High tuition rates and cost-of-living expenses can make it difficult for students to make ends meet in the present, but that doesn’t mean they’re not worried about future financial burdens. A 2025 Student Voice survey found that one in five respondents say their biggest source of stress when considering their post-college future is “affording life after graduation.”
A 2024 survey by Handshake found that more than 40 percent of students have thought at least “a fair amount” about planning for retirement; 15 percent say it’s a major focus area. However, a majority of young people are not saving for retirement (61 percent), according to a 2024 survey by CNBC and Generation Lab.
By the numbers: Nationally, about three in five adults have a retirement savings plan, with more college graduates (81 percent) likely to have a retirement plan than those with some college (58 percent) or those without a college education (39 percent), according to 2025 Gallup data. Young adults between 18 and 29 were less likely to be planning for retirement in general. However, many Gen Zers have aspirations to retire by age 65, 2024 Morning Consult data showed.
Preparing students for financial stability beyond college also has implications for their families; over half of students told Handshake they plan to provide financial support for older family members during their career.
Previous research shows that some graduates who take on large amounts of debt to attend college may be less likely to reach adequate retirement wealth. One study found that graduates in 60 percent of majors analyzed—including education, political science, journalism, biology and general business—were unable to reach $290,000 in retirement savings by age 65. For students who held $40,000 in debt, “80 percent of all majors will not reach a sufficient level of financial wealth to have a 50/50 chance of not outliving their money at retirement,” according to the report.
Future planning: To help students prepare for the future, some colleges and universities offer financial planning support or supply resources on financial education.
Many institutions partner with iGrad, which provides financial literacy training. iGrad offers courses for students to help them plan for retirement, with content including understanding tax implications, identifying Social Security benefits and navigating common retirement pitfalls. The platform also has a retirement analyzer tool to help students understand the gap between their retirement savings and their goals.
Kansas State University’s Powercat Financial division offers peer counselors and staff who can answer questions about retirement planning and help students navigate various accounts that might be available to them. The university has also created blog posts that detail how to evaluate employee benefits.
Two-thirds of undergraduates surveyed by Handshake said they wouldn’t accept a job that didn’t include retirement benefits, and an additional 32 percent said retirement benefits aren’t essential, but they are important.
Trinity College’s website features a Retirement 101 guide, which helps students understand when they might decide to retire, how to calculate comfortable retirement savings and how investing can factor into retirement income.
Wellesley College encourages students both to save for their own sake and also to consider how they can give back to the college through a charitable remainder trust or by deeding their residence to the college.
How does your college or university encourage students to practice wise money habits? Tell us about it.
The University of Alabama has ended two student magazines, citing “legal obligations.”
Carmen K Sisson/iStock/Getty Images
The University of Alabama has ended publication of two student-run magazines, one focused on women and the other on Black students, in order to comply with legal obligations, officials say.
Local and student media reported that Steven Hood, the university’s vice president for student life, said that because the magazines target specific groups, they’re what the Department of Justice considers “unlawful proxies” for discrimination. Both publications received university funding.
The women’s magazine, [Alice], just celebrated its 10th anniversary last month, while Nineteen Fifty-Six, named after the year the first Black student enrolled in the university, says it was created in 2020. [Alice] managing editor Leslie Klein told Inside Higher Ed that university officials told her magazine’s editor in chief Monday that the magazines were being canceled because they’re identity-based.
“I think it is ridiculous,” Klein said. She said it seems like a decade of history is being “put down the drain.”
The university pointed to a July memo from Pam Bondi, in which the U.S. attorney general provided “non-binding best practices” to avoid “significant legal risks.” She wrote that “facially neutral criteria” that “function as proxies for protected characteristics” are illegal “if designed or applied” to intentionally advantage or disadvantage people based on race or sex.
But Bondi’s memo didn’t specifically say that a media outlet focusing on an audience it defines by race or sex is illegal. DOJ spokespeople didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions Tuesday about whether the department considers the Alabama magazines unlawful.
Marie McMullan, student press counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in an email that the university’s “unlawful proxy” claim is “nonsense.”
“These publications have the First Amendment right to be free of viewpoint-based discrimination, but UA is explicitly citing their viewpoints to justify killing their publications,” McMullan said. “No federal antidiscrimination law authorizes the university to silence student media it dislikes.”
Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel for the Student Press Law Center, said he knows of no other university that has used the memo to target a student publication. He said anyone is allowed to write for these magazines.
“A student publication is not a DEI program,” Hiestand said. He said the memo says “absolutely nothing about denying students the right to talk about topics that are important to them” and “I don’t know what the university is thinking here.”
“That looks a lot like viewpoint discrimination to me, which the Supreme Court has said repeatedly is off-limits,” he said.
The university didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview Tuesday or answer multiple written questions. In an emailed statement, the university said the magazines’ editors and contributors “were informed of the decision to suspend the magazines effective immediately, with the Fall 2025 issue as the final issue.” It added that “staff hope to work with students to develop a new publication that features a variety of voices and perspectives to debut in the next academic year.”
“The University remains committed to supporting every member of our community and advancing our goals to welcome, serve, and help all succeed,” the university said. “In doing so, we must also comply with our legal obligations. This requires us to ensure all members of our community feel welcome to participate in programs that receive University funding from the Office of Student Media.”
This was Klein’s fourth year with [Alice]. “It really just breaks my heart,” she said.
Tionna Taite, who founded Nineteen Fifty-Six, said in a statement to The Alabama Reflector that both magazines are pivotal to the minority experience at the university.
“I am beyond disappointed in the regression UA has made since I created 1956 Magazine,” Taite said. “In 2020, UA made promises to be more diverse, inclusive and equitable. Five years later, I do not see any progress and their decision regarding both magazines confirms this.”
These magazines aren’t the first university student publications that administrators have curtailed in 2025. Purdue University said it would no longer distribute papers for The Purdue Exponent, an independent student newspaper, or allow it to use the word “Purdue” for commercial purposes. The university said it’s inconsistent with “freedom of expression, institutional neutrality and fairness to provide the services and accommodations” to “one media organization but not others.”
Indiana University also fired Director of Student Media Jim Rodenbush and canceled printing of the Indiana Daily Student newspaper before relenting and again allowing a print edition. Rodenbush remains separated from the university.
Multiple public and private universities announced job and program cuts, as well as other money-saving measures, last month in response to financial challenges driven by a range of factors.
Some institutions noted the loss of federal research funding, while others cited declining international enrollment amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on foreign students. Still others pointed to sectorwide challenges, including the worsening public perception of higher education. And some colleges cut low-demand programs to comply with state laws such as Ohio’s Senate Bill 1.
Here is a look at job and program cuts as well as other moves announced last month.
The center has been the state’s designated energy research institute since 1975.
UCF officials told the news outlet in a statement that the university “made the difficult but necessary decision to reduce staffing at the Florida Solar Energy Center to ensure responsible stewardship of university and state resources,” noting that the center was not financially sustainable.
University officials also cited a decline in external funding, which hampered research activities, as well as “recent shifts in federal funding priorities in energy research, including reductions and cancellations of key programs that historically supported the center’s research activities.”
In addition to cuts at the Florida Solar Energy Center, UCF also laid off six employees in its technology department and two workers at the UCF Arboretum, The Orlando Sentinel reported.
Lewis University
Citing a significant decline in international students, the private university in Illinois is cutting 10 percent of its workforce through a combination of layoffs and buyouts, Shaw Local reported.
Altogether, 63 people are on the way out.
The university reportedly laid off 17 staff members and 16 professors and eliminated some vacant roles. Some eligible employees opted into early retirement programs offered by the university.
Lewis officials told the news outlet that international enrollment has collapsed, dropping from a peak of 1,417 students to just 847 this fall. That decline comes amid a flurry of action at the federal level, where the Trump administration has sought to limit international enrollment and increased scrutiny of foreign college applicants as it takes a hard line on immigration policy over all.
Calvin University
The private Christian university in Michigan is shedding jobs and programs as part of a restructuring that will see multiple faculty members laid off over two years, MLive reported.
Calvin is cutting 12.5 percent of the faculty. While the university did not specify a precise head count, it employed 363 faculty members last fall, 197 of whom were full-time, according to its Common Data Set. Based on those numbers, Calvin appears poised to cut as many as 45 professors.
University officials declined to provide the exact number of jobs cut to Inside Higher Ed.
“Most of these departures are voluntary (e.g., retirements, voluntary exit incentive packages, etc.), and many were identified during budget planning that occurred within the academic division last year,” President Greg Elzinga wrote in an email to the campus community last month announcing the changes. “Involuntary departures will amount to approximately 3% of our current full-time faculty workforce, and those impacted have already been notified.”
Elzinga also told MLive that Calvin’s finances remain strong and it is on track for a balanced budget for the current academic year, despite sectorwide challenges such as diminishing public confidence in higher education and international enrollment declines stemming from federal policy changes. Visa processing delays reportedly cost Calvin 65 international students who were unable to make it to campus.
Rider University
The private university in New Jersey announced last month that officials plan to lay off 35 to 40 full-time faculty members, cut salaries by 14 percent and enact other cost-cutting measures as it navigates financial challenges.
President John R. Loyack wrote in a letter to the campus community that the university was taking steps to address “the financial risks that have grown increasingly serious in recent years and have intensified in severity in recent months.” He noted that the university faces “a significant cash shortfall” due to “new and unforeseen developments” and could run out of money “to meet its payroll and other obligations before the end of the current fiscal year.”
Rider also plans to indefinitely suspend retirement contributions, increase faculty workloads, end faculty tuition remission benefits and cut some senior administrative roles, among other moves.
The university was placed on probation by its accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, in late October due to compliance concerns related to financial standards.
Keene State College
Grappling with a $4 million budget deficit, the public college in New Hampshire is cutting 25 staff positions and offering voluntary separation agreements to faculty, The Keene Sentinel reported.
Of the 25 staff positions cut last month, eight were reportedly vacant.
So far, 12 faculty members have accepted buyouts, reportedly in line with the goal of 12 to 15; eight of those professors will exit after the fall semester and four will leave in the spring.
Roger Williams University
The private university in Rhode Island is mandating unpaid furloughs for up to half of its full-time workforce in an effort to shrink a projected $3.5 million budget gap, The Boston Globe reported.
According to the newspaper, layoffs are not currently being considered.
A university statement described the mandatory, unpaid one-week furloughs as a “temporary measure that will allow the university to preserve positions, wage increases, and healthcare benefits for our dedicated staff and faculty, while maintaining the student experience.”
University of Providence
A split from the Providence Health System has prompted officials at the private Catholic university in Great Falls, Mont., to ask its Board of Trustees to declare financial exigency, NBC Montana reported.
While Providence Health has provided financial support, that arrangement is reportedly set to end in December 2027 and the university must become financially independent, which means plugging an $8 million budget shortfall. University officials told NBC Montana that it previously relied on $8 million or more in health system support to balance its budget.
Layoffs and program cuts are expected to be part of the financial recovery plan.
Cornell College
Multiple programs are set to be eliminated at the private liberal arts college in Iowa, a process that officials said in a statement last month was driven by student enrollment data and interest.
Majors being cut include classical studies, French and Francophone studies, German studies, religion, Spanish, and multiple music programs. Students enrolled in those majors will be able to complete their degrees through teach-out plans, according to the announcement.
An unspecified number of job cuts will accompany the program eliminations.
The New School
The private university in New York City announced last month that it is offering faculty buyouts, freezing hiring for certain positions, cutting pay for some employees and pausing retirement contributions for up to 18 months, among other changes, in an effort to balance its budget.
Further, the New School plans to pause admission to most doctorate programs for next year. Program closures are also expected.
President Joel Towers wrote last month, “The New School continues to face serious and persistent financial deficits that require immediate decisive action.” Now the university is offering early retirement packages to professors and voluntary separation packages to employees, as well as cutting top salaries by 5 to 10 percent. Still, he wrote that job cuts “will very likely be necessary” depending on “participation in voluntary programs” and “progress toward our budget goals.”
University of Lynchburg
Faculty buyouts are on the table at the private liberal arts college in Virginia as it seeks to reduce a persistent budget deficit it has been whittling down for the past three years, Cardinal News reported.
That deficit has reportedly dropped from $12 million in late 2022 to about $2.7 million currently.
Programs on the chopping block, all at the undergraduate level, include an integrated major in math and English, medieval and Renaissance studies, music theory, and musicology, among others. Students currently enrolled will be able to complete those programs before they are terminated.
Signed into law earlier this year, SB1 bans diversity efforts in higher education and requires colleges to drop undergraduate programs that yield fewer than five degrees annually, averaged over a three-year period. However, colleges can ask the Ohio Department of Education for waivers to keep such programs, which Ohio State has done for a dozen offerings.
Months after beginning to enforce unwritten policies about how faculty members can and cannot teach topics related to gender, Texas Tech University system officials released a memo Monday that officially put those policies—and more—in writing.
“Effective immediately, faculty must not include or advocate in any form course content that conflicts with the following standards,” Chancellor Brandon Creighton wrote in the memo to system presidents, which was passed along to faculty members. The standards include specific rules around race and sexuality that were not previously discussed, system faculty members told Inside Higher Ed. The memo also enshrines that the Texas Tech system recognizes only two sexes—male and female.
The fuzzy anti-trans policies that were first introduced via a game of censorship telephone at Angelo State University in September have now been made clear and expanded upon across the entire five-university Texas Tech system. Course content related to race and sexuality is now also subject to heightened scrutiny. Although the memo doesn’t ban outright discussion of transgender topics or any topics that suggest there are more than two genders, policies across the country stating that there are only two sexes or genders have been used to restrict transgender rights.
Texas Tech is far from alone in its efforts; public systems across Texas have taken on varying politically motivated course reviews, leaving faculty members in the state angry and confused. For example, the University of Texas system recently completed a review of all courses on gender identity, and the Texas A&M system board approved a new policy last month mandating presidential approval for classes that “advocate race or gender ideology, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
According to Creighton’s memo, faculty members may not “promote” or instill the belief that one race or sex is superior to another; that an individual is, consciously or unconsciously, inherently racist, sexist or “oppressive”; that any person should be discriminated against because of their race or sex; that moral character is determined by race or sex; that individuals bear responsibility or guilt because of the actions by others of the same race or sex; or that meritocracy or a strong work ethic are racist, sexist or “constructs of oppression.”
Creighton defined advocacy as “presenting these beliefs as correct or required and pressuring students to affirm them, rather than analyzing or critiquing them as one viewpoint among others. This also includes course content that promotes activism on issues related to race or sex, rather than academic instruction.”
The memo also outlines a Board of Regents–controlled review process, complete with a flowchart, for courses that include content related to gender identity and sexuality. Although race is mentioned earlier in the memo, it’s unclear whether race-related course content will also be subject to this review.
“We’ve been in this slow rollout process already. We had to go through all of the courses and essentially do the flowchart before the flowchart existed,” said a faculty member at Angelo State who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. “Anything that would cover transgender [people] was flagged.”
Creighton, a former member of the Texas State Senate, justified the new rules using Senate Bill 37, a law he sponsored earlier this year that, among other things, gave the control of faculty senates to public institution governing boards and established a once-every-five-years review process for general education curricula. An earlier version of the bill that passed the Senate contained language that’s very similar to the restrictions in the Texas Tech memo, including censoring specific course topics that suggest any social, political or religious belief is superior to another and allowing administrators to unilaterally remove faculty senate members for their personal political advocacy. The existing law does not prohibit teaching about transgender identity, racial inequality, systemic racism, homosexuality or any other individual topic.
“This directive is the first step of the Board of Regents’ ongoing implementation of its statutory responsibility to review and oversee curriculum under Senate Bill 37 and related provisions of the Education Code. This curriculum review under Senate Bill 37 will, in part, ensure each university is offering degrees of value,” Creighton wrote.
Texas Tech University system spokespeople did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about the memo, including what next steps might be.
“The Board’s responsibility is to safeguard the integrity of our academic mission and maintain the trust of Texans,” Board of Regents chairman Cody Campbell said in a news release. “The Board welcomed the clarity provided by Senate Bill 37, which reaffirmed the Regents’ role in curriculum oversight. This new framework strengthens accountability, supports our faculty, and ensures that our universities remain focused on education, research, and innovation—core commitments that position the TTU System for continued national leadership.”
Faculty across the system are largely upset about the changes but unsure about how to push back, a faculty member told Inside Higher Ed. One Texas Tech professor emeritus, Kelli Cargile Cook, told The Texas Tribuneshe began drafting a resignation letter.
“I’ve been teaching since 1981 and this was going to be my last class. I was so looking forward to working with the seniors in our major, but I can’t stomach what’s going on at Texas Tech,” she told the Tribune. “I think the memo is cunning in that the beliefs that it lists are, at face value, something you could agree with. But when you think about how this would be put into practice, where a Board of Regents approves a curriculum—people who are politically appointed, not educated, not researchers—that move is a slippery slope.”
Brian Evans, president of the Texas chapter of the American Association of University Professors, criticized the memo Tuesday.
“Empowering administrators to censor faculty experts’ teaching decisions does a disservice to the university, its students and the state,” Evans said. “Such a system is inconsistent with long-standing principles of academic freedom, university policy and the First Amendment.”
Graham Piro, faculty legal defense fund fellow for campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, decried the memo in a statement Tuesday.
“The Texas Tech memo unconstitutionally singles out specific viewpoints on these topics, implying that faculty members must adhere to the state’s line on these issues—and that dissenters face punishment. The memo is also so broadly worded that an overzealous administration could easily punish a professor who seeks to provoke arguments in class or advocates outside the classroom for changes to curricula that reflect developments in teaching,” Piro said.
“Decades ago, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment ‘does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.’ It instead wrote that ‘truth’ is discovered not by ‘authoritative selection,’ but ‘out of a multitude of tongues.’ These principles are timeless, and Texas Tech should not compromise them, no matter the political winds of the day.”
He also likened the memo to Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, currently blocked by a federal court, which severely limited how Florida faculty members could talk and teach about race, gender and sexuality.
When Collegedale Academy, a PreK–8 school outside Chattanooga, Tennessee, needed a new elementary building, we faced a choice that many school leaders eventually confront: repair an aging facility or reimagine what learning spaces could be.
Our historic elementary school held decades of memories for families, including some who had once walked its halls as children themselves. But years of wear and the need for costly repairs made it clear that investing in the old building would only patch the problems rather than solve them. At the same time, Southern Adventist University–on whose land the school sat–needed the property for expansion.
Rather than cling to the past, we saw an opportunity. We could design a new, future-focused environment on our middle school campus–one that reflected how students learn today and how they will need to learn tomorrow.
Putting students first
As both a teacher and someone who helped design our middle school, I approached the project with one condition: every design choice had to prioritize students and teachers. That philosophy shaped everything that followed.
My search for student-centered design partners led us to MiEN. What impressed me most was that they weren’t simply selling furniture. They were invested in research–constantly asking what classrooms need to evolve and then designing for that reality. Every piece we chose was intentional, not about aesthetics alone, but about how it could empower learners and teachers.
Spaces that do more
From the beginning, our vision emphasized flexibility, belonging, and joy. Every area needed to “do more,” adapting seamlessly to different uses throughout the day. To achieve this, we focused on designing spaces that could shift in purpose while still sparking curiosity and connection.
Community hubs reimagined: Our cafeteria and media center now transform into classrooms, performance stages, or meeting spaces with minimal effort, maximizing every square foot.
Interactive, sensory-rich design: An interactive wall panel with a ball run, sensory boards, and flexible seating encourages students to collaborate and explore beyond traditional instruction.
Learning everywhere: Even hallways and lobbies have become extensions of the classroom. With mobile whiteboards, soft seating, and movable tables, these spaces host tutoring sessions, small groups, and parent meetings.
Outdoor classrooms: Students gather at the campus creek for science lessons, spread out at outdoor tables that double as project workspaces, and find joy in spaces designed for both inquiry and play. Walking into the building, students immediately understood it was made for them. They take pride in exploring, rearranging furniture, and claiming ownership of their environment. That sense of belonging is priceless and drives real engagement in the learning.
Supporting teachers through change
For teachers accustomed to traditional layouts, the shift to flexible spaces required trust and support. At first, some colleagues wondered how the new design would fit with their routines. But once they began teaching in the space, the transformation was rapid. Within weeks, they were moving furniture to match their themes, discovering new instructional strategies, and finding creative ways to engage students.
The beauty of this approach is that it doesn’t dictate a single method. Instead, it enables teachers to adapt the space to their vision. Watching colleagues gain confidence and joy in their teaching reinforced our original intent: create an environment that empowers educators as much as it excites students.
A partnership that mattered
No school leader undertakes a project like this alone. For us, partnership was everything. The team that supported our vision felt less like outside vendors and more like collaborators who shared our dream.
They weren’t just delivering products; they were helping us shape a culture. Their excitement matched ours at every step, and together, we turned ideas into realities that continue to inspire.
Immediate and lasting impact
The outcomes of the project were visible from day one. Students lit up as they explored the new features. Teachers discovered fresh energy in their classrooms. Parents, many of whom remembered the old building, were struck by how clearly the new design signaled a commitment to modern learning and to prioritizing their children’s futures.
Financially, the project was also a smart investment. Multi-purpose areas and durable, mobile furnishings mean that every dollar spent generates long-term value. And because the spaces were designed with flexibility in mind, they will remain relevant even as instructional practices evolve.
Looking ahead
The success of our elementary project has created momentum for what’s next. Collegedale is already planning high school renovations guided by the same student-first philosophy. The excitement is contagious, not just for our community but for how it models what schools can achieve when they align design with mission.
For me, this project was never just about furniture. It was about creating a culture where curiosity, creativity, and joy thrive every day. With the right partners and a clear vision, schools can build environments where students feel they belong and where teachers are empowered to do their best work.
As education leaders consider their own building projects, my advice is simple: design for the learners first. When students walk into a space and know, without a doubt, that it was built for them, everything else follows.
Beth Stone, Collegedale Academy
Beth Stone serves as a designer and visual arts teacher at Collegedale Academy in Chattanooga, TN.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
More colleges and universities are seeking ways to embed work-based learning into the student experience, ensuring graduates are prepared to tackle their first job.
The University of Delaware’s Lerner College of Business and Economics received a grant in January from the Delaware Workforce Development Board to create yearlong employment opportunities for current students, connecting them with businesses across the state that are interested in hiring local talent. Program leaders say the goal is to provide deeper learning opportunities for students and create a talent pipeline for the region.
“We want to keep homegrown talent here in Delaware after they graduate,” said Scott Malfitano, chair of the Delaware Workforce Development Board, in a press release. “We also want to keep those students who come from out of state to Delaware here when they see the wonderful opportunities that are available.”
Part of the challenge is that companies in Delaware compete for talent with employers in nearby regions including Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia; and New York, Malfitano said. “We want [students] to see the opportunities that are here, and they’ll find out that businesses are hungry and they want to keep the talent here.”
How it works: The Lerner Co-Op program launched in January. The university’s career center solicited businesses in the region to host co-op participants and opened a form for students to apply. In the spring, companies provided job descriptions, and students submitted applications before being selected for interviews by the employers.
The co-op officially started in June, when students began their full-time summer internships, working 40 hours per week. Since classes started back up in the fall, students continue to work up to 20 hours per week, which they will do until next spring.
“A lot of our students tend to intern in the summer for eight to 10 weeks, which is great, but we wanted for them to have a much longer experience to build their résumé, build their networks and make money,” Jill Panté, director of Lerner career services, said in a January press release.
Grant funding was used to hire a program coordinator to oversee the co-op, including posting positions, scheduling interviews and assisting with the offer process, Panté said.
The impact: For the initial cohort, 25 students were placed with 21 employers, including WSFS Bank, JPMorgan Chase, 2L Race Services, the Siegfried Group and DuPont. Student roles include business operations, event coordination and data product solutions.
Feedback from participants, collected in surveys and blog posts, showed that continuing the work beyond the summer has been productive for both students and employers. Employers get more work done, and students expand their learning experiences and benefit from longer-term mentors who provide career advice and support during the program.
Looking ahead, the university hopes to grow the program to 50 companies in the next year, allowing additional students to participate.
Does your college or university provide paid work experiences for students during the academic year? Tell us more here.
As a PR professional, you can equip students on your campus with the skills and confidence to excel in interviews. Here are four reasons why you should invest the time and resources in media training your students.
It makes your life easier. When a reporter contacts you and asks for a student to weigh in on the news of the day or your institution’s latest initiative, you will have a pool of students to pick from at the ready rather than reaching out to deans or faculty to find a student and vet them that day.
While it will make your life easier in the long run, it does require you to put in the time up front. Meet students on their timelines. Most student group meetings are outside of class time, so it might mean you are attending a student government association meeting at 8 p.m. or doing a Zoom training with the College Democrats or Republicans on your lunch break.
It helps students and the community navigate crisis situations. With protests becoming regular occurrences on our campuses and in our communities, media training students will help them remain calm under pressure. When a reporter is looking for a comment, students won’t just say the first thing that pops into their mind. They will know how to get their key messages across to the audiences they are trying to reach.
It’s not just national and local media students need to respond to; student reporters are often the first to approach peers for quotes. All student newspapers are online, can be accessed by anyone and are an extension of your institution and its values. Engaging with student media isn’t just a learning opportunity—it shows how students will represent themselves, which in turn has a direct impact on the reputation of your institution.
Many students don’t know they can choose to not talk to the media or say no to interview requests. We’ve all seen the videos of reporters knocking on students’ doors and the students saying something unfavorable rather than just not opening the door in the first place, or of students having a microphone put in their face as they are walking to class to weigh in on a subject they don’t know about instead of saying, “I don’t know.” Media training can help students realize they have the option to respectfully decline interviews and interactions, which can help alleviate the pressure they might feel to respond in the moment.
Students build career-ready competencies. Whether it’s an internship or job interview, being able to succinctly articulate their points will help students for the rest of their lives. From public speaking to leadership roles to internships, media training gives students skills for their future.
We want our students to be able to weigh in on important issues, and media outlets are always looking for a student perspective. For example, my team was recently on campus for faculty and staff media and op-ed training when a professor asked if his students could sit in. Afterward, one student drafted an op-ed that she successfully placed. I’ve also provided op-ed writing training to seminar classes in which students learn the nuts and bolts of writing an op-ed and how to get published as an undergrad.
Name, image and likeness (NIL) has changed the game for student athletes. It takes students out of the arena and into the public eye where their reputation will be on the line. If you are at a larger school, some of your student athletes may have their own publicist, but if you are not at school where the NIL money is flowing, media training helps prepare student athletes for local commercials, being the face of the pizza shop down the street or even a postgame interview.
When a scandal occurs—a coach is fired, or student athletes are gambling or being hazed—you want students to know they can come to you for advice and guidance when reporters descend on campus.
Students are the most prominent ambassadors of your institution. Media training isn’t about making them a professional correspondent; it’s about making them feel prepared when they are in the spotlight. Whether they are engaging in a protest, talking with a peer reporter at the school newspaper or navigating a postgame interview, media training can serve them in the moment and long term. It’s worth your time to engage with your best spokespeople.
Cristal Steuer is associate vice president at TVP Communications, a national public relations and crisis communications agency solely focused on higher education.
DHS said ICE arrested Sumith Gunasekera on Nov. 12.
Lawrey/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has detained a Ferris State University professor, according to a Department of Homeland Security news release that calls him “a criminal illegal alien sex offender from Sri Lanka.”
ICE arrested Sumith Gunasekera in Detroit on Nov. 12, DHS announced in its Nov. 25 release. That’s the date Ferris State “became aware of accusations regarding” Gunasekera, university spokesperson David Murray said in an emailed statement. Murray didn’t answer further questions from Inside Higher Ed Monday, including whether the university performed a background check on Gunasekera before hiring him.
“He has been placed on administrative leave while the university gathers more information,” Murray wrote. “This is a personnel issue and it would be inappropriate for the university to further discuss the matter.”
The university’s website lists Gunasekera as director of its Data Analytics Consulting and Research Center. A Sumi Gunasekera is also listed as an assistant professor of marketing.
As of last week’s news release, DHS said Gunasekera “remains in ICE custody pending further immigration proceedings.” DHS spokespeople didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions Monday about whether he’s still being held and where.
The DHS release says that, in 1998, “a criminal court in Brampton, Ontario convicted Gunasekera for utter threat to cause death or bodily harm and sexual interference and sentenced him to 1 month of incarceration and 1 year of probation.” Anita Sharma, group leader at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, told Inside Higher Ed the case has been archived, so she couldn’t provide further details Monday.
DHS’s release says “the convictions in Canada” rendered Gunasekera “ineligible for legal status in the United States.” Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS spokesperson, said in the release that “it’s sickening that a sex offender was working as a professor on an American college campus and was given access to vulnerable students to potentially victimize them. Thanks to the brave ICE law enforcement officers, this sicko is behind bars and no longer able to prey on Americans.”
Inside Higher Ed was unable to reach Gunasekera for comment.
If you are a leader, chances are you will find yourself in a lame-duck position at some point. When I announced that, after 16 years as chancellor, I would be stepping down to decompress and explore new opportunities, I thought I would be prepared. I was not. Then the calls from colleagues across industries started coming in—not to congratulate me, but to talk about the struggle of being a lame-duck leader. Their stories, filled with familiar struggles and strategies, closely mirrored my own journey. This article aims to help you navigate that transition in ways that benefit both you and your campus or organization.
The first thing to remember is that you are a lame duck the minute you announce your departure. Most leaders believe they will have the same standing in the institution until they walk out the door for the last time. Nope. It doesn’t matter how long you have been at your institution, how important you are or how much you are loved on and off campus: The process of transition has begun. After a flurry of contacts expressing gratitude and inquiring about what is next, the phone will ring a little less each day, substantive email traffic will drop and the work calendar will free up unless you force it not to (not something I would advise). People who used to drop everything when you needed them will take a little longer to get back to you. You may find fewer consultations on day-to-day operations and even fewer on questions pertaining to the future. This trend will accelerate as new leadership becomes more defined. This is normal. Don’t take it personally.
The second thing to remember is that if you have been at your institution for any length of time, you are likely going through a grieving process. This is the end of an important era, one in which your time and thoughts were consumed by your campus. You are going to go through some version of the five stages of grief without realizing it. You may find yourself preparing future strategic plans (denial), overreacting to comments or actions focused on the future (anger), or rushing to implement last-minute initiatives that will solidify or advance your legacy (bargaining). You may start to feel like everything you have done is being overshadowed by a campus focusing in on the excitement of a new era while leaving you behind (depression). Realizing that these stages are affecting your thoughts, moods and actions is important. The faster you can get to the fifth stage, acceptance, the better able you will be to help your campus transition in positive ways and gain a healthier attitude for yourself. However, it is important to remember that the stages of grief are neither distinct nor linear and you can be experiencing more than one at the same time.
From my own experience and those relayed to me by others, the following tips can help you get to the acceptance stage and achieve some level of peace of mind more quickly.
Focus on the needs of your faculty, staff and students. Helping to meet the needs of your employees can give you purpose in a world that suddenly has become confusing. They are also grieving, but their reality is different than yours. You’re leaving. They are staying and facing uncertainty in the future. They’re worried about the impact of this transition on their careers, jobs, colleagues and families. Their focus needs to be on the future. As the leader, your public demeanor can either add to their stress or help reduce it. Be positive, upbeat and supportive. Spend some time trying to understand the goals of people on campus and help position them for future success. I found my role became more of an adviser or mentor and less about being the boss, which had the added benefit of allowing me to engage in conversations about the future without feeling as though I had to control or direct it.
Reflect on the good you’ve done and stop worrying about what will happen when you leave. I’ve seen too many leaders, including myself, spend their last days worrying about what the next administration will do to their legacy projects or trying to find a way to determine the institution’s future direction. One greatly respected leader I worked for spent the last year of his administration developing a strategic plan that was DOANL (dead on arrival of the next leader). While the intent was good, the exercise wasted a lot of people’s time, limited thinking about new possibilities and even negatively positioned a few people who became inextricably linked to the “old” ideas of the last president instead of being ready to build on the ideas of the new one.
One of my employees was retiring just as budget cuts threatened the successful initiative she had spent 10 years implementing. On her last day, I asked her how she was doing. Her response was “I can’t control what happens to the project. It might end tomorrow. I know that I’ve had a positive impact on tens of thousands of students and teachers over the past 10 years, and I feel good about that.” That is a healthy attitude that I have tried to adopt as my own. Feel good about what you’ve done because that is what you can control. What happens next is not going to be up to you.
Check your ego at the door. Let’s face it. Experiencing “your people” turning toward someone new, talking excitedly about a future without you in it or expressing a desire to end something you started will hurt a bit. You may even find criticisms of your leadership in some of these conversations. No leader is perfect, and we all make decisions that upset some of our employees. That is part of the job. However, you will be particularly sensitive during your transition time. Don’t overreact, your lame duck–ness! Take a breath and think about whether your ego is driving your reaction. If it is, step back. Keep focused on what is in the best interest of the people who will remain after you walk out the door.
As you get closer to the end date, particularly when the new leader is named and begins the process of transitioning into office, you may find yourself fading into the background. Some egos can’t take it and their owners begin strutting their feathers around demanding attention. Others head for the shadows and disappear completely. Neither helps your campus, nor your mental state. In the beginning of my transition, I struggled to cut down the time I spent working on campus business, but I soon realized that I was filling the time with projects that would likely be DOANL. Once I realized I was working for my ego and not for the future of the campus, I cut back, rediscovered weekends and evenings, spent some time enjoying the exploration of future opportunities, and felt my mood improve. Balance your involvement. Don’t abandon, but don’t overreach.
Embrace the next leader. In the end, it doesn’t matter if your successor is your long-standing archnemesis from grade school, the most annoying person you have ever met or your best friend: It is your responsibility to position the next leader for success. Be honest, but positive and supportive. Build up your successor’s strengths and positive attributes to the campus. Reach out to whoever is taking the leadership wheel and ask how you can help with the transition. Advise where appropriate, try not to judge and remember what would have been helpful to you when you arrived at the institution. At a certain point the best thing you can do is get out of the way. The worst thing you can do is create more stress and tension for the campus community by undermining or opposing your successor.
Pay attention to yourself. You are a leader. You are used to keeping your emotions in check so you can focus on what is best for your campus and community. When you are asked how you are doing, you answer positively no matter how you feel and then turn the question around to focus on the inquirer. You may have convinced yourself you are feeling great, but if you are a lame duck, that probably isn’t the case, and how you are feeling may become apparent at odd times. Pay attention to those odd moments, because they’ll likely reveal what phases of the grieving process you are in.
One of my odd moments came a few hours before my farewell dinner, which at my suggestion was a roast (fitting, given my personality). As I was getting ready, I felt sick, my pulse was racing and my blood pressure was alarmingly high. My concerned spouse commented that the event was a significant and emotional one and, by talking with her I realized that I was still in denial. Though I had been working on transitioning others, I still hadn’t come to terms with the fact that I was leaving my job forever. The farewell event was an undeniable sign that my identity and life as the chancellor were ending. Once I realized why I was stressed, my anxiety went down and we were able to enjoy an incredibly fun and heartwarming evening.
Conclusion
The tips mentioned above can help you maintain focus as a positive and productive leader during your lame-duck phase, allowing you to effectively navigate the complex emotions associated with leaving your campus role. It’s essential to recognize that the grieving process is not a linear sequence of emotions but rather a fluid experience in which feelings ebb and flow. By regularly checking in with yourself and acknowledging your emotions while striving to make a positive impact on the campus, you can end your tenure with the appreciation of a community that is well prepared for the future. And as you waddle out the door for the last time as a lame duck, you’ll find yourself striding confidently with enthusiasm and optimism into your next chapter in life.
Kevin Snider retired as chancellor emeritus from Pennsylvania State University New Kensington after 16 years on Dec. 31, 2024.
It may sound perverse to say so. Our profession is under attack, our students are reading less, jobs are scarce and the humanities are first on the chopping block. But precisely because the outlook is dire, this is also a moment of clarity and possibility. The campaign against higher education, the AI gold rush and the dismantling of our public schools have made the stakes of humanistic teaching unmistakable. For those of us with the privilege of relative job security, there has never been a more urgent—or more opportune—time to do what we were trained to do.
I am an English professor, so let me first address my own. Colleagues, this is the moment to make the affirmative case for our existence. This is our chance to demonstrate the worth of person-to-person pedagogy; to speak the language of knowledge formation and the pursuit of truth; to reinvigorate the canon while developing new methods for the study of ethnic, postcolonial, feminist, queer and minority literatures and cultural texts; to stand for the value of human intelligence. Now is when we seize the mantle and opportunity of “English” as a both a privileged signifier and a sign of humility as we fight alongside our colleagues in the non-Western languages and literatures who are even more endangered than we are— and for our students, without whom we have no future.
I’m not being Pollyannaish. Between Trump 1 and Trump 2 sit the tumultuous COVID years, which means U.S. universities have been reeling, under direct attacks and pressures, for a decade. I started my first job in 2016, so that is the entirety of the time that I have worked as an academic. I spent six years in public universities in purple-red states, where austerity was the name of the game—and then I moved to Texas.
Now, we face a new onslaught: the supposedly unstoppable and inevitable rise of generative AI—a deliberately misleading misnomer for the climate-destroying linguistic probability machines that can automate and simulate numerous high-level tasks, but stop short of demonstrating human levels of intelligence, consciousness and imagination. “The ultimate unaccountability machine,” as Audrey Watters puts it.
Actually, I think our jobs just got a whole lot easier, because our purpose is sharper than ever. Where others see AI as the end of our profession, I see a clarifying opportunity to recommit to who we are. No LLM can reproduce the deep reading, careful dialogue and shared meaning-making of the humanities classroom. We college professors stand alongside primary and secondary school teachers who have already faced decades of deprofessionalization, deskilling and disrespect.
Counter to what university administrators and mainstream pundits seem to believe, students are not clamoring to use AI tools. Tech companies are aggressively pushing them. All over the country, school districts and universities are partnering with companies like Microsoft and OpenAI for fear of being left behind. My own institution has partnered with Google. Earlier this semester, “Google product experts” came to campus to instruct our students on how to “supercharge [their] creativity” and “boost [their] productivity” using Gemini and NotebookLM tools. Faculty have been invited to join AI-focused learning communities and enroll in trainings and workshops (or even a whole online class) on integrating AI tools into our teaching; funds have been allotted for new grant programs in AI exploration and course development.
I didn’t spend seven years earning a doctorate to learn how to teach from Google product experts. And my students didn’t come to university to learn how to learn from Google product experts, either. Those folks have their work, motivations and areas of expertise. We have ours, and it is past time to defend them. We are keepers of canon and critique, of traditions and interventions, of discipline-specific discourses and a robust legacy of public engagement. The whole point of education is to hand over what we know to the next generation, not to chase fads alongside the students we are meant to equip with enduring skills. It is our job to strengthen minds, to resist what Rebecca Solnit calls the “technological invasion of consciousness, community, and culture.”
Many of us have been trying to do this for some time, but it’s hard to swim against the tides. In 2024, I finally banned all electronics from my English literature classes. I realized that sensitivity to accessibility need not prevent us from exercising simple common sense. We know that students learn more and better when they take notes by hand, annotate texts and read in hard copy. Because my students do not have access to free printing, and because a university librarian told me that “we only go from print to digital, not the other way around,” I printed copies of every reading for every student. With the words on paper before them, they retained more, they made eye contact, they took marginal notes, they really responded to each other’s interpretations of the texts.
My children attend Texas public schools in the particularly embattled Houston Independent School District, so I have seen firsthand the app-ification of education. Log in to the middle school student platform—which some “innovator” had the audacity to name “Clever”—and you’ll get a page with more than three dozen apps. Not just the usual suspects like Khan Academy and Epic, but also ABC-CLIO, Accelerate Learning, Active Classroom, Amplify, Britannica, BrainPOP, Canva, Carnegie Learning, CK-12 Foundation, Digital Theatre Plus, Discover Magazine, Edgenuity, Edmentum, eSebco, everfi, Gale Databases, Gizmos, IPC, i-Ready, iScience, IXL, JASON Learning, Language! Live, Learning Ally Audiobook, MackinVIA, McGraw Hill, myPLTW, Newsela, Raise, Read to Achieve, Savvas EasyBridge, STEMscopes, Summit K12, TeachingBooks, Vocabulary.com, World Book Online, Zearn …
As both a professor and a parent, I have decided to intervene directly. Last year, I started leading a reading group for my 12-year-old daughter and a group of her classmates. They call it a book club. Really, it’s a seminar. Once a month, they convene around our dining table for 90 minutes, paperbacks in hand, to engage in close reading and analysis. They do all the stuff we English professors want our college students to do: They examine specific passages, which illuminate broader themes; they draw connections to other books we’ve read; they ask questions about the historical context; they make motivated references to current social, cultural and political issues; they plumb the space between their individual readings and the author’s intentions.
No phones, no computers, no apps. We have books (and snacks). And conversation. After each meeting, my daughter and I debrief. About four months in, she said, “You know, a lot of the previous meetings I felt like we were each just giving our own takes. But this time, I feel like we arrived at a new understanding of the book by talking about it together.” The club members had challenged and pushed each other’s interpretations, and together exposed facets of the text they wouldn’t have seen alone.
The literature classroom is a space of collaborative meaning-making—one of the last remaining potentially tech-free spaces out there. A precious space, that we need to renew and defend, not give up to the anti-intellectual mob and not transform at the behest of tech oligarchs. We have an opportunity here to stand up for who we are, for the mission of humanistic education, in affirmative, unapologetic terms—while finding ways to build new alliances and enact solidarity beyond the walls of our college classrooms.
This moment is clarifying, motivating, energizing. It’s time to remember what we already know.
