed a high value on civil discourse, with colleges and universities typically priding themselves on being places where people could disagree passionately but with mutual respect, or at least the appearance of that respect. But in recent years, this is no longer the case. Instead, as we are seeing, families and friends are torn apart by differing points of views. Congress, which was once a place where people argued fervently with those with whom they disagreed but then spent congenial social time together, is now similarly torn apart. And although colleges and universities ideally should not be the playground for partisan politics, that is no longer the case.

    I believe that in this context, particularly at a time when so many colleges and universities are vulnerable (think for example about the enrollment cliff), the president-chair relationship is even more critical than ever. Presidents and boards, especially their chairs, are entrusted in different ways with the health and integrity—financial and academic—of the institutions they serve. Successful presidents and chairs both have a clear understanding of and respect for their differing roles and responsibilities. In the most successful of these relationships, chairs see themselves as the president’s strategic partner and presidents see the board as a strategic advantage to the institution.

    But in those instances where the relationship is strained, entire communities of faculty, staff, students, alumni, donors and others are often negatively affected even if few if any of them are aware of this problematic leadership dynamic. Indeed, members of the campus community in these cases are like families and friends of those in a fragile marriage—they don’t know what’s really going on, but they know enough to be unsettled.

    So what do we do about all of this? Although I know enough now to know that we aren’t likely to change the larger culture, I do recommend that college and university boards set aside time—certainly in new trustee orientation and at least once a year for the entire board in an executive session—to address the question of how trustees interact with one another and with the campuses that they have committed to serve. I further recommend that boards commit to a regular process by which they are reviewed. For example, if a board has retained an outside consultant to do a 360-degree review of the president, I suggest that they ask that same consultant to make recommendations about the board’s functioning, particularly in terms of its behavior in relation to the president and the senior leadership team. But most of all, I hope that trustees, who at their best are focused on the health and integrity of the institution, will understand how important it is that they model respect for others and the civil discourse that is necessary not only for board service but for the health of our larger society.

    Susan Resneck Pierce is president of SRP Consulting, president emerita of the University of Puget Sound and author of On Being Presidential (2011) and Governance Reconsidered (2014), both published by Jossey-Bass and sponsored by Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • The Common App welcomes community colleges

    The Common App welcomes community colleges

    The Common App allows students to submit applications to more than 1,100 higher ed institutions. But until now, none of its members were community colleges focused on granting associate degrees.

    The organization announced a first-of-its-kind partnership with the Illinois Community College Board last week, adding Sauk Valley Community, Rend Lake, Carl Sandburg and Black Hawk Colleges to its ranks. Three more two-year institutions will join next admissions cycle: Lincoln Land Community, Oakton and Triton Colleges.

    When the Common App launched 50 years ago, it offered high school students a streamlined application path to 15 private institutions. Since then, hundreds of others have signed on, most of them fairly selective four-year colleges and universities. The new move raises a question: What do open-access institutions, which accept all students, stand to gain from joining the application platform?

    Brian Durham, executive director of the Illinois Community College Board, said most importantly, it boosts their visibility.

    Starting this year, the Common App is partnering with the Illinois Board of Higher Education to support its direct admissions program to eight public universities in the state. As a part of the partnership, eligible high school students who apply to any college through the Common App will be notified of their direct admissions offers from these universities. Durham wants those students to receive notice about their local community college choices, too.

    “We want to make sure that community colleges are seen as an option on that list”—even “potentially a first choice for students,” Durham said. “It’s ultimately about exposing them to that as an option.” He added that students who gain admission to universities sometimes realize later that “they can’t afford it, or it’s not right choice for them.” This way, if they come to that conclusion after filling out the Common App, they’ll know which community colleges are “right there” and ready to serve them.

    Research suggests the move could offer community colleges an enrollment bump. The National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper in 2019 that found that institutions that joined the Common App enjoyed on average a 12 percent increase in admissions compared to the years before they joined, according to an analysis of Common App data from 1990 to 2015.

    Durham hopes that eventually all 45 of the state’s public two-year colleges offer a Common App application route in addition to their in-house application systems.

    A Decade-Long Effort

    Jenny Rickard, president and CEO of the Common App, said that the organization has been working toward representing a broader swath of higher ed institutions for a decade.

    In 2014, the organization stopped requiring member colleges to use a “holistic admissions” process—assessing students beyond test scores—in order to open up the platform to more institutions. The Common App also got rid of its requirement that applications include essays and recommendations. Then, in 2018, the organization launched a new application for transfer students applying to four-year universities.

    All those moves “opened the door for us to be able to welcome two-year and four-year public institutions into the membership,” Rickard said. She noted that, as of the 2022–23 application cycle, 77 percent of current Common App members admitted over 50 percent of their fall first-year applicants, a sign that the organization has moved away from serving only more selective institutions.

    The Common App also set a “moonshot” goal in 2023 to substantially increase its applicants from low- and middle-income communities, Rickard said. The organization aims to bring in 650,000 additional applicants from those backgrounds by 2030.

    Rickard said teaming up with community colleges is the organization’s most recent step toward diversifying both its member institutions and its applicant pool.

    “Bringing a greater diversity of college and university members into the Common App helps us pursue that mission, and it also helps students from all different backgrounds be able to see the great diversity of institutions in the United States and the world,” she said. “Most students go to more open-access and less selective institutions,” yet too often “we focus on the places that nobody can get into.”

    Durham agreed that the move could expand the Common App’s “footprint,” given applicants to community colleges are disproportionately low-income and first-generation students.

    “More underserved students are naturally going to go to community college for all the reasons we know: affordability, location,” he said. So, working with community colleges offers the Common App a new “opportunity to reach those students.”

    Steps for the Future

    As much as Durham would like to see more community colleges join the Common App’s ranks, he believes the platform will need to change to serve community colleges at a larger scale.

    Currently the platform is designed for high school students, he said, but many community college applicants are adult learners or attend college part-time. Those types of students are more likely to enroll directly at a college rather than find themselves on the Common App platform like high school seniors applying to multiple institutions with guidance from college counselors.

    “How do you get a 34-year-old guy who wants to go into welding to go through that application?” Durham said. For now, he expects participating Illinois community colleges will maintain their own “parallel” application systems “until we can work that out down the road.”

    Rickard acknowledged the organization has work to do to optimize its platform for a more diverse set of institutions. She hopes that onboarding this initial cohort of community colleges will help the Common App figure out its blind spots.

    “We know that we need to learn more about how our platform can continue to evolve to meet their needs more effectively,” she said.

    Source link

  • Endowment returns climb amid fiscal uncertainty

    Endowment returns climb amid fiscal uncertainty

    Endowment returns climbed in fiscal year 2024, offering a boost to university coffers at a time when even the richest institutions have been gripped with financial uncertainty amid the Trump administration’s attempts to freeze federal funding and change research reimbursements.

    One-year returns averaged 11.2 percent for FY 2024, according to the latest study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers and the Commonfund Institute—up from 7.7 percent in FY 2023 and negative returns in FY 2022.

    The overall 10-year return averaged 6.8 percent, the study found.

    In a press call Tuesday, Commonfund Institute executive director George Suttles noted that FY24 “was characterized by a strong U.S. economy, steady consumer spending, strong employment data, including higher wages, easing inflation accompanied by the prospect of lower interest rates, reasonable energy costs” and a prosperous technology sector, among other factors.

    The endowment study also noted increased philanthropy in FY 2024. Donors contributed $15.2 billion in new gifts to university endowments included in the study—a nearly 20 percent bump from the $12.7 billion donated in FY23.

    Altogether, 658 institutions with combined endowment values of almost $874 billion participated in the voluntary survey, with the median endowment value at $243 million. Nearly a third (30 percent) of the respondents reported an endowment valued at $100 million or less.

    “While a handful of institutions receive wide public attention for the size of their endowments, the vast majority of colleges and universities are working with a much smaller set of resources,” NACUBO CEO Kara Freeman said on Tuesday’s press call. “And as we review the total market value, 86 percent was held by endowments with more than $1 billion in assets.”

    NACUBO has conducted annual college endowment studies since 1974. This year’s iteration had slightly fewer participants than the 688 who responded last year.

    Top Endowments

    The nation’s richest institutions kept their status in this year’s study, with no changes among the top 10 and only minor fluctuations among the 25 universities with the largest endowments.

    Harvard University is still the nation’s wealthiest institution with an endowment of almost $52 billion, followed by the University of Texas system ($47.4 billion), Yale University ($41.4 billion), Stanford University ($37.6 billion) and Princeton University, with just over $34 billion.

    Endowment values grew at all of the five wealthiest universities except Princeton.

    Though average annual one-year returns for FY 2024 were 11.2 percent, the nation’s top 25 wealthiest universities mostly missed that mark. The outlier among those was Johns Hopkins University, which had a nearly 24 percent one-year return in FY 2024.

    In all, 149 of the 658 participating institutions reported endowments valued at or over $1 billion.

    Endowment Performance

    Like last year, smaller endowments performed better on one-year returns than large ones. Institutions with endowments valued under $50 million saw an average return of 13 percent, while those with endowments over $5 billion had the lowest one-year returns, with an average of 9.1 percent.

    However, larger endowments outperformed smaller ones over the long term.

    Across the 10-year mark, institutions with assets above $5 billion reported returns of 8.3 percent, compared to 6.5 percent for those with less than $50 million. Large endowments also fared better on 25-year returns, reporting 8.5 percent compared to 4.5 percent for those under $50 million.

    On the spending side, endowments funded an average of 14 percent of the annual operating budgets at the institutions surveyed, up from 10.9 percent in FY23. That figure was slightly higher at institutions with multibillion-dollar endowments.

    Study respondents spent a total of $30 billion from their endowments in FY24, up from $28.4 billion in FY23. The most common use of endowment dollars was for financial aid.

    Issues Affecting Endowments

    With the return of Donald Trump to the White House, college leaders have publicly and privately fretted about the likelihood that Republicans will ratchet up endowment taxes.

    During his first term, the Trump administration passed an endowment excise tax of 1.4 percent on investment income at universities with endowment holdings of at least $500,000 per student and a minimum of 500 students. Earlier this month, Republican congressman Mike Lawler proposed raising that rate to 10 percent and changing the per-student endowment threshold from $500,000 to $200,000, which would affect more institutions. Another legislative proposal would raise that rate to 21 percent.

    In a question-and-answer session on Tuesday’s press call, the tax issue was the first to arise.

    Freeman said NACUBO “remains opposed to the endowment excise tax,” arguing that it “diminishes the charitable resources that would otherwise be available” to universities for financial aid, student services, academic support, research and innovation, among other uses.

    Mark Anson, CEO of Commonfund, said the tax could hit some universities hard, including many Ivy League institutions whose robust endowments make up a higher percentage of their operating budgets.

    On the press call, Inside Higher Ed asked about the fallout of last spring’s pro-Palestinian protests, in which students at numerous universities demanded divestment of their endowment holdings from Israel or companies profiting off the war in Gaza. While the study did not touch on that issue, experts noted the protests sparked questions from colleges; Anson said some asked for more information about their holdings.

    While colleges have largely rejected student divestment demands, one win for protesters has been more transparency around institutional investments.

    “What’s come out of this is a continued push for transparency around how endowments are invested,” Suttles said. “Thinking about transparency for stakeholders is an important part of this work. I am encouraged by the calls for transparency, but in terms of actual investment or divestment strategies and a shift in that, we haven’t seen much from our perspective.”

    Source link

  • Community college to reconsider removed DEI materials

    Community college to reconsider removed DEI materials

    Des Moines Area Community College is planning to reintroduce to its website some materials related to diversity, equity and inclusion that it had removed in anticipation of anti-DEI legislation, The Iowa Capital Dispatch reported.

    The college first removed information about DEI on Jan. 25 in response both to President Trump’s executive order banning DEI “preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities” and to a state bill that would have prohibited DEI offices at community colleges. That bill was later tabled.

    The institution’s president, Rob Denson, told the Board of Trustees that the institution is now reviewing what information can be returned to its website. “What can come back, will come back,” he said.

    Source link

  • Trump appoints Biden critic Nicholas Kent as undersecretary

    Trump appoints Biden critic Nicholas Kent as undersecretary

    The announcement was leaked Tuesday evening.

    J. David Ake/Getty Images

    A vocal critic of the Biden administration will oversee the nation’s colleges and universities, according to a document obtained by Inside Higher Ed. 

    The president appears set to pick Nicholas Kent, Virginia’s former deputy secretary of education, to be under secretary at the federal education department—one of several appointees included on the document. Also on the list is Kimberly Richey, senior chancellor of the Florida Department of Education, who will be appointed assistant secretary for civil rights. (The White House has yet to make an official announcement, but sources say the list of appointees should be transmitted to the Senate soon.)

    Kent, who previously worked for a trade association representing for-profit colleges, will have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Currently, James Bergeron is serving as acting under secretary. During his first term, Trump didn’t appoint an under secretary, so the pick is the latest signal that his team is more prepared and more focused on higher education this time around. 

    “Nicholas Kent is one of the most knowledgeable higher education experts, possessing extensive technical expertise and a profound understanding of the complexities of education policy,” Jason Altmire, president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, said in a statement Tuesday night. “He is eminently qualified for the role of Under Secretary and will work on behalf of schools and students across all sectors of higher education.”

    The batch of appointees comes a day before Trump’s pick to lead the Education Department, Linda McMahon, will appear before a senate committee for her confirmation hearing.

    Kent has worked in Virginia since August 2023, overseeing the state’s postsecondary strategy. Before that, he was the chief policy officer at CECU, which represents for-profit colleges. In his role at CECU, Kent pushed back against several of the Biden administration’s policies. Now, he’ll likely be an influential voice on higher education in the Trump administration. 

    Trump’s first three weeks in office have rocked higher education as he’s moved quickly to target diversity, equity and inclusion programs at colleges and elsewhere in the private sector and the promotion of “gender ideology.” His administration temporarily paused grant reviews at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. That pause and other moves in the last three weeks have created much uncertainty for colleges. 

    Kent will be a key figure in carrying out Trump’s orders and translating the president’s vision into policy. He’ll also bring more policy experience to the leadership team at the Education Department. Trumps’ president-elect’s nominee for education secretary, Linda McMahon has limited experience in the world of education policy, but is seen as a loyal Trump lieutenant and business mogul.

    In Virginia, Kent has worked under Gov. Glenn Youngkin, whom some have described as a Trump surrogate. Younkgin has made it a clear priority to increase the government’s influence and oversight of higher education institutions, disallow diversity, equity and inclusion programs and combat antisemitism and “anti-religious bigotry.” 

    Before that, Kent worked for for-profit colleges, advocating for cutting the red tape found in several key policies of the Biden administration.

    “The Higher Education Act specifically limits the authority of the department to pierce the corporate veil and hold individuals financially responsible,” Kent told Inside Higher Ed in April 2023. “[The Biden] administration proposes to exceed this authority through new regulations and subjective guidance.” 

    The deputy also holds a master’s degree in higher ed administration from George Washington University and has worked as both director of policy at the D.C. state superintendent of education’s office and a staff member at Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools. He is quite familiar with the Education Department’s complex rulemaking process and policy issues that frequently cross the desks of department officials, including Title IX, student loan repayment, accreditation and online education.

    Kent has also indirectly voiced support for Trump’s idea of abolishing the education department, or at least significantly whittling down the scope of its influence.

    “Congress established @usedgov 43 years ago today,” he wrote in a post on X. “I can’t help but wonder if lawmakers who voted for the Department of Education Organization Act envisioned a massive Federal takeover of K-12 and postsecondary education.”

    Richey, the appointee set to lead the Office for Civil Rights, also spent time in Virginia, serving as deputy superintendent overseeing the division of School Quality, Instruction and Performance at the Virginia Department of Education before she left for Florida. Prior to that, she worked in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights during Trump’s first term. 

    Richey has spoken out against critical race theory, the Tallahassee Democrat reported. 

    “The teaching of CRT’s core tenets can be destructive and have a deep impact on students,” she wrote in 2021. “No child is defined by the color of their skin. Moreover, the teaching of these devastating principles violates the basic religious tenets many of these schools claim to uphold.”

    If confirmed by the Senate, Richey will play a key role in the Trump administration’s crackdown on transgender athletes. In the last few weeks, Trump has banned transgender athletes from women’s sports, and the Office for Civil Rights has opened up several investigations related to that policy change. 

    Richey supported the administration’s position during the first term, arguing in September 2020 that transgender girls who play on the sports team that corresponds with their gender identity discriminated against female-student athletes.

    Source link

  • The legion of journalists who report unbiased news

    The legion of journalists who report unbiased news

    Are you frustrated because politics is bitterly polarized? Have you almost given up on finding news that is fair, accurate, dispassionate and digestible?

    If so, I have a tip for you: Take a look at some of the major international news agencies. It may change how you consume news while making you better informed.

    Also called wire services, news agencies like the Associated Press (AP), Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFP) have thousands of multimedia journalists — and clients — spread out around the world. With roots in the 19th century, they have impartiality and a commitment to accuracy in their DNA.

    No news organization can be perfectly impartial. But the better wire services offer an antidote to the slanted and unreliable offerings that often pose as “news” on the internet but can represent little more than one-sided, sensationalized accounts that stoke social and political discord.

    Check out this chart: There’s a reason the AP, Reuters and AFP are considered among the most reliable and balanced Western news sources. It has a lot to do with their history and purpose.

    Fast and factual

    The AP, Reuters and AFP were founded in the 19th century to serve a cross-section of newspapers that could ill afford to have journalists around the world at a time when the appetite for international news was on the rise.

    To succeed, the agencies sought to play it straight and to deliver the news quickly and accurately. Their stock-and-trade was unvarnished, accurate, fast coverage that could win space in any newspaper, regardless of its owners’ or readers’ political leanings.

    “To achieve such wide acceptability, the agencies avoid overt partiality,” Jonathan Fenby wrote in a 1986 book on international news agencies. “They avoid making judgments and steer clear of doubt and ambiguity. Though their founders did not use the word, objectivity is the philosophical basis for their enterprises — or failing that, widely acceptable neutrality.”

    By the 1980s, the four biggest news agencies accounted for the vast majority of foreign news printed in the world’s newspapers.

    A great deal has since changed in the news ecosystem, much of it due to the invention of the internet. But most wire services continue to strive to offer comprehensive, impartial and accurate news reports, complemented nowadays by photographs, video and graphics.

    Keeping a cool head in hot spots

    If you’re home watching the news and there is a video report of an event in a far-away country, chances are it was produced by a news agency. Similarly, reports in newspapers, on the radio or even on the internet often come from news agencies, which typically have many more journalists on the ground than other news organizations, especially in hot spots.

    “The first word of natural disasters in out-of-the-way places invariably comes from agencies,” said News Decoder correspondent Barry Moody, who worked for decades at Reuters and ran the agency’s news coverage during the second Iraq war at the beginning of this century.

    “During the Iraq war, we had an army of staff in Middle Eastern capitals, embedded with American and British troops and as ‘unilaterals’ roaming the front. I can remember watching as we filed snaps revealing the speed of the American advance into Iraq and seeing the tickers on TV stations and the market screens lighting up at every new alert.”

    News agencies have been playing a similar role more recently in the conflict in Gaza. Although the outlets’ international correspondents have been barred from entering Gaza, Palestinian journalists have risked their lives to deliver timely accounts to the wire services from inside the enclave.

    With journalists and clients around the world, the big international news agencies look at events through a global lens. 

    Balanced news in a biased world

    Many of the thousands of correspondents who report for newswires are in war zones or disputed territories. To protect their staff and reputations, the agencies need to be sensitive to conflicting viewpoints, to cite reputable, credible sources and to avoid taking sides. That explains why, in a world full of shrill, partisan bickering, their reports can seem dispassionate, neutral and tolerant.

    Such balance is not always easy.

    Randall Mikkelsen, another News Decoder correspondent, remembers being a White House reporter for Reuters after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Bucking intense pressure from the U.S. administration and public, the news agency refused to call the attackers “terrorists,” instead opting for “militants” or “designated by the State Department as ‘terrorists.’”

    “Our stories were read around the world,” Mikkelsen said. “In some places, people the United States called terrorists were considered by the readers of our work as ‘freedom fighters.’”

    The internet has all but ended two of the biggest advantages that news agencies held during the analog era — speed and the ability to break news to huge numbers of people around the world.

    Increased competition for fast news

    The low cost of entry for competitors into the news ecosystem has undermined the agencies’ traditional, business-to-business model, which was based on the sale of news stories to mainstream media organizations, themselves under financial stress.

    So, the wire services have launched news portals for the public, giving consumers around the world direct access to agency reports. It’s been a challenge for the agencies to make money off of their consumer business, and services like Reuters and Bloomberg continue to pocket the lion’s share of their revenue from well-heeled clients in the financial markets even as they continue to sell content to news organizations.

    If you peruse the agencies’ websites, you’ll find a vast array of multimedia reports from points around the world. Their global footprint remains a competitive advantage.

    Still, as hard as the international agencies try to be balanced and fair, bias can at times creep in. Their journalists are not spread evenly around the world; many more tend to be in Western nations, whose businesses, advertisers and subscribers provide most of the big agencies’ revenues.

    So while a disaster that kills hundreds in a developing country in the Global South may merit coverage, it can be dwarfed by the attention the same agency will pay to an accident or event in a rich nation. As they say, follow the money.

    Still, as News Decoder correspondent Helen Womack put it: “International news agencies are on the ground in all sorts of places where other media cannot be, and they help to give us the bigger picture.”

    In some countries, local news agencies are controlled by the government or focus almost exclusively on that nation’s interests. They do not have the footprint of the big, international agencies.

    Said another News Decoder correspondent, Maggie Fox: “News agency-style coverage is just what’s called for in this age of mistrust and distrust of news — calm, dispassionate, just-the-facts reporting.”

     

    Three questions to consider: 

    1. What is a “newswire”?
    2. Why must newswires report news without bias?
    3. If you were a news reporter why might it be difficult for you to report without bias? 

     

    Source link