While more details are expected at the University of Liverpool India’s launch event in Bangalore on December 15, the campus in the integrated township — which includes residential, commercial, and institutional facilities — will feature “flexible spaces”, according to the university.
The campus will have smart classrooms, research and collaborative spaces, specialised labs, and comprehensive co-working hubs for faculty, students, and entrepreneurs, offering a “state-of-the-art, 360-degree learning environment” for its inaugural cohort, set to begin in August 2026.
“We are looking forward to welcoming our inaugural cohort of talented students in 2026 and providing them with an exceptional learning experience that strengthens their skills and employability,” said Lucy Everest, chief operating officer, University of Liverpool.
She visited Bangalore and Mumbai this week to meet educators, potential applicants, and alumni as the university plans to grow the campus to 5,000 students in five years and 10,000 in 10.
“Alembic City is the perfect place to realise this vision and our new campus will provide our students with the very best facilities to support their learning journey with us.”
By the time we open next summer, we’ll have developed relationships with a wide range of businesses and social enterprises in Bangalore, which will be really important for students Tim Jones, University of Liverpool
The university has also opened admissions for 2026, offering postgraduate programs in accounting and finance and computer science, alongside undergraduate courses in business management, biomedical sciences, computer science, accounting and finance, and a game design program — “which combines the university’s music and computer science departments, something not many other UK campuses are offering in India”, according to vice-chancellor, Tim Jones.
“What we will ensure is that there’s a ‘Liverpool feel’ to the campus. Students who come to the University of Liverpool, Bangalore, should experience the distinctive elements of Liverpool,” Jones told The PIE News.
“There will be unique features in the design that I hope students will really appreciate.”
For Jones — who was part of the 126-member UK delegation to India led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which included entrepreneurs, cultural figures and university leaders following the landmark trade deal between the two countries — Bangalore was a natural choice for the new campus for a range of reasons.
The city, a major IT hub with leading Indian and multinational tech and biotech firms, is familiar ground for the red-brick Russell Group university, which has a long-standing, research partnership with the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) and ongoing collaborations with the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore. Both institutions also happen to have two of the world’s oldest and most prominent biochemistry departments.
Moreover, one of the University of Liverpool’s biggest corporate partners is Unilever, which has an R&D centre in Bangalore, with pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca and IT firms like Wipro also expected to play a role in research, innovation and industry collaboration through the India campus.
“We did explore other cities, but it was quite easy for us to pick Bangalore because we had already begun building strong relationships in the city and the wider Karnataka region,” stated Jones, who praised the city’s tech-entrepreneurial culture and the opportunities it offers for a university to “engage, collaborate and grow”.
“By the time we open next summer, we’ll have developed relationships with a wide range of businesses and social enterprises in Bangalore, which will be really important for students. This is a big focus for us this year — we have already started, and we’ll be doing much more.”
In the lead-up to the campus opening next year, the University of Liverpool will focus on faculty exchanges between the Liverpool and Bangalore campuses, attracting international students, and expanding scholarship opportunities for its India-based cohort, according to Jones.
But the university — which views global engagement and partnerships as central to its Liverpool 2031 strategy — is not the only UK institution advancing its India campus plans.
Nine UK universities now have approval to establish campuses in the South Asian country, with the University of Southampton leading the pack, already welcoming around 150 students in the first cohort at its Gurugram campus in August this year.
In this landscape, the University of Liverpool aims to distinguish itself from other UK institutions by offering distinctive programs and embedding research from “day one”, drawing on lessons from its only other international branch campus — the Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University (XJTLU) in Suzhou, China — as it shapes its approach in India.
“We have experience from our successful campus in China, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary and has nearly 30,000 students. That experience gives us confidence that we can succeed in India as well,” stated Jones.
“The funding model was also different 20 years ago. But the exchange of staff and students is embedded in what we do in China. I see the same happening with India as the campus develops.”
However, despite the China campus’s success, recent reports suggest it may require stronger oversight amid concerns about teaching methods, class sizes, and students’ English proficiency.
While the rapid push to establish branch campuses in India has also sparked debate about the trend among major UK universities, Jones says he is focused on making Liverpool’s India launch a “big success”.
“It took us 20 years to go from China to India. There will likely be other ventures in the future, but right now, I’m very focused on making this a big success — for the students, for the university, and for India,” stated Jones.
The new campus, Queen Elizabeth’s School in Dubai, will bring over 450 years of British academic heritage to the UAE, offering students access to the National Curriculum for England under the same standards that have made the Barnet school a consistent “outstanding” performer and a leader in UK education.
Developed in partnership with GEDU Global Education, the project recently received initial approval from Dubai’s Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA), making a historic move, as it is the first UK state grammar school to establish an international branch.
“This landmark approval allows us to accelerate our vision to deliver world-leading K-12 education to students from across the UAE,” said Caroline Pendleton-Nash, CEO of Queen Elizabeth’s Global Schools.
“The Dubai branch campus will remain faithful to the mission, ethos, tradition, and exacting academic standards of Queen Elizabeth’s School, Barnet, while embracing Dubai’s spirit of innovation and ambition,” she said.
She added: “In uniting the heritage of one of the UK’s most distinguished schools with the vision of Dubai, we aspire to set a new global benchmark for educational excellence.”
Opening initially from nursery to year 8, the Dubai campus will then expand in phases to include sixth form. The school’s location in Dubai Sports City provides access to exceptional athletic facilities, ensuring that sport and wellbeing remain integral.
We are also excited by the potential for international collaboration, which, in time, will build a global network of Elizabethans for the benefit of our new students as well as those within the state sector in Barnet Neil Enright, Queen Elizabeth’s School, Barnet
Neil Enright, headmaster of Queen Elizabeth’s School, Barnet, emphasised the school’s commitment to fostering opportunity and leadership, saying: “We are delighted to have received this encouragement from the KHDA to offer a rounded and enriching QE education to children in the UAE, spreading opportunity and supporting students to become the leaders of their generation.”
“We are also excited by the potential for international collaboration, which, in time, will build a global network of Elizabethans for the benefit of our new students as well as those within the state sector in Barnet,” he said.
“[That prior interest] confirmed to us the strength of our brand and the strength of a rounded but highly academic education. So the senior staff and governors here have been looking at this move for quite a long time,” he said.
This time, though, working with GEDU, the school was confident it was the right move. “They’re educationalists, they are experienced at partnering with a number of universities in other parts of the world…we felt a real alignment of values with them,” said Enright.
Dan Clark has been appointed as the school’s founding principal, having been deputy head of the elite Marlborough College since 2020.
“Throughout my career in outstanding schools, I’ve seen how powerful education can be,” said Clark.
“It challenges pupils to think deeply, act responsibly and believe in their own capacity to achieve.”
“These values are fundamental to the QE approach. As founding principal of QE Dubai Sports City, I’m excited to establish a community that will produce confident, able and responsible young people who are ready to shape the future.”
The University of Arizona is the latest institution to reject an offer to sign on to the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” issuing its response on the same day feedback on the proposal was due.
While some universities have rejected the compact outright, Arizona president Suresh Garimella announced the decision in a message to the campus community that sent mixed signals. “The university has not agreed to the terms outlined in the draft proposal,” Garimella wrote. He emphasized the need to preserve “principles like academic freedom, merit-based research funding, and institutional independence.”
At the same time, he said that some of the compact’s provisions “deserve thoughtful consideration as our national higher education system could benefit from reforms that have been much too slow to develop,” noting that many were already in place at Arizona. He added that the federal government said it was “seeking constructive dialogue rather than a definitive written response.”
Indeed, in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Garimella indicated an openness to further engagement. “We have much common ground with the ideas your administration is advancing on changes that would benefit American higher education and our nation at large,” he wrote.
Still, he took issue with the administration’s promise of giving signatories preferential treatment in research funding. “A federal research funding system based on anything other than merit would weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation, advancement of technology, and solutions to many of our nation’s most profound challenges,” he wrote to McMahon. “We seek no special treatment and believe in our ability to compete for federally funded research strictly on merit.”
Arizona was one of nine universities the Trump administration reached out to on Oct. 1 offering preferential treatment for federal research funding if they agreed to a compact that would overhaul admissions and hiring, cap international enrollment at 15 percent, revise academic offerings, suppress criticism of conservatives, freeze tuition for five years, and more.
Amid some rejections from the original nine, the federal government sent additional invitations earlier this month.
Institutions initially invited to join were Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. Invitations were later sent to Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis.
Six of the original invitees have declined to sign: MIT was the first to reject the compact, followed by Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, USC and Virginia.
The Trump administration has since opened the compact to any institution that wishes to join.
As of Monday, none of the invited institutions had agreed to the deal, despite a recent push from the White House, which included a meeting with several universities last week. Institutions have until Nov. 21 to make a final decision about whether to sign, according to a letter McMahon sent with the proposal.
Washington University in St. Louis officials indicated Monday they remain open to the idea.
Chancellor Andrew Martin announced that the university would provide feedback, or, as he put it, “participate in a conversation about the future of higher education” with the Trump administration. Martin emphasized the importance of having “a seat at the table” for such discussions but said those talks did not equate to signing the compact.
“It’s important for you to know that our participation in this dialogue does not mean we have endorsed or signed on to the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education presented to us for feedback by the federal administration. We have not done that. In addition, this decision was not made to advantage ourselves or gain any type of preferential benefit,” Martin wrote. “We firmly believe meaningful progress will best be achieved through open, ongoing dialogue.”
An Arizona State spokesperson also left open the option to join the compact, writing to Inside Higher Ed by email, “ASU has long been a voice for change in higher education and as President Trump’s team seeks new and innovative approaches to serve the needs of the country, ASU has engaged in dialogue and offered ideas about how to do so.”
Vanderbilt chancellor Daniel Diermeier noted in an email to the campus community that the university intended to offer feedback on the proposal.
“Despite reporting to the contrary, we have not been asked to accept or reject the draft compact,” Diermeier wrote. “Rather, we have been asked to provide feedback and comments as part of an ongoing dialogue, and that is our intention.”
But other universities stayed silent on the day of the initial deadline.
University of Texas system officials initially announced they were “honored” that the flagship was invited to join, but Austin officials did not have an update on where that invitation stands. Kansas did not respond to requests for comment.
The pause to reflect on REF 2029 has reignited debate about what the exercise should encompass – and in particular whether and how research culture should be assessed.
Open research is a core component of a strong research culture. Now is the time to take stock of what has been achieved, and to consider how REF can promote the next stage of culture change around open research.
Open research can mean many things in different fields, as the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science makes clear. Wherever it is practiced, open research shifts focus away from outputs and onto processes, with the understanding that if we make the processes around research excellent, then excellent outcomes will follow
Trust
Being open allows quality assurance processes to work, and therefore research to be trustworthy. Although not all aspects of research can be open (sensitive personal data, for example), an approach to learning about the world that is as open as possible differentiates academic research from almost all other routes to knowledge. Open research is not just a set of practices – it’s part of the culture we build around integrity, collaboration and accountability.
But doing research openly takes time, expertise, support and resources. As a result, researchers can feel vulnerable. They can worry that taking the time to focus on high-quality research processes might delay publication and risk them being scooped, or that including costs for open research in funding bids might make them less likely to be funded; they worry about jeopardising their careers. Unless all actors in the research ecosystem engage, then some researchers and some institutions will feel that they put themselves at a disadvantage.
Open research is, therefore, a collective action problem, requiring not only policy levers but a culture shift in how research is conducted and disseminated, which is where the REF comes in.
REF 2021
Of all the things that influence how research is done and managed in the UK HE sector, the REF is the one that perhaps attracts most attention, despite far fewer funds being guided by its outcome than are distributed to HEIs in other ways.
One of the reasons for this attention is that REF is one of the few mechanisms to address collective action problems and drive cultural change in the sector. It does this in two ways, by setting minimum standards for a submission, and by setting some defined assessment criteria beyond those minimum standards. Both mechanisms provide incentives for submitting institutions to behave in particular ways. It is not enough for institutions to simply say that they behave in this way – by making submissions open, the REF makes institutions accountable for their claims, in the same way as researchers are made accountable when they share their data, code and materials.
So, then, how has this worked in practice?
A review of the main panel reports from REF 2021 shows that evidence of open research was visible across all four main panels, but unevenly distributed. Panel A highlighted internationally significant leadership in Public Health, Health Services and Primary Care (UoA 2) and Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience (UoA 4), while Panel B noted embedded practices in Chemistry (UoA 8) and urged Computer Science and Informatics (UoA 11) to make a wider shift towards open science through sharing data, software, and protocols. Panel C pointed to strong examples in Geography and Environment Studies (UoA 14), and in Archaeology (UoA 15), where collaboration, transparency, and reproducibility were particularly evident. By contrast, Panel D – and parts of Panel C – showed how definitions of open research can be more complex, because what constitutes ‘open research’ is perhaps much more nuanced and varied in these disciplines, and these disciplines did not always demonstrate how they were engaging with institutional priorities on open research and supporting a culture of research integrity. Overall, then, open research did not feature in the reports on most UoAs.
It is clear that in 2021 there was progress, in part guided by the inclusion in the REF guidance of a clear indicator. However, there is still a long way to go and it is clear open research was understood and evidenced in ways that could exclude some research fields, epistemologies and transparent research practices.
REF 2029
With REF 2029, the new People, Culture and Environment element has created a stronger incentive to drive culture change across the sector. Institutions are embracing the move beyond compliance, making openness and transparency a core part of everyday research practice. However, alignment between this sector move, REF policy and funder action remains essential to address this collective action problem and therefore ensure that this progress is maintained.
To step back now would not only risk slowing, or even undoing, progress, but would send confused signals that openness and transparency may be optional extras rather than essentials for a trusted research system. Embedding this move is not optional: a culture of openness is essential for the sustainability of UK research and development, for the quality of research processes, and for ensuring that outputs are not just excellent, but also trustworthy in a time of mass misinformation.
Openness, transparency and accountability are key attributes of research, and hallmarks of the culture that we want to see in the sector now and in the future. Critically, coordinated sector-wide, institutional and individual actions are all needed to embed more openness into everyday research practices. This is not just about compliance – it is about a genuine culture shift in how research is conducted, shared and preserved. It is about doing the right thing in the right way. If that is accepted, then we would challenge those advocating for reducing the importance of those practices in the REF: what is your alternative, and will it command public trust?
This article was supported by contributions from:
Michel Belyk (Edge Hill University), Nik Bessis (Edge Hill University), Cyclia Bolibaugh (University of York), Will Cawthorn (University of Edinburgh), Joe Corneli (Oxford Brookes University), Thomas Evans (University of Greenwich), Eleanora Gandolfi (University of Surrey), Jim Grange (Keele University), Corinne Jola (Abertay University), Hamid Khan (Imperial College, London), Gemma Learmonth (University of Stirling), Natasha Mauthner (Newcastle University), Charlotte Pennington (Aston University), Etienne Roesch (University of Reading), Daniela Schmidt (University of Bristol), Suzanne Stewart (University of Chester), Richard Thomas (University of Leicester), Steven Vidovic (University of Southampton), Eric White (Oxford Brookes University).
Dear Presidents, Chancellors and OTHER Temporary Custodians of My Properties:
Greetings from the Family—I mean, the Administration. You’ve been running a nice little operation there: world-class labs, libraries, free-thinking faculty, students from all over the globe who still believe in the marketplace of ideas, all asking dangerous questions like “Why?” and “What is your evidence?”
It’s over.
As the founder of a MAJOR university, I’m here to say this: We’re gonna do things my way now.
First Order of Business: You Need My Protection
As you know, I’m a SUCESSFUL international businessman. I offer certain countries—let’s call them “friends”—deals: They pay me a modest consideration, or maybe a big, beautiful luxury jet, and I won’t slap them with tariffs to make their economy bleed out. I offer the same generous arrangement to higher ed.
Take Crooked Columbia and Brownnosing Brown—smart enough to come to the table, hand over the dough and watch my charges vanish like magic. Funding? Flowing again … for now.
High and mighty Harvard’s still holding out, though, thinking they can win a staring contest. Let’s just say their next accreditation visit is gonna be … comprehensive.
UCLA? Aka Useless College for Leftist Agendas. Rumor is my friends in D.C. have started looking real close at their books. Would be a shame if we had to start collecting on that billion the hard way.
The rest of you RADICAL LUNATIC LEFT, listen up:
Investigations into your crimes against America, like “allowing students to protest” or “letting faculty disagree with the government,” can disappear overnight … for a price.
Call it a FAVOR from a friendly accreditor.
But remember, what I giveth I can take awayeth.
I don’t do promises; I do BUSINESS. And it’s business time.
Apple, Intel, NVIDIA jump when I say jump. Universities? Child’s play.
Some say I’m an ANTISEMITISM SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR on campus and sure, I like the Jews. I’ll take the compliment, right alongside credit for sprucing up big, beautiful Confederate statues.
My war on hate? Let’s just say it has … range. And if a few very fine people happen to be nearby, standing back and standing by, waiting for the signal to help CLARIFY my position, well, that’s just business.
We Don’t Need Stuck-Up Elites Who Think They’re So Smart
That NASTY WOMAN at the Bureau of Labor Statistics? The one who brought me cooked-up job numbers I didn’t like? FIRED.
That Georgia political hack who couldn’t find enough votes? ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
Judges who cross me? Death threats from my cyber goons have them looking over their shoulders.
Your degree, your Nobel Prize, your teaching awards—SAD! I’ve built towers with my name in gold, hosted the No. 1 reality show on television, and put my face on steaks, sneakers and Bitcoin.
So you publish in that fake Ranger Rick Nature magazine. I don’t care if your lab just cured cancer; if your research questions don’t support my worldview, your grant is pulled and your lab reassigned to our friend of the family on the board, Mikey, who’s very confident about his opinion on quantum biology.
IRB? More like, “I’m Rich, Buddy.”
Loyalty—to ME—is the only credential that matters.
WOKE Faculty Hiring and Student Admissions: GONE-ZO
MARXIST MANIACS who lack American values and good Christian sensibilities have no business shaping our young peoples’ minds. Cover letters with Bible verses or Lee Greenwood lyrics will receive special consideration.
After I cut more big, beautiful deals with my AI buddies, the bots will weed out candidate files with the words “inclusive excellence” or “diversifying the pipeline.”
No more “global citizen” snowflake CRAP. In fact, pretty soon, it’s gonna be all AI at the podium—no critical thinking, no unions, no problem.
International students are allowed, but only RICH ones, with no subversive ideas, like democracy, on their social media feeds. No students from the shithole countries—you know the list. (Come to think of it, I don’t like any country, so being from one of our so-called allies won’t help either.)
NO “underrepresented” anything. ONLY OVERREPRESENTED. Racial disadvantage, adversity, “lived experience” or some “community-based” qualifications? FORGET ABOUT IT.
We’re running a university, not a sob story contest!
You want to admit a Latina who speaks three languages and started her own nonprofit? Great—as long as all three languages are English and she’s truly FEMALE.
And while we’re at it, ban “optional” diversity statements. The only statement that matters is your pledge of allegiance. To me.
Academic Freedom, Suckers!
You thought academic freedom meant hiring the best scholars, encouraging debate and letting a thousand ideas bloom.
HILARIOUS!
From now on, FREEDOM means freedom to offer academic programs that look just like the ones we had in 1952, when America was great (minus the jazz) and McCarthy knew what higher education should look like.
It took Viktor 10 YEARS to bring his universities to heel. I’m doing it in six MONTHS, results like nobody’s ever seen before.
“woMEN’s” studies? GONE.
African American literature course? Replaced with Great Books by Even Greater White Men.
Faculty scholarship on critical race theory, gender equity or, God forbid, climate science, will get an automatic tenure-denial stamp. Come to think of it, tenure? What’s that? More like Permanent Welfare for America-Hating Communists.
Just watch what you publish, pal. I can make tenure go away real fast, the same way I disappeared USAID.
My good friend VICE CHANCELLOR Rufo will replace it with rolling one-year contracts, renewable upon click-through loyalty oath training modules.
Also, just a heads-up. Any course material still using the outdated term “Gulf of Mexico” will be flagged in our next surveillance round. My top patriot and loyal adviser, Stephen, suggests: “The Gulf of AMERICA FIRST.” And you so-called political scientists, get your facts right on who won the 2020 election. You’d best update those course materials, nice and clean, and nobody’s sabbatical turns into an extended stay at Alligator Alcatraz.
Capishe? I don’t want to have to slam any more heads together.
It’s time you got the picture, EGGHEADS: Knowledge isn’t power. Power is power.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Your Don
P.S. I’ll let you keep your football program. You’re welcome.
Jennifer Lundquist is a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her satirical observations in this essay are hers alone and not intended to represent the views of her employer.
The U.S. Department of Educationannounced Monday that it has opened a civil rights investigationinto Duke University and its law journal, based on allegations that the institution racially discriminates to select the publication’s editors.
Separately, the Education Department and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also sent a letter Monday to university officials saying they’re reviewing allegations that Duke’s medical school and Duke Health racially discriminate in their hiring, admissions, financial aid and recruitment practices.
The probes come less than a week after U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said officials hoped that Columbia University’s $221 million settlement with the federal government would be a “template for other universities around the country.”
Dive Insight:
Like with the federal government’s previous Columbia probes, the Education Department has opened an investigation into Duke University to determine whether it has violated Title VI, which prohibits federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.
The department said its probe is based on recent reporting that Duke Law Journal racially discriminates against students applying to be editors. It comes one month after The Washington Free Beacon,a conservative publication, alleged that Duke Law Journal potentially gave students applying to be editors an edge if they held leadership positions in affinity groups or if they explained how their “membership in an underrepresented group” would help them promote diverse voices.
Duke Law Journal shared this information only with the law school’s affinity groups, according to the Beacon.
The letter from HHS and the Education Department doesn’t provide the source of the allegations of racial discrimination against Duke’s medical school and Duke Health.However, it says Duke Health would be “unfit for any further financial relationship with the federal government” if the federal government determines they are true.
In their letter, officials suggested they want to cut a deal with the university.
“Our Departments have historically recognized Duke’s commitment to medical excellence and would prefer to partner with Duke to uncover and repair these problems, rather than terminate this relationship,” McMahon and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote.
The two Cabinet secretaries demanded that the university review and reform policies at Duke Health to ensure they don’t include illegal racial preferences, including by making “necessary organizational, leadership, and personnel changes.”
They also asked Duke to establish a Merit and Civil Rights Committee, which would be delegated authority from the university’s board, to conduct the review.
“The Committee must be made up of those members of Duke’s leadership and medical faculty most distinguished in and devoted to genuine excellence in the field of medicine, and the members chosen must satisfy the federal government as to their competence and good faith,” McMahon and Kennedy said in their letter.
McMahon and Kennedy threatened Duke with enforcement actions if the federal government and the Merit and Civil Rights Committee reach an impasse — or if they don’t change the “alleged offending policies” within six months.
Following Columbia’s controversial agreement with the federal government — which also included vast policy changes — law and free speech scholars warned that the Trump administration may attempt to increase their pressure campaigns against other universities to cut deals.
“The Trump administration has made clear that while Columbia is first in line, it intends to reach comparable agreements with other schools — to scale the Columbia shakedown into a broader model of managing universities deemed too woke,”David Pozen, a Columbia law professor, wrote in a blog post. “As has already occurred with law firms, tariffs, and trade policy, regulation by deal is coming to higher education.
More than 400,000 K-12 educators across the country will get free training in AI through a $23 million partnership between a major teachers union and leading tech companies that is designed to close gaps in the use of technology and provide a national model for AI-integrated curriculum.
The new National Academy for AI Instruction will be based in the downtown Manhattan headquarters of the United Federation of Teachers, the New York City affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, and provide workshops, online courses, and hands-on training sessions. This hub-based model of teacher training was inspired by work of unions like the United Brotherhood of Carpenters that have created similar training centers with industry partners, according to AFT President Randi Weingarten.
“Teachers are facing huge challenges, which include navigating AI wisely, ethically and safely,” Weingarten said at a press conference Tuesday announcing the initiative. “The question was whether we would be chasing it or whether we would be trying to harness it.”
The initiative involves the AFT, UFT, OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic.
“We are actually ensuring that kids have, that teachers have, what they need to deal with the economy of today and tomorrow,” Weingarten said.
The academy will be based in a city where the school system initially banned the use of AI in the classroom, claiming it would interfere with the development of critical thinking skills. A few months later, then-New York City schools Chancellor David Banks did an about-face, pledging to help schools smartly incorporate the technology. He said New York City schools would embrace the potential of AI to drive individualized learning. But concrete plans have been limited.
Vincent Plato, New York City Public Schools K-8 educator and UFT Teacher Center director, said the advent of AI reminds him of when teachers first started using word processors.
“We are watching educators transform the way people use technology for work in real time, but with AI it’s on another unbelievable level because it’s just so much more powerful,” he said in a press release announcing the new partnership. “It can be a thought partner when they’re working by themselves, whether that’s late-night lesson planning, looking at student data or filing any types of reports — a tool that’s going to be transformative for teachers and students alike.”
Teachers who frequently use AI tools report saving 5.9 hours a week, according to a national survey conducted by the Walton Family Foundation in cooperation with Gallup. These tools are most likely to be used to support instructional planning, such as creating worksheets or modifying material to meet students’ needs. Half of the teachers surveyed stated that they believe AI will reduce teacher workloads.
“Teachers are not only gaining back valuable time, they are also reporting that AI is helping to strengthen the quality of their work,” Stephanie Marken, senior partner for U.S. research at Gallup, said in a press release. “However, a clear gap in AI adoption remains. Schools need to provide the tools, training, and support to make effective AI use possible for every teacher.”
While nearly half of school districts surveyed by the research corporation RAND have reported training teachers in utilizing AI-powered tools by fall 2024, high-poverty districts are still lagging behind their low poverty counterparts. District leaders across the nation report a scarcity of external experts and resources to provide quality AI training to teachers.
OpenAI, a founding partner of the National Academy for AI Instruction, will contribute $10 million over the next five years. The tech company will provide educators and course developers with technical support to integrate AI into classrooms as well as software applications to build custom, classroom-specific tools.
Tech companies would benefit from this partnership by “co-creating” and improving their products based on feedback and insights from educators, said Gerry Petrella, Microsoft general manager, U.S. public policy, who hopes the initiative will align the needs of educators with the work of developers.
In a sense, the teachers are training AI products just as much as they are being trained, according to Kathleen Day, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. Day emphasized that through this partnership, AI companies would gain access to constant input from educators so they could continually strengthen their models and products.
“Who’s training who?” Day said. “They’re basically saying, we’ll show you how this technology works, and you tell us how you would use it. When you tell us how you would use it, that is a wealth of information.”
Additionally, Trevor Griffey, a lecturer in labor studies at the University of California Los Angeles, warned the New York Times that tech firms could use these deals to market AI tools to students and expand their customer base.
This initiative to expand AI access and training for educators was likened to New Deal efforts in the 1930s to expand equal access to electricity by Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer. By working with teachers and expanding AI training, Lehane hopes the initiative will “democratize” access to AI.
“There’s no better place to do that work than in the classroom,” he said at the Tuesday press conference.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
Like many Wonkhe readers, I’ve been lucky enough this year to support a young person weighing up their post-18 options.
If you are the person in someone’s life that “really understands universities” it does often fall to you to sift through the vagaries of our recruitment and application process. Just what are “predicted grades” and why are they different from what someone got in their mocks? Why can you only apply to five courses on UCAS? Why, for that matter, does it cost money to apply via UCAS? Why are league tables so silly? Is there really a “Discover Uni”?
The new aspect for me this year has been the world of the open day. On a succession of unseasonably rainy weekends I’ve been finding my way around campuses, under strict instructions not to mention who I work for or wear any Wonkhe merch (“so embarrassing!”) and speaking to academics and support staff about undergraduate entry in 2026.
Performativity
I’d love to say it has all brought back memories of my own open day adventures many years ago – in all honesty it has not. I never visited the university I ended up studying at prior to securing a place, my memory of the others is more of the cities and towns than the campuses and corridors.
And that’s kind of the thing. If you are visiting an open day you are asking about third year options and work placements, but the decision that is being made is more along the lines of what it would be like to live and study in a place. The most successful open days I have seen this year have leaned into this – what would a lecture be like? How would you get from where you live to where you study? What else would I be doing outside of my studies? Where might I get a job?
Academic staff – be they course leaders making a presentation or just generally making themselves available to chat, have often seemed terrified to speak to young applicants and their escorts. I’ve heard an awful lot about course revalidations and QAA Subject Benchmark Statements (yes really!), and while this is clearly great for me I can’t really see anyone else getting much out of it. When you sign up to “the talk” on your subject of choice what I would expect to get is a sense of enthusiasm about the subject and an openness to engage with others who have an interest: we can perhaps assume that anyone who wants to will have read about the course structure on the internet (or even, at one university, in an actual honest-to-god paper prospectus).
My go-to approach for speaking to shy academics is to ask about their personal research interests – all the best conversations we’ve had have been around the particular interests of my prospective student and those of the academics. I feel like it would be good to work some of this into the more formal aspects of the day.
The feel
Applicants and their adults have often asked about practical “feel” based stuff – there’s been a lot of questions raised about assessment strategies and exams versus essays and presentations. The interest in post-degree employment is very real – and there is a trend towards listing industry partners (when done best it has offered tangible examples of how students would experience these partnerships).
There’s also the inevitable question of entry requirements. Just about everywhere I’ve been has taken pains to reassure that there may be a place even if the grades aren’t quite there next summer – staff at all kinds of providers are actively promoting clearing entry.
If you are not involving current students in open days you should be (and if you are, be sure to pay them – as you should everyone involved – for what is a very hard day’s work). Speaking to somebody only a few years older than you, who is living the life you are trying on for size, is what really seems to light applicants up. And the more informal the conversation the better it seems – interpolations in course presentations are good, a student-led tour is better, seeing students demonstrate the skills they have learned was excellent, and a sly joke shared in the student accommodation viewing is pretty much the best of all.
Vibes
Applicants are very good at picking up the overall mood of the day. If people act like the event has arrived suddenly on campus, and nobody is really clear what is going on, you can pick it up a mile off. And this year keeping the positive mood is not easy if you know the scale and direction of staff and funding cuts coming your way: it is very hard to “sell” an applicant on a course if you know it will have less options and less resources than it did this year.
Likewise, basic hygiene factors stand out a mile (and I don’t just mean the halls of residence bathrooms…). If we’re sat having a coffee in the SU – something we always tried to do as a way of getting a sense of what campus life is like – it does rather stand out when there was supposed to be food available but it has all gone, or if all the posters seem to be for events that happened in 2023. I mean, posters are infinitely preferable (if the LGBT+Soc ran Chappell Roan bingo for pride day I am one hundred per cent there for it!) to glossy pictures and sidewinders wheeled out for the day, but maybe check if they are recent?
Likewise, if visitors will be parking on campus some kind of an advanced plan would help – and if you have student services folks sitting at tables make sure there are actual people at the tables to talk to throughout the day.
It’s the little moments. We were surprised to meet a vice chancellor that was clearly and obviously proud of their university, and who had signed up to do a series of rolling introductory talks. The question I got from next to me (“how often would I meet the vice chancellor as a regular student?”) was interesting – all though frankly I was more exercised about the fact that I’d seen the vice chancellor present a golden slide promoting a “TEF Gold in student experience” with the overall silver noted in tiny writing at the bottom.
The awards and the league table placings really come across as noise – I didn’t see any applicant looking remotely impressed, although some were interested in graduate destinations and links to employers.
An open day is an audition. An applicant is trying on the idea of being a student at your university – the best way to respond (and I’ve seen this done really well) is to set out just how great the student experience actually is: the TEF components are perhaps less impressive than what actual students say and the intangible “feel” of the campus. Students spend a lot of time asking “where do I go now?” – applicants have pretty much the same question.
Good call. A well-run open house can be one of the most powerful tools in your enrollment and engagement strategy. Whether you’re welcoming new elementary parents, high school prospects, or college hopefuls, this is your chance to make an unforgettable first impression. An open house in school is important because it helps build a sense of community, foster parent involvement, and drive enrollment.
But a memorable open house doesn’t happen by accident. It requires careful planning, creative ideas, and attention to detail. From initial promotions to day-of execution and follow-up, every step counts.
So, how do you make it count?
Let’s walk through ten practical (and proven) tips to take your school’s open house from good… to exceptional.
Struggling to stand out in a crowded market?
Boost enrollment with tailored open house strategies!
1. Start Planning Early And Promote Like a Pro
Here’s the truth: If no one shows up, nothing else matters.
That’s why promotion is the first step, and it’s a big one. First, get clear on your goals. Are you looking to boost applications? Showcase new facilities? Strengthen relationships with current families? Your goals will shape everything from the schedule to who you invite.
How do you prepare for an open house at school? Start by setting clear goals and selecting a date that works for your audience. Plan the schedule, secure staff and student volunteers, and prepare promotional materials. Promote the event across multiple channels (website, email, social media), tidy up the campus, and organize signage, welcome tables, and printed resources to ensure a smooth, welcoming experience.
Example: Queen’s University (Canada) demonstrated advanced planning by creating a dedicated “Fall Preview” Open House webpage months ahead. The page provided key details (date, schedule, location) and prominently featured a call-to-action for prospective students to register, ensuring maximum visibility and early sign-ups.
Then, plan your outreach. Don’t wait until the last minute. Get your date on the calendar months in advance, and begin promoting it strategically across various online channels:
A dedicated landing page on your school’s website (with RSVP).
A short email series to build awareness and excitement.
Countdown posts, teaser videos, and stories on social media.
Text reminders or personal phone calls to those most likely to attend.
Example: Bishop’s University (Canada) boosted promotion by publishing a blog post prior to their Open House that walked readers through what to expect at the event. This preview-style post generated excitement and informed prospective students and parents about the Open House experience in detail.
Still want more attendees? Consider offering a virtual option. Whether it’s a livestream, a digital campus tour, or a short webinar, giving families more than one way to experience your school expands your reach.
2. Make Arrival Smooth and the Welcome Unforgettable
Let’s face it, no one enjoys showing up somewhere and feeling lost.
That’s why the moment guests arrive at your open house, the experience should feel seamless and friendly.
Start with signage. Make sure every guest knows exactly where to park and where to go. Have greeters ready: staff, student leaders, or enthusiastic parent volunteers. A welcome table with a map, a friendly smile, and a short overview of what’s ahead can work wonders.
Example: University of Oxford (UK): For its 2023 undergraduate Open Days, Oxford enlisted staff volunteers as greeters and guides. These volunteers welcomed visitors, helped with directions around campus, and served as friendly points of contact at entrances and info tables, ensuring guests felt comfortable and never lost.
Don’t stop there. Decorate with banners, student art, or a slideshow of school activities. Create a warm and exciting vibe the moment families step inside. You’re not just showing them the campus, you’re showing them the community they could be a part of.
Example: UC Santa Cruz (USA): At its “Banana Slug Day” admitted-students open house in 2025, UC Santa Cruz set up check-in tables at key parking areas and deployed student guides (the “S.L.U.G.” ambassadors) throughout campus. Visitors were greeted at these welcome points and guided by the student ambassadors, making navigation easy and the arrival experience warm and organized.
3. Spotlight the People Who Make Your School Special
The facilities are nice. Programs are great. But what really wins hearts?
Your people.
That’s why teachers, support staff, coaches, and counselors need to be front and center during the open house. Make sure they’re not just present but prepared. Equip them with key talking points and FAQs so they feel confident answering questions and reinforcing your school’s values.
What should teachers do for open house? Teachers should prepare a welcoming classroom with student work on display, provide a brief overview of their curriculum, and have handouts with contact information and expectations. During the event, they should greet families warmly, answer general questions, and encourage follow-up meetings for individual concerns.
Example: During Nevada State’s Open House, faculty participation was a centerpiece. The event agenda included “Meet with Faculty” sessions where professors from various departments (Education, Liberal Arts & Sciences, Nursing, etc.) were on hand to chat and answer questions. This gave visitors a chance to connect face-to-face with the educators and get a feel for the academic community.
Encourage classroom displays that show what day-to-day learning looks like. And while teachers should be warm and approachable, remind them this isn’t the time for parent-teacher conferences. Keep it general, upbeat, and informative.
Want to go the extra mile? Kick off the event with a welcome from your school leader, followed by a quick intro to the key staff attendees. Let families know who’s who, and who they can talk to about specific interests like arts, athletics, or academics.
Example: Bucknell’s Fall Open House actively involved faculty and staff in mingling with prospects. Visitors could tour facilities and meet professors and current students to ask questions about programs and campus life, rather than only hearing formal presentations. This personal professor-student engagement at Open House helped put a human face on the university’s academics.
Your current students and parents are your school’s best spokespeople. Hearing about the school’s strengths from an administrator or teacher is valuable, but hearing it from a peer can be even more persuasive. In marketing terms, it’s social proof, and it carries a lot of weight. In fact, one study found that 93% of people trust recommendations from friends and family, while only 38% trust advertising.
Applying this to an open house, a prospective student is likely to trust the words of a current student, and parents will trust the perspectives of other parents, more than any brochure or formal presentation.
That’s why student ambassadors and parent advocates are some of your most valuable open house lead generation assets.
Hand-pick current students who represent the best of your school; friendly, positive, and articulate. Let them lead tours, greet visitors, or share their experience during a short panel. Their enthusiasm is contagious. As one education marketing expert put it, hearing directly from current students and parents can be one of the most powerful ways to engage prospective families.
Example: University of Central Lancashire (UK) : At UCLan’s Open Days, current students act as official ambassadors (identifiable in special red attire). These student ambassadors welcome visitors at entrances, give campus directions, and share honest insights about student life and their courses. Attendees are encouraged to approach them with any questions, making the experience peer-guided and relatable.
Similarly, invite a few involved parents to chat with prospective families. Their personal stories, why they chose the school, how their child has grown, carry a weight that even the best marketing can’t match.
You’re not just saying, “We’re great.” You’re showing it.
5. Make the Event Fun, Interactive, and Memorable
Let’s be honest: No one wants to sit through a two-hour lecture.
So here’s your mission: Turn your open house into an experience.
How do you make an open house at school fun? Incorporate interactive elements like hands-on activities, themed scavenger hunts, live demonstrations, or student performances. Offer refreshments, set up a photo booth, and keep presentations short and engaging. The goal is to create an energetic, memorable experience that showcases school spirit.
Instead of a long presentation, create a rotating itinerary. Let families move through classrooms, labs, and activity spaces at their own pace. Throw in a scavenger hunt or “passport” that gets stamped at each stop. Offer a prize at the end for completing the journey.
Example: New Mexico State (USA): The College of ACES Open House 2025 at NMSU was designed as a family-friendly, interactive event. Visitors could roam through animal exhibits, science labs and museums with hands-on demonstrations and learning games at each stop. From petting zoo stations to chemistry experiments, attendees of all ages were invited to actively engage, making the Open House both educational and fun.
What else works? Hands-on demos. Let students try a science experiment, play with robots, sample the art room, or participate in a music warm-up. The more your visitors can do, not just see, the more they’ll remember.
Don’t forget the snacks. Coffee, cookies, or treats from the culinary class add comfort and create natural mingling moments. Bonus points if they’re decorated with school colors or logos.
And yes, music, performances, or even a visit from your mascot can energize the space and give families that “wow” moment.
Example: UC Santa Cruz (USA): The Banana Slug Day Open House combined campus exploration with fun activities. Prospective students and families joined student-led tours, watched student performances, visited a resource fair, and even sat in on mock mini-lectures by faculty. These interactive elements (plus chances to snag some UC Santa Cruz swag at the bookstore) turned the day into an immersive campus experience rather than a passive info session.
You’ve got a lot to say, but that doesn’t mean you should say it all at once.
Keep any formal presentations concise and dynamic. Ten to fifteen minutes max is ideal. Focus on the core message: What makes your school stand out? What are the values driving your mission?
Break up speeches with visuals; videos, photos, and student voices make everything more relatable. If you can, include a current student or alum to co-present. Their stories add authenticity and emotion.
Whatever you do, rehearse in advance. A confident, polished delivery makes all the difference.
Example: Bucknell keeps Open House presentations brief and purposeful. Its Fall Open House schedule is broken into short sessions: for example, a 15-minute welcome and admissions overview followed by a 15-minute “Why Liberal Arts?” talk. Instead of long lectures, Bucknell offers multiple bite-sized talks and student panels, which keep visitors engaged and allow them to sample various topics without fatigue.
Before the event, ask registrants about their interests: academics, sports, arts, etc. Use this intel to tailor their visit. Match them with the right teacher, program head, or club coordinator. Let them know you were expecting them.
Even on the fly, personalization is powerful. Train ambassadors and staff to ask questions and respond accordingly: “You’re interested in robotics? You’ve got to meet Mr. Jackson. Let me introduce you.”
Name tags, interest-specific packets, or a simple, “Hi Sarah, we’re so glad you’re here,” can go a long way in helping families feel seen.
And yes, be mindful of accessibility needs, language support, and dietary restrictions. Every thoughtful detail adds up.
Example: University of Cincinnati (USA): Cincinnati’s Open House model allows each guest to “build your own day.” Attendees register for the specific academic sessions and special topics that interest them most. For example, a student could choose two different college info sessions (say, Engineering and Business) and several niche interest workshops. The itinerary is flexible – with options like honors program talks, campus tours, residence hall tours, etc. – so each visitor crafts a personalized schedule aligned with their goals.
Before families leave, hand them something to take home, whether that’s a branded folder with your materials, a printed photo from a photo booth, or even just a small keepsake like a sticker or magnet.
More importantly, give them the info they need to take the next step. Include your admissions contact, an FAQ sheet, key dates, and a personalized thank-you letter from the principal.
A friendly goodbye, a handshake, and a “We hope to see you again soon” can seal the deal emotionally. People remember how you made them feel. Make it good.
Example: Temple College (USA): This community college makes sure guests leave with smiles (and photos). At its Open House, Temple College set up a fun photo booth with their mascot, “TC Leopard.” Students and families could snap pictures with the mascot – a keepsake to post on social media – and even win prizes. This lighthearted closing activity gave attendees a lasting memory and positive vibe to associate with the school.
Send a thank-you email the next day. Personalize it if you can. Include links to the application page, upcoming deadlines, and photos from the event. Invite further questions and make it easy to get in touch.
If a family asks about something specific, say, learning support or scholarship details, make sure someone follows up with a personalized message.
Want to keep the momentum going? Enroll attendees in a short email series spotlighting your programs, alumni, or events. Nurturing that relationship can turn a visitor into an applicant.
Example: Morton College (USA): After the Open House, Morton College immediately followed up with attendees and the broader community on social media. They posted a thank-you message to everyone who came, reinforcing that visitors are always welcome on campus. Importantly, the message included a next-step call-to-action, a reminder that registration was open for upcoming semesters, nudging interested students to take the next practical step toward enrollment.
10. Debrief, Reflect, and Get Ready to Do It Even Better Next Time
One last tip, and it’s a game changer.
After the event, take time to evaluate. Meet with your team and ask: What worked? What didn’t? What feedback did families share?
Review your numbers: RSVPs, attendance, applications started. Be sure to look for patterns. Did most families come from a certain neighborhood? Were particular sessions packed while others lagged?
Use this insight to adjust your strategy for next time. Update your checklists. Refine your flow. Keep evolving.
Oh, and don’t forget to celebrate your wins. Share event highlights in a post or newsletter. Thank your team. Show appreciation.
Final Thoughts
An open house is more than just an event, it’s an invitation.It’s your chance to say, “Here’s who we are. Here’s why we care. Here’s how your family fits in.”
When you plan with intention, create moments of connection, and follow through with heart, your open house becomes more than a tour. It becomes a story families want to be part of.
So get planning, and get ready to make your next open house your best one yet.
Would you like to receive tailored open house school ideas for your institution?
Contact Higher Education Marketing for more information.
Struggling to stand out in a crowded market?
Boost enrollment with tailored open house strategies!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: How do you prepare for an open house at school?
Answer: Start by setting clear goals and selecting a date that works for your audience. Plan the schedule, secure staff and student volunteers, and prepare promotional materials. Promote the event across multiple channels (website, email, social media), tidy up the campus, and organize signage, welcome tables, and printed resources to ensure a smooth, welcoming experience.
Question: What should teachers do for open house?
Answer: Teachers should prepare a welcoming classroom with student work on display, provide a brief overview of their curriculum, and have handouts with contact information and expectations. During the event, they should greet families warmly, answer general questions, and encourage follow-up meetings for individual concerns.
Question: How do you make an open house at school fun?
Answer: Incorporate interactive elements like hands-on activities, themed scavenger hunts, live demonstrations, or student performances. Offer refreshments, set up a photo booth, and keep presentations short and engaging. The goal is to create an energetic, memorable experience that showcases school spirit.
The University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement launched in 2017, at a time when students were shouting down conservative speakers on campus, raising questions about what role the First Amendment did—and should—play in higher education.
Just eight years later, things have only gotten more complicated—first in the aftermath of an explosive protest movement against Israel’s war in Gaza and then in the wake of the Trump administration’s censorship across all areas of academe.
Amid the chaos, the center and its fellows—researchers from a breadth of disciplines who work on projects related to open expression and civic engagement—continue to educate universities about the First Amendment and investigate the day’s most pressing free speech issues.
Its executive director, Michelle Deutchman, who worked as an attorney for the Anti-Defamation League for 14 years before joining the center, stopped by the Inside Higher Ed office in Washington, D.C., last week to discuss the federal government’s attacks on free expression in higher education. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
1.What are your biggest concerns with regard to the Trump administration and free speech and open expression in higher ed right now?
Well, sadly, there’s kind of a long list. I think, from my vantage point, one of the greatest concerns is seeing students, and particularly international students, being, basically, taken away on what appears to be the basis of viewpoints and opinions that they might have shared, either in the form of protest or, in one case, an op-ed. That really flies in the face of exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect against, especially in a public institution, which is that it’s supposed to be a restraint on government. In fact, what we’re seeing right now is the government stepping over the line of what is permitted, and that is definitely creating, I think, a chilling effect, not just for international students, but for students across the board, whether they’re protesting or not.
I also think that the specter of investigations on campuses—this list of 60 campuses [being investigated for alleged antisemitism], this idea that if you’re on a campus that’s potentially going to be under investigation—might impact what you say in class, outside of class, how you teach, everything that’s fundamental to the academy.
2.What are some of the most common questions you’re getting about what is going on?
Deutchman has led UC’s National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement for eight years.
Laurel Hungerford
I don’t get as many questions as you would think, because I don’t give legal advice, and right now, what a lot of people want is legal advice. But I think one of the things that I’m struggling with is, how do you talk about open expression and dialogue in a moment when it’s largely being suppressed on campuses? One of the questions that people have been asking is what to say to students about the risk factors in terms of being very vocal with your opinions, and how should administrators address that—both wanting to, of course, encourage them to use their voices, but also wanting to be transparent about what the risks might be.
There’s just a lot of other, bigger questions that are just about, what does this mean in general for higher education? Is this like an existential moment? What about the coercive use of money? A lot of questions of: Can the government do that? And I think it’s a really challenging situation where the answer is: Not sure that they should be doing it, but they are. So, how do we handle that sort of in-between space while we wait for the law to catch up to what’s going on on the ground?
3.There’s been a lot of emphasis on civic dialogue education as one antidote to tensions around political speech on campus. Do you feel like this moment is sort of setting those efforts back at all?
I don’t want to say they’re setting them back. I worry a little that they might be getting set aside. And that’s a concern that I’ve had, really, since after Oct. 7, where we saw so much time and energy go into the basics about the First Amendment and about time, place and manner, and about whether or not to use law enforcement, that there became a big focus on the enforcement regulations as opposed to sort of education. I think now, so much energy is being put into how to defend higher education against this assault that I worry that efforts that focus on how we teach not just students but all members of higher education communities to engage with one another and listen to one another and build the muscle of civic dialogue—I worry that there isn’t enough bandwidth to pay attention to that, and setting it aside, I think, is to the detriment of everyone at this moment.
4. How is Trump’s cutting of grants his administration deems related to diversity, equity and/or inclusion connected to the government’s other attacks on speech?
I think that the cutting of those kinds of grants is just another attempt at government censorship of speech. Expression and speech are the cornerstones of the creation and transmission of knowledge. So, I think that it you’re stopping grants about certain topics, topics that are either being researched or topics that are being taught, that is something that falls sort of in the viewpoint discrimination area and really runs afoul of the Constitution. We’ve certainly seen some successes in court cases and injunctions, but I think part of the problem is the gap between when an executive order is signed and when an injunction happens, the chilling effect that happens across the university, and this idea that I don’t know that you can unring certain bells.
5. Though many are calling the Trump administration’s attacks unprecedented in many ways, there have been other moments in history when free speech on college campuses has been under assault. What do those moments teach us about what is happening today?
I wish I could tell you that I am a historian, but I’m a lawyer, so I don’t necessarily have that historical perspective. Certainly, I think people say that this is the greatest threat to academic freedom and to the autonomy of the university since McCarthyism. It’s hard to know how, then, to take that information and do something with it, right? I mean, the hopeful take is: Well, we made it through that, even though it was a dark time.
I mean, look, I’m a [University of California, Berkeley] Cal Bear. UC had people do loyalty oaths; it was not a good moment, and look where we are now. I think that is sort of the optimistic hope.
I think the less optimistic [perspective] is that, in some ways, what we’re experiencing is much more far-reaching, and we will just have to wait and see what happens.
