Tag: News

Former staffer alleges Liberty U ignored Title IX violations

A former Title IX investigator at Liberty University is suing the private evangelical institution, alleging he was fired for reporting sexual harassment within the office to his superiors, USA Today reported.

Peter Brake, a former investigator in Liberty’s Title IX office from 2019 to 2024 (including a three-and-a-half-year leave of absence for active military duty), alleges he was fired in June after he raised concerns about “multiple violations of law” to his supervisor and reported instances of sexual harassment of coworkers by another investigator, according to a copy of the lawsuit.

Brake also alleged that the same investigator, Nathan Friesema, was inappropriately directing the outcome of Title IX cases, including asking leading questions and embellishing complaints.

(Friesema did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed sent via LinkedIn.)

Brake’s lawsuit alleges that Friesema subjected a coworker in the Title IX office to inappropriate jokes, including about sexual assault. Brake eventually brought the concerns to Liberty University president Dondi Costin in late 2023 and to his supervisor, Ashley Reich. However, Brake alleges that he was then “interrogated” by LU’s human resources department and fired.

“Liberty University has received news of this lawsuit by a former employee, and we are reviewing details of the case. Liberty takes all allegations of wrongdoing seriously and has impartial measures in place to assure the fair and equal treatment of all employees. While we will not respond to these allegations in the media at this time, we disagree with the lawsuit’s claims and are prepared to defend ourselves in court,” a Liberty spokesperson wrote by email.

The lawsuit comes less than a year after the U.S. Department of Education determined that LU failed to comply with federal campus crime–reporting requirements and officials discouraged victims from coming forward, weaponizing LU’s code of conduct against sexual abuse survivors.

Liberty was hit with a $14 million fine for various violations last March and is required, per an agreement with ED, to spend $2 million on campus safety and compliance improvements. The university is also on postreview monitoring through April 2026 to ensure it enacts improvements.

Source link

February 28, 2025
Accreditors offer flexibility on DEI standards

President Donald Trump’s broadside against diversity, equity and inclusion has left colleges scrambling to determine how to comply—even as they juggle accreditation standards containing elements of DEI.

But even with an executive order from the Trump administration targeting “illegal” DEI programs at colleges blocked by the courts, and a Dear Colleague letter from the Education Department likely unenforceable, accreditors are treading lightly on DEI, allowing colleges leeway on complying to certain standards. If the accreditors didn’t provide such flexibility, colleges would essentially have to decide between complying with the federal government or with their accreditor—a nearly impossible situation for institutions.

Some, like the STEM accreditor ABET, have dropped DEI standards entirely. And the American Bar Association suspended enforcement of its DEI standards through August while it weighs revisions to such requirements.

As colleges feel the squeeze, some of the largest institutional accreditors have decided not to force colleges to choose between them or the Education Department, at least for now, largely telling institutions they will not be adversely affected if they fail to comply with DEI standards due to state or federal laws.

Accreditors Push Back

While accreditors allow colleges to operate with flexibility on DEI standards, some are also pushing back on the Trump administration’s crackdown, particularly the Dear Colleague letter that seeks to expand a Supreme Court opinion in the Students for Fair Admissions case, which shot down affirmative action, to ban race-conscious scholarships, programming and more.

“We would suggest that the [U.S. Department of Education’s] interpretation of SFFA is overly broad and expansive, a concern shared among legal experts,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions wrote in a letter to the Trump administration Monday.

C-RAC officials added that the 14-day deadline for colleges to drop all race-conscious activities is “unreasonable” and that “the expectations for institutional actions or the methods through which institutions are expected to comply with these broad reaching requirements are unclear.”

Numerous accreditors also signed on to a letter to the department from the American Council on Education, which raised similar concerns. That letter also noted that, “however one defines DEI—and DEI is a concept that means different things to different parties—it is worth noting that the range of activities that are commonly associated with DEI are not, in and of themselves, illegal.”

Offering Flexibility

As accreditors press the Department of Education for clarity, they have also provided guidance to colleges, emphasizing that their member institutions must follow state and federal laws.

“What we have said is that they can be assured we would not take any adverse action with regard to any of our standards if the institution is attempting to follow what they believe is a legal requirement,” Larry Schall, president of the New England Commission of Higher Education, told Inside Higher Ed.

Nicole Biever, chief of staff at the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, wrote by email that the organization has notified institutions “that the Commission would never expect any institution to violate the laws or government mandates of the jurisdictions in which they operate.”

She added that MSCHE standards “will in no way inhibit” institutional compliance with the law.

Barbara Gellman-Danley, president of the Higher Learning Commission, emphasized in an email to Inside Higher Ed that institutions must comply with all members of the regulatory triad, comprised of accreditors, state governments and the federal Department of Education. If “HLC’s requirements overlap with requirements from other members of the Triad, we work with the other Triad members to identify these situations and limit the burden on the institution,” she wrote.

“HLC does not prescribe how a member institution meets HLC’s requirements,” she added. “If a requirement of another entity of the Triad may appear to limit an institution’s ability to meet HLC’s requirements in a particular manner, an institution has the flexibility within HLC’s requirements to identify other ways to demonstrate it meets HLC’s requirements.”

In guidance sent to member institutions, Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission interim president Christopher Oberg noted that the Dear Colleague letter does not have the force of the law and encouraged institutions “to consult their own legal counsel to help navigate the Department’s guidance.” Oberg added that the organization “will continue to provide updates to member institutions as matters are clarified.”

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges has also emphasized flexibility in its guidance to members.

“It is important to note that as a federally recognized institutional accreditor, ACCJC would never require a member institution to violate state or federal laws and regulations or consumer protection clauses. As an agency, we are beholden to the federal government, state governments, and our member institutions, and work collaboratively and flexibly with those oversight partners to meet any and all regulations and communicate requirements to member institutions, as necessary,” AACJC president Mac Powell wrote by email.

What Are the DEI Standards?

Policies on DEI are as varied as the accreditors themselves, with different requirements or none at all.

For instance, NECHE’s accreditation criteria urge member institutions to address their “own goals for the achievement of diversity, equity, and inclusion” across the student body, faculty and staff.

But MSCHE’s accreditation criteria require institutions to “reflect deeply and share results on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the context of their mission” across areas such as goals and actions, demographics, policies, processes, assessments, and resource allocation.

“One goal of DEI reflection would be to address disparate impacts on an increasingly diverse student population if discovered,” part of MSCHE’s standards reads. Elsewhere, MSCHE indicates that candidates for accreditation should have “sufficient diversity, independence, and expertise to ensure the integrity of the institution.”

Other accreditors, such as HLC, say that an accredited college should strive “to ensure that the overall composition of its faculty and staff reflects human diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.”

Others, such as programmatic accreditors, may have more exacting standards. But some accreditors, like the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, have never included DEI criteria.

Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities interim president Jeff Fox told Inside Higher Ed by email that it too has never officially had DEI standards as part of its accreditation requirements.

“The NWCCU has no language in the standards pertaining to DEI, and it recognizes institutions are addressing the requirements of various state and federal laws in this arena. The NWCCU supports institutions in their efforts to address the DCL as appropriate for their circumstances,” Fox wrote.

‘Very Little Danger’

Some critics, particularly on the conservative side, take a dim view of accreditors’ DEI standards. Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the conservative Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, wrote in a recent paper that “accreditors too often abuse their power as gatekeepers” to federal financial aid, including in areas such as pushing DEI standards.

On paper, such standards look fine, he wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email. But he questions how such standards get enforced, arguing that “the problem is the interpretation of those standards. Accreditors can and do use vague standards to force radical changes on campus.”

Gillen pointed to a past conflict in 2000 when—he argued—the ABA “used innocuous and vague diversity requirements to force George Mason University Law School to discriminate in favor of Black applicants by simply rejecting anything the university did short of discriminating.”

But Gillen believes colleges face little risk if they fail to comply with accreditors’ DEI standards.

“Colleges are in very little danger so long as they follow federal civil rights laws, which have largely reverted to their original intention of promoting colorblindness,” he wrote. “Any state or accreditor that requires violating these laws will find itself in a world of legal trouble. Accreditors that ignore civil rights laws would lose their recognition from the Department of Education, and colleges that followed such requirements would also lose access to federal aid programs.”

Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the progressive Century Foundation and a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises the education secretary on accreditation, downplays the notion that accreditors’ DEI standards are burdensome.

Typically, he told Inside Higher Ed, accreditors’ DEI requirements are minimal. Such standards tend to focus on inclusivity, but he notes that accreditors are “not enforcing any kind of quota.”

At a recent NACIQI meeting, he said when asked about changing DEI standards, accreditors indicated they didn’t plan to do so because “they feel that there’s nothing inappropriate about the approaches that they are taking, and they are holding firm.” He added that accreditors recognize “schools have to comply with laws, whether those laws are federal laws or state laws.”

There’s also an outstanding question on how the Trump administration is defining DEI.

“‘DEI’ has become this undefined term that gets interpreted in certain kinds of ways,” Shireman said. “And most accreditors are quite flexible in their approach to diversity, equity and inclusion.”

In a time of uncertainty, Shireman believes many institutions want to see accreditors hold firm on DEI while they push ED for guidance on terminating race-conscious activities and programming.

Shireman points to “surprise and outrage” over what he calls “an absurd perversion of civil rights laws that is happening in this administration. To read civil rights laws as prohibiting a caring approach to providing opportunity is Orwellian and it’s not appropriate. I don’t think schools support the idea of accreditors caving in to a backwards interpretation of civil rights laws.”

Source link

February 28, 2025
UConn faculty member allegedly used funds for personal travel

A University of Connecticut faculty member has been charged with first-degree larceny after allegedly using more than $58,000 of university and grant funds for personal expenses and travel, including a trip to Disney World, The Hartford Courant reported.

Sherry Lynn Zane, who is listed on the UConn website as a professor-in-residence of women’s, gender and sexuality studies, allegedly took 19 trips, “of which 17 were identified as potentially having unreported personal travel or lacking the sufficient documentation to support the purpose of business travel,” according to a report by UConn’s director of university compliance, Kimberly Hill.

The compliance office referred the case to UConn police after receiving an anonymous report about Zane’s travel, which allegedly included seven trips to Belfast, Ireland, where her daughter had recently moved. According to the report, she was reimbursed for some of the travel through a grant provided to UConn by the Mellon Foundation.

“Dr. Zane expensed trips where there were no actual planned business activities and then provided information or created documentation after the fact to justify the expenses incurred by the University,” the report said. “Dr. Zane also provided misleading or false information to the University on the travel request forms she submitted for the majority of these trips. In these circumstances, Dr. Zane’s actual activities while traveling were distinctly different and off-topic from the agreed-upon purpose.”

Zane remains on administrative leave pending the completion of the university’s disciplinary process.

Source link

February 28, 2025
Trump tells agencies to plan for mass layoffs

The Trump administration on Wednesday ordered federal agencies to start preparing for “large-scale reductions in force,” the latest step in a broader effort to dramatically reduce the federal workforce.

The memo from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management applies to all federal departments, and the Department of Education could face heavy cuts as a result of Trump’s promise to “sweepingly reform” what he calls a “bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy.”

The president has repeatedly talked about shutting down the Education Department, and this memo’s orders could give him an opportunity to diminish the agency. Specifically, the OMB document tells agency heads to eliminate all “non-statutorily mandated functions”—an action proponents of abolishing the department have supported.

The OMB memo cites an executive order, “Implementing The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” that was signed Feb. 11 as justification and directed agencies to submit a reorganization plan by March 13.

“Pursuant to the President’s direction, agencies should focus on the maximum elimination of functions that are not statutorily mandated while driving the highest-quality, most efficient delivery of their statutorily-required functions,” wrote OMB director Russell Vought and Charles Ezell, the acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. “Agencies should also … implement technological solutions that automate routine tasks while enabling staff to focus on higher-value activities … and maximally reduce the use of outside consultants and contractors.”

The memo notes that reduction should not impact positions necessary to meet border security, national security or public safety responsibilities, nor should it affect agencies or services that are directly provided to citizens “such as Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ health care.”

Source link

February 28, 2025
Woman admits stealing $5 mil from ED via fake students

A North Carolina woman will face up to 20 years in prison after admitting that she scammed the Department of Education out of $5 million in financial aid, USA Today reported.

Cynthia Denise Melvin pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring with dozens of “straw students” through an elaborate, seven-year scheme, federal court records show. Melvin applied to colleges on the students’ behalf, submitted the Free Application for Federal Student Aid for them, and even went so far as to impersonate the students so it appeared they were attending class and completing assignments, according to charging documents. All the while, she pocketed any leftover aid dollars, giving a small portion to the individuals she was impersonating.

Melvin was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. In addition to her time in prison, she will face three years of supervised release and be required to pay a $250,000 fine, as well as restitution.

The scam is among the biggest “straw student” schemes in years, according to a USA Today review of Department of Justice news announcements.

Source link

February 28, 2025
Colleges scramble to meet federal anti-DEI deadline

The clock is running out on colleges as they mull how to respond to a sweeping federal order to end all race-based policies and programs.

In the face of an imminent Friday night deadline, college leaders are scrambling to determine how to navigate the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter issued by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which declares all race-based educational programs and policies discriminatory and illegal. When they sent the letter on Valentine’s Day, department officials gave institutions two weeks to comply or face investigations and, possibly, the loss of federal funding.

For many colleges, the challenge is figuring out how to avoid drawing unwanted government attention without abandoning key services for underrepresented students and staff.

Institutions aren’t going to lose federal funding overnight. The investigative process is notoriously lengthy, and the Education Department has never revoked a college’s federal funding over civil rights concerns. The OCR may also be rendered impotent, at least temporarily, if a judge decides to halt enforcement while considering a lawsuit filed Tuesday challenging the letter.

But college leaders are anxious about the threat of federal funding cuts, which would be catastrophic for the majority of postsecondary institutions. Ray Li, who previously worked as an attorney at the Office for Civil Rights, said he expects the office to launch investigations shortly and that many colleges will buckle under the pressure, shedding practices that fostered campus diversity and belonging.

For now, colleges seem to be taking a slow and cautious approach, removing language about race and DEI buzzwords from the names of programs and launching internal policy reviews.

University of Nebraska president Jeffrey P. Gold said system campuses are in the midst of a comprehensive review of programs and policies, but no changes have been made yet. The Nebraska Board of Regents discussed possible tweaks to its bylaws at a recent board meeting, like removing references to “cultural diversity” and revising language on equal opportunity in employment, but no final decisions were made.

Gold said that as the review process continues, he doesn’t expect to “turn up anything that looks or feels like discrimination,” as the letter describes.

But it’s possible “we will turn up some things that require some language changes or possibly some changes in titles, changes in offices … that could be misinterpreted by the Department of Education just because of [the] use of specific terminology.”

He added that Nebraska banned affirmative action in 2008 and the state’s second attempt at an anti-DEI bill is pending in the Legislature, so “we have been changing websites [and] titles for years—that’s why I believe that there’s nothing substantive that we really have to change at this time.”

The University of Montana undertook a similar compliance review that tasked senior administrators with assessing whether their departments had any policies or practices at odds with the Dear Colleague letter.

“We made the decision to be as thorough as possible,” said Dave Kuntz, the university’s director of strategic communications. The review, however, led to “very minimal changes and really no changes at a programmatic or operational level.”

University leaders over all concluded that the institution was already in compliance, though some programs, like the Women’s Leadership Initiative, chose to tweak their webpages to clarify that they don’t bar anyone who wants to participate.

A spokesperson for the Education Department did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed in time for publication.

A Thorough Scrubbing

Many institutions are responding by scrubbing their websites of words like “diversity” and “inclusion.” The University of Cincinnati, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Alaska system and many more all did so after the Dear Colleague letter; some colleges had already begun revising their digital presence in response to Trump’s executive order on DEI in January.

The University of Colorado removed all references to a former DEI office and replaced them with a website for a new “Office of Collaboration.” The University of Pennsylvania scrubbed the websites for all 16 undergraduate and graduate schools of DEI keywords and removed references to diversity and affirmative action from its nondiscrimination policies.

Shaun Harper, a professor of education, business and public policy at the University of Southern California, said he’s been disappointed that higher ed leaders are heavily revising their institutions’ online presences in the hopes that it will appease the OCR—a project he believes will prove futile. In the Dear Colleague letter, acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor specifically warned against using “proxies for race” and promised to investigate race-neutral programs that “discriminate in less direct, but equally insidious, ways.”

“Scrubbing websites, launching reviews—these are the easy things to do while colleges are in ‘wait and see’ mode, to find out if that will take the target off their backs,” said Harper, an Inside Higher Ed contributor who authored a blog post last week recommending ways colleges can fight back against the Dear Colleague letter. “I think it’s both weak and reckless.”

Some institutions have gone one step further. Colorado State University issued a statement in which leaders simultaneously maintained that its policies are already race-neutral and promised to do more to comply with the new federal directives.

“The new administration’s interpretation of law marks a change,” the statement reads. “Given the university’s reliance on federal funding, it is necessary to take additional steps.”

And one day before the deadline, Ohio State University president Ted Carter announced the institution would shutter two DEI offices and eliminate more than a dozen staff positions, some of the most dramatic measures a college has taken during the new Trump administration.

In a particularly telling move, OSU’s Office of Institutional Equity will be renamed the Office of Civil Rights Compliance to “more accurately reflect its work,” according to an email sent to students Thursday.

‘We’ve Seen This Film Before’

For a glimpse of how anti-DEI compliance battles might play out between institutions and policymakers, consider the red states that have passed laws mandating similar cuts to race-conscious programs.

In Texas and Florida, public colleges reacted to impending or newly signed anti-DEI laws by changing the names of university offices and campus resources, moving personnel to student support services, and removing DEI mentions from university materials and websites. But in both cases, lawmakers came down hard to ensure the institutions took more strident action, leading to significant layoffs, spending cuts and policy changes.

“We’ve seen the prequel to this film before in Texas,” Harper said. “When that Senate bill was looming, many institutions thought they were very smartly getting ahead of it by just renaming things. That proved to be a failed strategy, and I very comfortably predict that some version of that will also happen nationally.”

In some states, the “review and revamp” strategy for avoiding DEI crackdowns appeared to work for a while. The University of Arkansas eliminated its DEI office in June 2023 in part to pre-empt a bill that state lawmakers were considering to force spending cuts. And last year, the University of North Carolina system Board of Trustees passed an anti-DEI resolution just as legislation was gaining steam to mandate enforcement from the state; that legislation was never brought to a full vote.

But circumstances have changed as the Trump administration launches direct attacks on DEI. Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law earlier this month that will “prohibit affirmative action and preferential treatment in state-supported institutions,” including public colleges like the University of Arkansas. Even in Texas, where public universities underwent broad layoffs and spending cuts in response to state legislation, lawmakers have threatened to cut $400 million in higher ed funding unless colleges do more to comply.

“If they don’t kick DEI out of their schools, they’re going to get a lot less,” Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick said at a policy forum last week.

What Happens Next?

Legal experts say it’s unclear what will happen after the OCR’s deadline passes. The Dear Colleague letter promised more detailed guidance, but none has materialized.

“We’re kind of all in agreement that [the letter] is really confusing and overbroad, and the timeline is really outrageous,” said Andrea Stagg, director of consulting services at Grand River Solutions, a company that works with colleges on legal compliance issues. She noted that many underresourced colleges don’t have in-house legal teams to assess their risk by the deadline.

“What actually happens after tomorrow? How fast will it be?” she said Thursday. “I don’t know.”

Typically, the Office for Civil Rights opens investigations based on complaints from students, families or legal advocates, but it can also launch its own direct investigations. Most cases end with a voluntary resolution, in which the institution agrees to make certain changes. But unresolved cases can be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation.

Li believes the OCR will likely receive complaints from anti-DEI groups as well as open some direct investigations into higher ed institutions with race-based scholarships, affinity group graduation ceremonies or other practices called out by the letter, starting next week. (He pointed out that the current OCR has already launched some direct investigations into universities related to Title IX.)

But that doesn’t mean the day after the Dear Colleague deadline “schools are just going to lose all their federal funding”—assuming normal procedures are followed, he said. Such investigations can take months, even years.

An investigation reaching the point of litigation is also “an incredibly rare step that, under most administrations, pretty much never happens,” Li said. And the Department of Education taking away federal funding over an OCR investigation would be completely unprecedented.

“But, also, rare things are happening right now,” Li conceded.

Stagg said it’s hard to tell to what extent normal processes will be followed, or how much the Department of Government Efficiency’s reductions to the federal workforce could affect investigations.

“There is a real question as to who will do these investigations” and how the OCR will choose institutions to focus on, she said. “Is there going to be an AI tool to search [college] websites for certain terms, the way we saw with the flagging of grants? It could be that the president has a bad interaction at a meeting with a leader and then they are targeted for investigation.”

An Education Department spokesperson did not respond to questions about planned investigations, agency capacity and enforcement mechanisms in time for publication.

It’s also unclear how much resistance colleges will put up. Li believes there’s a strong case to be made that some of the practices targeted in the Dear Colleague letter are perfectly legal. Higher ed institutions under investigation could refuse to make changes and go head to head with the Department of Justice. But they’d be signing up for an onerous, likely expensive process that puts their funding in jeopardy.

“The question is, is anyone willing to litigate it?” Li said.

Even if the Dear Colleague letter is rescinded, Li said the Office for Civil Rights has clearly signaled its plans for the next four years, and he believes higher ed institutions will continue working to rid themselves of anything that could attract scrutiny.

“I think there’s going to be an overcorrection,” he said. “It is going to lead to some perfectly legal programs that support fostering racially inclusive communities on campus being taken away.”

Source link

February 28, 2025
Cheating matters but redrawing assessment “matters most”

Conversations over students using artificial intelligence to cheat on their exams are masking wider discussions about how to improve assessment, a leading professor has argued.

Phillip Dawson, co-director of the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning at Deakin University in Australia, argued that “validity matters more than cheating,” adding that “cheating and AI have really taken over the assessment debate.”

Speaking at the conference of the U.K.’s Quality Assurance Agency, he said, “Cheating and all that matters. But assessing what we mean to assess is the thing that matters the most. That’s really what validity is … We need to address it, but cheating is not necessarily the most useful frame.”

Dawson was speaking shortly after the publication of a survey conducted by the Higher Education Policy Institute, which found that 88 percent of U.K. undergraduates said they had used AI tools in some form when completing assessments.

But the HEPI report argued that universities should “adopt a nuanced policy which reflects the fact that student use of AI is inevitable,” recognizing that chat bots and other tools “can genuinely aid learning and productivity.”

Dawson agreed, arguing that “assessment needs to change … in a world where AI can do the things that we used to assess,” he said.

Referencing—citing sources—may be a good example of something that can be offloaded to AI, he said. “I don’t know how to do referencing by hand, and I don’t care … We need to take that same sort of lens to what we do now and really be honest with ourselves: What’s busywork? Can we allow students to use AI for their busywork to do the cognitive offloading? Let’s not allow them to do it for what’s intrinsic, though.”

It was a “fantasy land” to introduce what he called “discursive” measures to limit AI use, where lecturers give instructions on how AI use may or may not be permitted. Instead, he argued that “structural changes” were needed for assessments.

“Discursive changes are not the way to go. You can’t address this problem of AI purely through talk. You need action. You need structural changes to assessment [and not just a] traffic light system that tells students, ‘This is an orange task, so you can use AI to edit but not to write.”

“We have no way of stopping people from using AI if we aren’t in some way supervising them; we need to accept that. We can’t pretend some sort of guidance to students is going to be effective at securing assessments. Because if you aren’t supervising, you can’t be sure how AI was or wasn’t used.”

He said there are three potential outcomes for the impact on grades as AI develops: grade inflation, where people are going to be able to do “so much more against our current standards, so things are just going to grow and grow”; and norm referencing, where students are graded on how they perform compared to other students.

The final option, which he said was preferable, was “standards inflation,” “where we just have to keep raising the standards over time, because what AI plus a student can do gets better and better.”

Over all, the impact of AI on assessments is fundamental, he said, adding, “The times of assessing what people know are gone.”

Source link

February 28, 2025
Stanford drops plan to buy Bay Area campus

Stanford University backed off a plan, almost four years in the making, to buy the Notre Dame de Namur University campus in nearby Belmont, Calif., the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The university arrived at this decision after evaluating many factors, some of which could not be anticipated when Stanford first entered into an option purchase agreement with NDNU almost four years ago,” Stanford officials wrote in a Tuesday statement announcing the decision.

Officials added that as the university was “exploring possible academic uses for a Stanford Belmont campus,” it became clear “that identifying and establishing those uses for a potential Belmont campus will take significantly longer than we initially planned.”

Administrators also seemed to hint at potential financial concerns, as President Donald Trump has sought—unsuccessfully, so far—to cap reimbursements for indirect research costs funded by the National Institutes of Health, which experts have warned will harm research universities.

“The landscape for research universities has changed considerably since Stanford entered into the option purchase agreement with NDNU,” Stanford officials wrote. “These changes are resulting in greater uncertainties and a different set of institutional and financial challenges for Stanford.”

In their own statement, NDNU officials noted the university would continue to seek a buyer and expressed disappointment that the sale had fallen through.

Notre Dame de Namur has sought to sell the Belmont campus near Palo Alto since it shrank its offerings and moved a number of its programs online in 2021 amid financial challenges that pushed it to the brink of closure. Now the private Roman Catholic institution is focused on graduate education and offers a mix of in-person, hybrid and online programs.

Officials had expected the sale of the Belmont campus to provide a financial boon.

“Our focus remains on finding a buyer who will preserve and honor the historical significance of this beautiful campus and continue to serve the community-oriented mission that has long been a cornerstone of Notre Dame de Namur University,” NDNU president Beth Martin wrote.

Source link

February 27, 2025
Report finds racial disparities in STEMM degree persistence

A new report from the Common App found major racial disparities in persistence rates for students who enter college pursuing degrees in science, technology, engineering, mathematics or medicine.

Just over half of all college applicants express interest in a STEMM field before entering college—except for Asian American students, 72 percent of whom are interested in STEMM. But while more than half of white and Asian students pursuing STEMM obtain a degree in their chosen field within six years, only one-third of first-generation and Latino students who pursue STEMM, and 28 percent of Black or African American students, persist to earn a degree.

The disparities go beyond race. While 54 percent of continuing-generation STEMM students earn a degree in their chosen field, only 34 percent of first-gen students do so. And 51 percent of STEMM-interested students from above the median household income earn a degree in their field, compared to 38 percent of students from below median income levels.

“Our research finds many more talented STEMM aspirants from underrepresented backgrounds applying for college than completing it,” the report concludes.

The study also found that more female STEMM students switch their degree paths (18 percent) than male students (14 percent), though they complete STEMM degrees at similar rates.

Source link

February 27, 2025
Dear Colleague letter is lawless attack on DEI (opinion)

On Valentine’s Day, the Trump administration surprised schools and colleges with its newest attack on DEI and student body diversity. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a Dear Colleague letter that warned schools and colleges that they may lose federal funding if they discriminate on the basis of race.

This letter revealed novel, unsupported legal theories regarding the application of federal civil rights laws to schools and colleges. In fact, OCR’s letter sweeps so broadly that it claims to prohibit certain considerations of race that remain perfectly legal under well-established legal doctrine.

While the threat of losing federal funding has been a facet of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act since its passage in 1964, the letter specifically takes aim at DEI programming as well as the use of “race as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming.”

Although the letter includes some correct statements of nondiscrimination law, OCR makes assertions that are troubling and unsupported by sound legal reasoning. As part of the team that wrote OCR’s guidance on this very issue in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, I am disturbed by how politics is driving policy guidance that will hurt educational institutions and students from kindergarten through college.

In describing the scope of SFFA, OCR’s latest guidance attempts to smuggle in a legal standard that appears nowhere in the court’s opinion. The letter states, “Relying on non-racial information as a proxy for race, and making decisions based on that information, violates the law … It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.”

Here, OCR baselessly claims that not only can colleges not consider race as a factor in admissions, they also cannot make race-neutral changes to admissions policies that help increase student body diversity—such as eliminating standardized testing. That claim falls firmly outside not only the bounds of SFFA but also the decades of Supreme Court case law that precede it.

In Grutter (2003), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor considers whether the University of Michigan Law School could use a lottery system for admissions. In Fisher (2016), Justice Anthony Kennedy implicitly approves of the Texas top 10 percent plan, perhaps the most well-known race-neutral strategy to increase racial diversity. And in SFFA (2023), the plaintiff’s briefs themselves include endorsements of possible race-neutral alternatives Harvard could have legally pursued such as adopting socioeconomic preferences in admissions.

Yet in its most recent letter, OCR attempts quite the head fake in its declaration that SFFA dictates that schools and colleges must abandon race-neutral strategies meant to increase student body diversity. While in reality SFFA says nothing about the permissibility of these race-neutral strategies, a separate line of cases tackles these legal questions head-on—and contradicts the Trump administration’s unfounded guidance.

In Coalition for TJ, Boston Parent Coalition and other recent cases, groups similar to Students for Fair Admissions have challenged changes to admissions policies of prestigious, selective high schools that were adopted in part to increase student body diversity. In some cases, the schools reconfigured weighting for standardized tests; in others, schools guaranteed that each feeding middle school gets a certain number of seats. In all of the cases, the school districts won. The position now advanced by OCR in its recent letter has failed to find footing in two courts of appeal. And just last year, the Supreme Court declined to further review the decisions in TJ and Boston.

What OCR attempts to do with its letter is extraordinary. It tries to advance a legal theory with support from a Supreme Court case that says nothing about the matter. At the same time, OCR ignores recent judicial opinions in cases that directly address this question.

Regardless of how legally infirm OCR’s proclamations are, schools and colleges will likely feel forced to comply. This could mean that the threat alone will lead schools and colleges to cut efforts to legally pursue racially diverse student bodies and racially inclusive campus environments. As a result, our nation’s classrooms and campuses will unfortunately look less like the communities that they sit in and serve, all because of shoddy policymaking and legal sleight of hand.

Ray Li is a civil rights attorney focusing on education policy. He recently left the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights after serving as a career attorney from 2021 to 2025. In that role, he worked on more than a dozen policy documents for OCR, including guidance issued after the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA. He also served as OCR’s lead staff attorney on appellate and Supreme Court litigation matters, including for the SFFA, Coalition for TJ and Boston Parent Coalition cases. Prior to joining OCR, he advised schools, colleges and universities on legal regulatory issues, including civil rights issues, at Hogan Lovells’ education practice.

Source link

February 27, 2025