Tag: presidents

  • Higher Education Inquirer : America’s Creepiest College Presidents

    Higher Education Inquirer : America’s Creepiest College Presidents

     Across the United States, a quiet but unmistakable chill has settled over many college campuses. It isn’t the weather. It’s the behavior of a particular class of leaders—the college presidents whose decisions, priorities, and public personas have begun to feel, for lack of a better word, creepy. Not criminal, necessarily. Not always abusive in the legal sense. Just profoundly unsettling in ways that undermine trust, erode shared governance, and push higher education further into the shadows of authoritarianism and corporate capture.

    This piece introduces criteria for what makes a college president “creepy,” highlights examples of the types of leaders who fit the mold, and invites reader feedback to build a more accountable public record.

    Criteria for a “Creepy” College President

    “Creepy” here is not about personality quirks. It’s about behavior, power, and material consequences. Based on the reporting and analysis at HEI, we propose the following criteria:


    1. First Amendment Hostility

    Presidents who suppress speech, restrict student journalism, punish dissent, or hide behind overbroad “time, place, and manner” rules fall squarely into this category. The creepiness intensifies when universities hire outside PR firms or surveillance contractors to monitor campus critics, including students and faculty.

    2. Student Rights Violations

    Presidents who treat students as risks rather than people, who hide data on assaults, who enable over-policing by campus security, or who weaponize conduct codes to silence protest movements—from Palestine solidarity groups to climate activists—fit the profile.

    3. Civil Rights Erosion

    Administrators who undermine Title IX protections, retaliate against whistleblowers, protect abusive coaches, or ignore discrimination complaints are not just negligent—they’re institutionally creepy. Their public statements about “inclusion” often ring hollow when compared with their actions behind closed doors.

    4. Worker Rights Suppression

    Union busting. Outsourcing. Wage stagnation. Anti-transparency tactics. Presidents who preach community while crushing collective bargaining efforts, freezing staff pay, or firing outspoken employees through “restructuring” deserve a place on any such list.

    5. Climate Denial or Delay

    Presidents who sign glossy climate pledges yet continue fossil-fuel investments, partner with extractive corporations, or suppress environmental activism on campus epitomize a uniquely twenty-first-century creepiness: a willingness to sacrifice future generations to maintain donor relationships and boardroom comfort.

    Examples: The Multi-Modal Creep Typology

    Rather than name only individuals—something readers can help expand—we outline several recognizable types. These composites reflect the emerging patterns seen across U.S. higher education.

    The Surveillance Chancellor

    Obsessed with “campus safety,” this president quietly expands the university’s security apparatus: license plate readers at entrances, contracts with predictive-policing vendors, facial recognition “pilots,” and backdoor relationships with state or federal agencies. Their speeches emphasize “community,” but their emails say “monitoring.”

    The Union-Busting Visionary

    This leader talks the language of innovation and social mobility while hiring anti-union law firms to intimidate graduate workers and dining staff. Their glossy strategic plans promise “belonging,” but their HR memos rewrite job classifications to avoid paying benefits.

    The Donor-Driven Speech Regulator

    Terrified of upsetting trustees, corporate sponsors, or wealthy alumni, this president cracks down on student protests, bans certain speakers, or manipulates disciplinary procedures to neutralize campus activism. They invoke “civility” while undermining the First Amendment.

    The DEI-Washing Chief Executive

    This president loves diversity statements—for marketing. Meanwhile, they ignore racial harassment complaints, target outspoken faculty of color, or cut ethnic studies under the guise of “realignment.” Their commitment to equity is perfectly proportional to the next accreditation review.

    The Climate Hypocrite

    At Earth Day, they pose with solar panels. In the boardroom, they argue that divesting from fossil fuels is “unrealistic.” Student climate groups often face administrative smothering, and sustainability staffers are rotated out when they ask uncomfortable questions.

    Why “Creepiness” Matters

    Creepy leaders normalize:

    • an erosion of democratic rights on campus,

    • the quiet expansion of surveillance,

    • the targeting of vulnerable students and workers, and

    • a form of managerial governance that undermines the public purpose of higher education.

    Higher education is supposed to be a refuge for inquiry, dissent, creativity, and collective imagination. Presidents who govern through fear—whether subtle or overt—pose a deeper threat than those who merely mismanage budgets. They hollow out the civic core of academic life.

    A Call for Reader Feedback

    HEI is building a more comprehensive and accountable registry of America’s Creepiest College Presidents, and we want your help.

    • Who on your campus fits these criteria?

    • Which presidents (past or present) deserve examination?

    • What specific stories, patterns, or documents should be highlighted?

    • What additional criteria should be added for future reporting?

    Send your confidential tips, analyses, and suggestions. Together, we can shine light into administrative corners that have remained dark for far too long.

    Higher Education Inquirer welcomes further input and encourages readers to share this article with colleagues, student groups, labor organizers, and university newspapers.

    Source link

  • Courses Studying Trump Proliferate, Risking President’s Ire

    Courses Studying Trump Proliferate, Risking President’s Ire

    Donald Trump’s second term in office continues to confound onlookers. Yet a growing number of universities around the world are offering courses for students to try to make sense of the mercurial president.

    The University of Pennsylvania has launched Climate and Environment Journalism: Truth-Telling in the Trump Era through its English department and American Conservatism From Taft to Trump for political science students. The New School’s Donald Trump as History module will aim to explore the “Trump phenomenon” and how it alters views of U.S. history, while the University of Washington offers a special Trump in the World module.

    Universities outside the U.S. are also involved. First run in 2017, Trumpism: An American Biography is an optional module for second-year history students at the University of Sheffield, which explores how U.S. history can shed light on the present.

    Andrew Heath, lecturer in U.S. history at Sheffield, told Times Higher Education that part of the module’s purpose was to get students thinking about the history of terms such as populism that are “often thrown around in the media to make sense of Trump and Trumpism,” and to encourage them to think critically about the way that comparisons are invoked.

    But teaching about such a fast-moving political situation is not easy. “It’s a module that always poses challenges—readings can quickly feel dated; teaching it in an election year last time around was harder. Every iteration of the unit needs significant updating,” added Heath.

    Christopher Breem, managing director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Pennsylvania State University, said it is always hard to teach about something going on in the present. But this is often what students are most interested in because they recognize that it is important to them and their future to understand it, he said.

    “I think if you are up front with students that there are unavoidable risks associated with teaching any subject in real time, they accept that.”

    Breem, who taught a course on Trump’s unorthodox campaign in 2016, said there are positive sides to it as well, allowing lecturers the opportunity to talk about populism in U.S. history, and about similar populist movements throughout the world.

    “If you use Trump as an opportunity to talk about where we are and how we got here, you can end up with a really good class.”

    The University of East Anglia is offering an optional module on MAGA: Donald Trump and Twenty-First Century America, University College Dublin has a Trump’s America option, and the University of Southern Denmark has one on U.S. society under Trump.

    During the first Trump presidency, some academics came under an intense national spotlight for their courses that explicitly referenced him. One professor who previously taught a course mentioning Trump said the whole experience was “unpleasant,” with staff and the university receiving numerous phone calls and emails.

    “The university took my information off the website, and we had a police officer outside of the classroom,” the professor said. “I turned on my house alarm during the day. Frightened, I turned down opportunities for press interviews.”

    The academic, who wished to remain anonymous, said it was hard to keep up with the constant change and disruption of the Trump administration but that students were very engaged.

    And they said academics have a professional and ethical responsibility to talk about Trump’s policies in classes, if it is related to course content, but should “tread carefully on how public you make it.”

    However, Richard Lazarus, professor of law at Harvard University and course director for a module on environmental law under Trump, said he had “zero” worries about drawing the ire of the administration.

    “We are not advocates who use our classes to tell students what action they should take. We are teachers and scholars who inform our students, give them the skills to think in a rigorous, disciplined way, and with integrity. They then decide how to use their skills.”

    Other new courses for this year include the People’s Guide to Trumpism at the University of San Francisco and Trump vs. Science at Hampshire College.

    Source link

  • President’s Role in the Enrollment Experience

    President’s Role in the Enrollment Experience

    Why Enrollment Should Be a Shared Institutional Priority

    The future hangs in the balance as enrollment management at your institution spirals into chaos. 

    Siloed growth initiatives are relegated solely to marketing departments, which bear the full weight of institutional pressure yet lack the authority to grow enrollment throughout the entire funnel. Overburdened marketing teams bombard campus stakeholders with complex, opaque data and demand astronomical digital marketing budgets that few truly understand. It’s just easier to say no. 

    Meanwhile, admissions teams and faculty pursue divergent, often conflicting strategies to recruit students, each operating in isolation with little coordination. 

    Student success teams, critical to retaining and supporting new enrollees, are entirely excluded from strategic discussions, leaving vital continuity efforts out of the equation. 

    As these disconnected forces collide, the institution risks a catastrophic decline in enrollment, eroding its mission and future viability — an unfolding crisis in which collaboration is abandoned and the system teeters on the brink of collapse.

    This isn’t the latest thriller from your favorite streaming platform but instead a worst-case scenario of what some higher education institutions face today. The only one who can save them? You, the university president.

    The President as Chief Enrollment Champion

    It would be easy to assume that enrollment success and growth are mandates of marketing, admissions, and student support teams, as they focus on enrollment key performance indicators (KPIs), customer relationship management (CRM) systems, return on investment (ROI), lead-to-enrollment (L2E), and other such tools and metrics. For many university presidents and leaders, the details of enrollment management success are often isolated from broader priorities, such as mission, strategy, and resource allocation, even if enrollment growth is mentioned in the strategic plan. 

    Enrollment success is the lifeblood of institutional stability. The president and provost set the tone, vision, and degree of urgency around enrollment success initiatives. Without executive involvement, schools and departments compete instead of collaborating, pitting enrollment management teams against each other in a crowded market. This approach can lead to silos, missed opportunities, and uneven accountability. At worst, this approach leads to finger-pointing and a cycle of frustration and disappointment across the president’s cabinet.

    While marketing and enrollment management teams are the frontline drivers of enrollment strategies, the ultimate success of growth and student satisfaction hinges on the strategic leadership of university presidents and provosts. Effective leadership necessitates active engagement and oversight to ensure that these efforts are successfully integrated into the university’s priority initiatives. 

    Strong executive involvement signals holistic institutional commitment. This helps break down barriers that can impede enrollment success and diminish the student enrollment experience, such as disconnects between the operational teams supporting enrollment management and the academic teams safeguarding quality, reputation, and ranking. 

    Here, we discuss why the university president must champion ambitious and responsible enrollment. We explore how executive leadership can ensure that enrollment efforts are appropriately resourced; aligned under a single vision; and integrated across governance, academics, operations, and administration to achieve the most compelling metrics: exceptional student experiences and outcomes.

    Ensuring Adequate Resources and Support

    One of the key ways presidents and provosts can bolster enrollment success is by ensuring that marketing, recruitment, and student success teams are sufficiently resourced. No one expects executive leadership to be in the weeds of enrollment management operations. 

    However, having a working understanding of digital marketing and how it differs from event-driven marketing (for example, enrollment fairs or conferences) can be helpful during budget allocation conversations for marketing campaigns. 

    Equally important is ensuring that faculty and enrollment management staff have access to training and development opportunities to stay current in a rapidly evolving field, which is full of new tools and approaches, as well as a diverse ecosystem of third-party support opportunities. Faculty and staff are on the front line of student engagement. Presidents and provosts can cultivate an environment of continuous professional development focused on inclusive teaching, technology integration, and student engagement strategies. Well-supported faculty and staff are more effective in creating positive learning environments that attract and retain students. 

    Finally, presidents and provosts should invest in a process for new academic program development that assesses whether programs meet market demand and provide graduates with specific professional outcomes. 

    When components such as the above are underfunded, efforts to increase enrollment and enhance the student experience are likely to falter over time.

    Leveraging Modern Data and Analytics

    Are enrollment management staff using outdated and siloed technology systems that require significant manual work to develop basic reporting and analysis? This is a critical area for institutional-level investment and support. 

    Data-driven decision-making is essential in today’s competitive enrollment environment. Presidents and provosts should champion investments in analytics platforms that provide insights into prospective students’ behaviors and indicate their likelihood of enrollment, academic performance, and postgraduation outcomes. 

    Using this data, enrollment management and academic leadership can tailor recruitment strategies, optimize academic pathways, and identify at-risk students early, enabling targeted interventions that improve retention and graduation rates.

    Championing a Student-Centric Institutional Culture

    At the heart of enrollment and student success is a culture that prioritizes the student journey, from initial inquiry through graduation and beyond. While the traditional student journey may be well understood, that of the adult and online learner may require special analysis and support. 

    Presidents and provosts must champion this student-first culture by fostering collaboration across academic units, student services, and administrative departments, ensuring that every touchpoint enhances the student experience for all types of learners. 

    Establish Intentional Governance for Enrollment Success With Shared Performance Metrics 

    Enrollment growth and student success are inherently cross-functional. Presidents and provosts can foster collaboration by establishing formal structures with the authority to act, such as integrated enrollment planning committees or task forces that bring together academic leadership, student affairs, admissions, marketing, and technology teams. This helps align cabinet-level leaders around a unified enrollment vision. 

    These cross-functional collaborations ensure that strategies are coordinated, data-driven, and responsive to emerging trends. For example, aligning ambitious enrollment growth plans with course section scheduling and staffing planning ensures responsible outcomes, rather than having faculty leaders scramble at the last minute to find instructors to cover overfull admitted-student course sections.

    To ensure sustained focus, presidents and provosts should embed enrollment growth and student experience metrics into the university’s performance evaluations. This reinforces their importance across the institution and encourages all units to align their priorities accordingly. Shared accountability metrics should measure success from inquiry through graduation and be accessible to all teams through executive dashboards and regular reviews.

    Promoting Innovation and Building External Partnerships

    Staying competitive requires ongoing innovation and connection to the broader marketplace. Presidential and provost leadership should support the development of flexible academic pathways, such as online or hybrid programs, competency-based education, and microcredentials that appeal to diverse student populations. 

    Partnerships with industry, community organizations, and alumni can keep academic programs and curricula relevant, expand opportunities for students, and enhance the institution’s reputation. Presidents and provosts can lead efforts to establish these collaborations, opening pathways for internships, research projects, and employment while keeping a finger on the pulse of evolving industry and workforce skills needs and gaps.

    Demonstrating Visible Leadership and Accountability

    Finally, effective presidents and provosts demonstrate visible leadership by regularly communicating progress, celebrating successes, and holding units accountable for results. Transparent reporting on enrollment trends, student satisfaction, and graduation rates fosters a culture of continuous improvement. Training everyone to understand the basic KPIs that connect marketing, admissions, academics, and retention ensures that all are speaking the same language and working in partnership.

    Key Takeaways

    The strategic leadership of university presidents and provosts is essential for sustainable enrollment growth and a high-quality student enrollment experience. By actively championing student-centric culture, ensuring appropriate resourcing, fostering aligned governance and collaboration, leveraging data, and embedding metrics into institutional goals, executive leaders can create an environment where enrollment strategies are not only initiatives but also integral components of the university’s shared mission, leading to higher retention; better outcomes; and a stronger, more competitive institution.

    Increase Leadership’s Role in Your Enrollment Experience

    Archer Education partners with institutional leaders and admissions, marketing, and strategy teams to help them overcome enrollment challenges. Using tech-enabled, personalized enrollment marketing and management solutions, we can help your institution align its teams and create a strategic roadmap to sustainable growth. 

    Click here to request more information about Archer’s full-funnel engagement strategies and digital student experience technology.

    Source link

  • At least 4 presidents abruptly departed their institutions last month amid pressure campaigns

    At least 4 presidents abruptly departed their institutions last month amid pressure campaigns

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The higher education sector saw several notable examples of college president turnover in September, at a time when the position is becoming increasingly fraught.

    In some cases, presidents announced their intention to retire or move on to a new institution with ample lead time. But in others, they stepped down abruptly after facing pressure campaigns from politicians or from within their college.

    Below, we’re rounding up some of last month’s most significant college leadership changes.

    President: Mark Welsh
    Institution: Texas A&M University
    Coming or going?: Going

    Mark Welsh stepped down as president of Texas A&M University on Sept. 19 after the content of one of the institution’s classes created a political maelstrom. Earlier in the month, a conservative state lawmaker shared a video of a Texas A&M professor teaching about gender identity and called for the instructor to be fired. Welsh quickly complied, but the lawmaker then began calls for the president to be fired as well.

    The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents authorized a settlement with Welsh on Sept. 26 but declined to share specifics until the details are finalized, The Texas Tribune reported.

     

    President: Michael Schill
    Institution: Northwestern University
    Coming or going?: Going

    On Sept. 4, Michael Schill announced he would step down as president of Northwestern University, pending the selection of an interim leader. Northwestern named Henry Bienen, who previously led the university for over two decades, as interim president on Sept. 16.

    Schill’s departure followed a three-year tenure marked by increased federal scrutiny. 

    Last May, conservative lawmakers opened an investigation into Northwestern’s handling of pro-Palestinian protests on its campus and ordered the private Illinois university to turn over extensive paperwork related to student and employee discipline and conduct cases. Schill, along with other college leaders, was also called to testify regarding campus protest responses.

    Schill and Northwestern’s board chair announced in April that the university would self-fund vital research that has been threatened by the Trump administration cuts.

     

    President: Andrés Acebo
    Institution: New Jersey City University
    Coming or going?: Coming

    Andrés Acebo became New Jersey City University’s permanent president on Sept. 10, after serving as the institution’s interim president since January 2023. He will be the youngest known president to lead a public New Jersey university, according to NJCU.

    Acebo joined NJCU at a turbulent time for the beleaguered university. A year into his tenure, a state-appointed monitor directed NJCU to find an academic partner to help stabilize its finances. NJCU is now on track to become part of fellow public institution Kean University. 

    In its announcement, NJCU credited Acebo with helping orchestrate “a remarkable financial and academic recovery.”

     

    President: Sean Huddleston
    Institution: Martin University
    Coming or going?: Going

    Martin University announced on Sept. 11 that President Sean Huddleston will step down this fall. Huddleston has led Indiana’s only predominantly Black institution for six years. 

    Martin has faced a number of financial and organizational challenges in recent years, including declining enrollment, increased borrowing and a 2022 cyberattack that affected its transcripts. All these factors were cited in a 2023 audit that found that “substantial doubt exists about the university’s ability to continue.”

    Since then, Huddleston has overseen a number of new initiatives, including a forthcoming “virtual campus,” a significant tuition reset, and a tuition forgiveness program that erased up to $10,000 in debt for qualifying students.

    Huddleston’s last day is set for Nov. 28. 

    President: Kimberly Espy
    Institution: Wayne State University
    Coming or going?: Going

    Kimberly Espy stepped down as president of Wayne State University on Sept. 17. 

    Source link

  • What to Do When Presidents Face Personal and Political Attacks

    What to Do When Presidents Face Personal and Political Attacks

    When a crisis strikes, college and university presidents and chancellors are asked to balance competing priorities in real time: protecting students, reassuring faculty, and staff, addressing trustees and communicating with stakeholders, including the public and other key partners. All while trying to be the role model and stay on mission as best as possible.

    While each crisis has distinctive characteristics, these situations never unfold in a vacuum. Today, they are happening as the value of higher education is being questioned, policymakers are sharpening their scrutiny, and financial pressures are forcing tough choices across campus communities. Moreover, our fast, fragmented information environment doesn’t just shape crises. It can, in effect, create them, manufacturing controversy where little existed.

    Strong crisis communications are not just about surviving the alarming hours, days or weeks of a crisis. They are about preserving trust and protecting reputation–which inevitably connects with revenue–thereby positioning the institution to lead credibly into the future.

    We were heartened when attending a recent annual, on-the-record convening of college presidents and journalists at the Press Club in Washington, DC, last month. Campus leaders showed up and readily expressed renewed energy for their roles and prospects for what remains the world’s most admired higher education system. These higher ed leaders gathered voluntarily (yes, voluntarily) to share specific examples of today’s campus environment, dispel some of the current higher ed narratives and inform the media–without defensiveness or naiveté–of the impact on their immediate communities and beyond.

    We cannot recommend engaging in such public conversations highly enough, as a means of building goodwill and busting myths. After all, the best crisis “response” begins long before any crisis occurs.

    Preparing before the crisis

    Presidents should ensure their teams are equipped with:

    • Clear, values-based messaging. A well-defined set of institutional values, articulated consistently (and easily located on public-facing websites), gives everyone a steady reference point. Do students, faculty, staff, families, alumni, neighbors and legislators know what the university stands for during times thick and thin?
    • Scenario planning and tabletop exercises. Running through potential crises, from student protests to cybersecurity breaches, helps identify weaknesses in protocols and message discipline. Exercises also clarify roles so that when a real situation arises, the team knows who speaks, who decides and who executes.
    • Designated spokespeople, prepared with media training. While a president may become the voice in a crisis, other leaders, such as a provost, communications official or dean of students, must be ready to carry the message.

    Leading during the crisis

    During the heat of a crisis, your guiding stars are simple: safety and support for your people. Accuracy, speed and transparency will matter most. Keep the following principles in mind:

    • Respond promptly, but don’t speculate. Silence creates a vacuum, but premature statements can backfire or harm. Even a short acknowledgment, such as “We are aware of the situation and will share updates as we confirm details,” signals attentiveness and concern.
      This playbook paid off during the pandemic for William & Mary, when President Katherine A. Rowe gathered input from the university’s subject-matter experts early on and established credible public health and safety approaches.
    • Center your people, not your process. Your stakeholders need to hear about safety, support and accountability before they hear about the college’s committees or investigations coming together. Prioritize action coupled with compassion. Even 20 years later, we remember the example of Scott Cowen, president of Tulane University during Hurricane Katrina, and the trust built due to his people-first approach. During the pandemic, Colgate University President Brian Casey modeled people-first leadership by moving into student housing to better understand students’ experiences and guide the campus through an especially challenging time.
    • Communicate consistently across channels. Students, families and alumni are likely to first encounter your messages (or off-base, inaccurate versions of this news) on social media, while others may hear news via email, during town halls or staff meetings. Coordinated, consistent language is critical for accuracy and credibility.
    • Engage trustees and legislators early. Surprises erode trust. One university president we admire follows the “No surprises” rule, crisis or no crisis. Keep key stakeholders briefed, even if details are evolving. A healthy president-board relationship, or the opposite, can easily become apparent during a crisis.

    The all-important post-crisis phase

    Too many falter by assuming that once any headlines fade, the crisis is behind them. In fact, the post-crisis period is where reputations are refined and strengthened. Presidents should treat this phase as an opportunity for reflection, accountability and rebuilding confidence.

    • Conduct a candid after-action review. What worked? What didn’t? Invite honest feedback from leadership, communications staff and key campus partners. A president who once worked at NASA introduced that agency’s practice of conducting a “hotwash,” the immediate, constructive, after-action review at her university.
    • Fix what needs improvement. Based on what you learn from the after-action review, consider who among your team demonstrated they are best suited for crisis situations. Determine who will stand in when these individuals are away or temporarily unreachable. Have a backup plan for the backup plan, including communications tools ranging from analog to digital. Cybersecurity breaches happen, as do power outages. Consider engaging external expertise to audit your policies and practices before, yes, the next crisis.
    • Follow up with your community. Students, faculty, staff, families and alumni will remember how your institution followed through. Report on the status of (non-confidential) investigations, share policy changes and highlight steps taken to prevent recurrence. Determine the cadence and keep to it, for communication containing substantive updates. Demonstrating accountability reinforces trust.
    • Reconnect the crisis to the institution’s mission. For example, if the issue involved free speech, show how new steps align with the university’s now-broader commitment to inquiry and dialogue. If it involved safety, emphasize your institution’s improved duty of care.
    • Strengthen external relationships. Use the post-crisis time to meet with legislators, donors and alumni leaders. Transparency about what happened and how the university has responded often earns respect over time, potentially turning doubters into advocates. The word potentially is deliberate here, in that this work can be challenging, it may take years and we need to be realistic about what is feasible. Is there common ground to be found? Are we seeking to please a few at the expense of the many?

    The special case of manufactured crises

    While the principles of communication are consistent across all crises, a manufactured crisis—one designed to harm a leader through disinformation—requires a different approach. Unlike a natural disaster or an institutional mistake, these situations are orchestrated attacks. Their primary purpose is not to address a problem but to create one. They become personal, understandably taken to heart. Leaders must steel themselves, identify key allies to clarify misinformation, and draw from resources in the “bank of goodwill” built during their presidency. Always easier said than done, yet the challenge for any leader in such circumstances is to not become the crisis.

    Why it matters more than ever

    Higher education’s current reputational challenges heighten the stakes. Campus leaders cannot afford to treat crisis communications as a tactical exercise. Instead, crisis communications should be integrated into a broader strategy for sustaining trust in the institution and, by extension, in the value of higher education itself.

    Handling a crisis can demonstrate an institution’s resilience, values and leadership. It can show students and families that the university is committed to their safety and success. It can show legislators that higher education takes accountability seriously. And it can remind the broader public that colleges and universities remain vital engines of knowledge, opportunity and community—even in turbulent times. You may have heard this beautiful phrase before, but remember and repeat: Higher education builds America.

    Crises will come. Presidents cannot control exactly when or how. By preparing in advance, leading with compassion and clarity in the moment and taking ownership in the aftermath, leaders can turn adversity into an opportunity to strengthen their institution’s credibility and standing. All of higher education stands to benefit from such examples of leadership.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Developing a Playbook for Presidents Under Pressure

    Developing a Playbook for Presidents Under Pressure

    After four decades in higher education and now beginning my third presidency, I’ve watched the ground shift dramatically beneath campus leaders. Here in 2025, outrage often outpaces facts, and presidents can sometimes become targets less for their actions than for what they represent.

    Set against that backdrop, churn is high: 55 percent of presidents reportedly expect to step down within five years, and the average stint is 5.9 years, which is 2.6 years shorter than in 2006. Among presidents of color, it’s just over half.

    The criticisms aimed at presidents under fire generally fall into three categories. First, the leader is genuinely ineffective or has made serious missteps. Second, the office itself is the lightning rod because it’s the place where the “buck stops.” Third, presidents are singled out for personal or political reasons, broadly defined, like being new, coming in as an external hire, or being a member of an underrepresented group. Opponents see these presidents as easy targets: less networked, more vulnerable, and therefore more expendable. This piece focuses on the third group: the leaders most vulnerable to attacks rooted in identity or circumstance rather than performance.

    Such attacks are rarely random. They are orchestrated and designed to do harm. Some of these systematic campaigns rise to the level of defamation, attorney Katy Young, managing partner at Ad Astra Law Group, warns. In these moments, the silence of the campus, community, and board is not a strength—it is a surrender.

    What follows is a playbook I wish university leaders and their board members would review and discuss before a sudden media blitz engulfs their president and campus.

    Build early warning systems

    Institutions are rarely blindsided because no one saw trouble coming. They’re blindsided because the right people weren’t talking early enough, or because the early signals were dismissed as noise.

    In today’s hyperconnected environment, the difference between a passing controversy and a crisis often comes down to whether leaders catch the warning signs early. To build an effective early warning system, leaders need to think in three modes: proactive (anticipating), concurrent (tracking), and reactive (responding).

    Before it happens: Run regular simulation exercises with trusted faculty, staff, and students who influence opinion on and off campus. Role-play how the university spokesperson or designated officials would respond to an orchestrated campaign disguised as “concern” or “accountability.”

    As it ramps up: Communications staff must move beyond scanning headlines and Google alerts. They need to monitor social media channels, blogs, templated letters to the editor, alumni Facebook chatter, and local op-eds. Repeated or similar comments on these platforms can be early signals that a coordinated campaign is already underway.

    When it breaks: Establish input and feedback loops with trusted stakeholders. If rumors are circulating, gather information from those who have received the “intel.” Listen carefully, collect details without “killing the messenger,” and thank those who come forward. Their willingness to share may give you just enough time to respond strategically before the game slips out of your hands.

    Align legal and communication responses

    One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen universities make is allowing the legal and communications teams to develop strategies in isolation, by default rather than design. When this happens, the plays don’t line up, and the institution starts from a confused rather than cohesive position.

    Lawyers for both public and private universities are trained to limit legal exposure. Typically, their instinct is to say—and to have others say—as little as possible. A common legal move is a bland placeholder: “We take this seriously and are looking into it,” or the always popular “Because this issue is under investigation, we cannot comment further at this time.”

    Public institutions face more legal constraints under the First Amendment and state law than do private institutions. While the latter may have more regulatory leeway, both share the reputational risks of silence.

    Communications professionals, by contrast, are trained to frame and guide the narrative. In a 24/7 social media environment, their role is to move quickly to establish context, add examples that illustrate institutional values, and sustain credibility with key audiences. Good communicators also insist on honesty—especially in tough situations—because nothing erodes trust faster than the perception of a cover-up.

    Both approaches—when coordinated early on—can add value. Siloed strategies, by contrast, look like the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Or worse, that the university is running a trick play to hide something.

    Once a false narrative takes hold, it’s nearly impossible to “unring the bell.” That’s why legal and communications strategies must be integrated from day one. Boards must also resist the temptation to rely solely on legal advice. What makes sense in a courtroom may destroy credibility in the court of public opinion.

    Steps for integrating legal and PR strategies

    • Appoint a crisis liaison to help stakeholders weigh the tradeoffs between caution and urgency.
    • Develop and rehearse a communications playbook in advance of a crisis that maps out roles and responsibilities and stresses the need for consistency in messaging for all audiences. You will also want to define who has final authority.
    • Ensure the board has balanced information and recommendations from both professionals.
    • Understand the costs of a communications delay.

    Institutions that opt for silence to reduce legal exposure risk an erosion of trust in both the university and its leaders.

    Train boards to lead, not lag

    Boards can unintentionally make a crisis worse by staying quiet at key moments or by failing to visibly support their leader. (The Association of Governing Boards has found that nearly 40 percent of boards have not done scenario planning or have no plans to do it.) Very few presidents can remain viable or effective in the face of board abandonment or governance silence, or even the perception of abandonment.

    That’s why boards must be trained in modern crisis response and media literacy. Though time consuming, Boards should consider annually run tabletop simulations—simple scenario-based exercises widely available from higher ed associations—so they practice crisis communication and governance before the real test arrives. Hands-on trainings like these remind boards that fiduciary duties are not the only ones that should be addressed in meetings, retreats, and the like.

    In times of calm, not crisis, trustees should think about how their voice—or lack of it—shapes current and ongoing institutional narratives. Timely, confident, values-based statements from boards can reassure stakeholders that the institution is steady and supportive of a leader unfairly under fire.

    Decide when to weigh in and when to wait

    Not every attack requires a megaphone response. But some do. When misinformation is demonstrably false and spreading, the institution must correct the record loudly and clearly.

    When facts are still emerging, it’s appropriate for a trusted spokesperson—not the president or board chair—to acknowledge the situation, commit to transparency, and set expectations for updates. But when the president is the target of personal, vicious, and untrue attacks, the board chair or designee should step forward. Staying under the radar in these cases is read as reticence or hesitancy, not prudent governance. To the targeted president, it can feel like desertion.

    Know when to settle—and when to go to court

    This may be the most contested element in the playbook.

    Too often, the decision between settling and going to court is made strictly as a legal calculation. But in cases of defamation, settling can reinforce false narratives, deepen community skepticism, and leave current and future leaders wondering if the board will have their back when it matters most.

    Timing, the strength of the legal arguments, and reputational harm all matter. Settlement may demonstrate common and financial sense when these conditions are in play: it is very early in the proceedings, the university’s legal position is weak, and little public attention has been drawn to the dispute. By contrast, settlement may be ill-advised when a case has been in the system for years, the filings strongly favor the university, and reputational harm has already been magnified by a media campaign.

    In my own experience at California Lutheran University, both my predecessor Chris Kimball and I were dismissed from a long and highly visible lawsuit just as the university entered serious settlement discussions. As a defendant who had been the target of a vicious four-year media campaign, I was relieved to have my personal name cleared. But as a three-time university president, I was disappointed that the decision to settle prevented the truth from coming fully to light in the court system—through testimony, documents, and rulings.

    The truth is the most powerful play we have, and settlements often keep it on the sidelines. That is the major and lingering downside, especially when settlements occur late in the game that the university is otherwise winning.

    Build coalitions before you need them

    When the contest turns rough, the teammates who step onto the field are the ones you’ve practiced and trained with long before. Effective coalitions aren’t built in the middle of a crisis; they are built in times of calm, long before the crisis hits.

    Engage faculty leaders who understand the complexity and tradeoffs of the issue being contested. Build a cadre of alumni who speak about that issue from experience, not hashtags. Help students see the value of facts over speculation. Coalitions built on trust and mutual respect are the ones most likely to defend their institution and leaders when opponents try to shout them down.

    Final thoughts: Protecting the presidency is protecting the institution and higher education as a whole

    Character assassination doesn’t just harm a leader; it weakens the institution’s ability to attract students, retain donors, recruit faculty, and live out its mission. It also undermines public confidence in higher education at a moment when trust is finally starting to rebound.

    Perhaps most importantly, it sets a dangerous precedent for our students, who may reasonably ask: If the institution won’t back its leader when things get messy, why should we believe it will back us?

    Protecting presidents from orchestrated defamation is not about shielding us from critique. Fair critique is a healthy and vital part of accountability. What we must resist is the conflation of accountability with calculated campaigns of destruction.

    Our opponents already have a playbook. It’s time we write, revise, and share our own. My hope is that this piece serves as one chapter in a larger guide to which many ACE members will contribute—because protecting the presidency is not just about safeguarding one leader. It’s about preserving the integrity and stability of the academy, especially at times like these, when individual leaders, specific institutions, and the whole sector are under fire.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • How Small College Presidents Are Leading Through Uncertainty – Edu Alliance Journal

    How Small College Presidents Are Leading Through Uncertainty – Edu Alliance Journal

    Insights from three post-COVID presidents on enrollment, financial sustainability, and strategic innovation

    September 3, 2025, by Dean Hoke: Small colleges across America face an unprecedented convergence of challenges—demographic shifts, federal policy changes, evolving student expectations, and the lingering effects of COVID-19. In an August 27th Small College America webinar hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds, three presidents shared how they are navigating these pressures with fresh strategies and resilient leadership: Dr. Anita Gustafson of Presbyterian College, Dr. Andrea Talentino of Augustana College, and Dr. Tarek Sobh of Lawrence Technological University.

    Their conversation revealed that while the obstacles are significant, thoughtful leadership and adaptive strategies can position small colleges to not just survive but thrive.

    The Enrollment and Financial Sustainability Imperative

    Finding Opportunity in Transfers

    For Presbyterian College, located in growing South Carolina, President Gustafson has found opportunity amid challenge. “About 60% of our students come from South Carolina, and the state is growing, which helps us,” she noted. However, rather than relying solely on traditional recruitment, the college has pivoted to focus on transfer students—a population they hadn’t previously targeted.

    This strategic shift required significant cultural change. “We have very robust general education requirements, and we are working with our faculty to be more transfer-friendly,” Gustafson explained. The result has been a notable enrollment bump, demonstrating how institutional flexibility can open new pathways to growth.

    The Four R’s Framework

    At Augustana College in Illinois—a state that isn’t growing—President Talentino has developed what she calls the “four R’s” approach: recruitment, retention, revenue, and results. This framework drives their strategic planning and helps the entire campus community understand how their work connects to institutional sustainability.

    “We budget actually 11 years out,” Talentino shared, acknowledging that “it’s a little bit like the weather—once you get past day three or four, it could rain when it’s supposed to be sunny.” This long-term perspective allows the college to anticipate challenges and make gradual adjustments rather than reactive cuts.

    Both presidents emphasize conservative budgeting practices. As Gustafson put it: “When we build our budget, we build it on conservative numbers so that we’re not trying to overextend our budget. I think that’s really key to sustainability—making sure you’re being realistic.”

    Confronting Federal Policy and International Student Challenges

    The STEM Advantage and Vulnerability

    Lawrence Technological University’s focus on STEM education has provided both advantages and vulnerabilities in the current environment. President Sobh noted that domestic demand for technologically trained professionals has driven significant interest in their programs. “Our programming, given the surge and the need for technological education, has been serving us well from a domestic growth point of view,” he explained.

    However, like many engineering-focused institutions, Lawrence Tech has experienced a decline in international student enrollment. Sobh emphasized that this challenge extends beyond individual institutions: “The same statement would probably be true of every single one of the universities in the country that is home to a college of engineering.”

    International Student Success Stories

    Despite broader challenges, Augustana College achieved remarkable success with international student recruitment. President Talentino reported that they expect to bring in close to 85% of their original international student goal, “probably one of the few places in the country where we’re going to come that close.”

    This success resulted from intensive, hands-on communication and their focus on undergraduate rather than graduate international students, who faced fewer visa complications. About 20% of Augustana’s student body consists of international students, making this achievement particularly significant for their financial sustainability.

    Managing Financial Aid Changes

    The recent changes to federal financial aid programs have created additional complexity. Talentino noted that Augustana has some protection through a generous alumnus who funds a program meeting 100% of the needs of high-achieving, high-need students. However, she acknowledged ongoing challenges: “There’s a lot of folks in the middle where parent loans are being squeezed and caps on borrowing are being squeezed.”

    Strategic Technology Investment and AI Integration

    The Liberal Arts Approach to AI

    President Gustafson acknowledged the challenge of staying current with AI developments at a liberal arts institution. Presbyterian College has taken a pragmatic approach, partnering with external agencies for micro-credentialing programs that will eventually extend to alumni.

    “Our graduates need to understand AI. They need to know how to use it in order to be competitive in the job market,” Gustafson emphasized. The college has also established a technology committee with campus-wide representation to develop long-term budgeting strategies for technology infrastructure.

    AI as an Institutional Efficiency Tool

    At Lawrence Tech, President Sobh described AI integration as both natural and transformative. Beyond curriculum integration, the university has embraced AI for business processes. “Our marketing, branding, and public relations departments are using AI for the development of marketing campaigns, which is 100 times more efficient, faster, cheaper, and more productive than not using AI,” he noted.

    This efficiency extends across departments, from budget management to communications, though Sobh acknowledged that implementation remains “work in progress” for non-academic staff who need training and support.

    Evolving Student Experience and Support

    Becoming “Student Ready”

    President Talentino introduced the concept of institutions becoming “student ready” rather than expecting students to be “college ready.” This perspective shift has driven comprehensive changes at Augustana, from streamlining onboarding processes to reconsidering when and how students want to engage with services.

    “We can’t take things that we used to take for granted,” Talentino observed, noting that students today have different expectations and needs than previous generations. The college has revamped peer mentor programs, developed success teams for every student, and created specialized support centers like their new STEM center.

    Supporting First-Generation Students

    Presbyterian College’s focus on first-generation students—about one-third of its population—has led to innovative programming. Their “PresbyFirst Plus” program brings first-gen students to campus two days early and has earned recognition as a “first-gen forward network champion.”

    This targeted support reflects broader changes in student demographics. As Gustafson noted: “Students of today don’t have the reading skills and the math skills that previous generations have had.” This reality has required faculty to adapt their approaches, sometimes focusing on foundational skills before advancing to advanced content.

    Bold Strategic Moves

    Creating New Academic Pathways

    Lawrence Tech’s establishment of a fifth college—the College of Health Sciences—represents a significant strategic pivot for the 95-year-old institution. “It was quite a bold move to establish a new college 50 years or so after the last one had been established,” President Sobh noted.

    This expansion into health sciences aligns with the growing demand for technologically trained healthcare professionals. The college now offers programs in nursing, physician assistant studies, and cardiovascular perfusion, and more programs are planned.

    Community Development as Institutional Strategy

    Perhaps the most innovative approach comes from Augustana College’s creation of a community development corporation (CDC). President Talentino explained that the condition of the surrounding neighborhood had become a recruiting challenge, with prospective students and families expressing concerns about the area.

    Rather than simply hoping for external improvement, Augustana committed to an active partnership with the city of Rock Island. The CDC purchases and renovates properties to create mixed-use developments with retail on the first floor and housing above. “We really committed to putting our money where our mouth is,” Talentino said.

    This initiative aligns with Lutheran principles of service to neighbor while addressing a practical institutional need. The city has become an enthusiastic partner, and the project has energized both campus and community.

    Leadership Principles for Uncertain Times

    Transparency and Partnership

    President Gustafson’s leadership philosophy centers on transparency and symbiotic relationships. Her first-year theme, “Symbiosis—stronger together,” emphasized that the academic community functions best when operating collaboratively rather than in silos.

    Her second-year pivot to “don’t panic, navigate”—borrowed from the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities—has helped the leadership team manage multiple simultaneous challenges. This approach emphasizes thoughtful response over reactive decision-making.

    Cultural Understanding and Patience

    President Sobh, who transitioned from provost to president at the same institution, emphasized the importance of cultural understanding. Despite the temptation to implement changes quickly, he spent his first semester meeting with every colleague on campus—”literally hundreds” of people—to understand institutional culture and aspirations.

    “The tendency of leaders to effect changes immediately is, in my opinion, the wrong decision,” Sobh reflected. “Waiting and listening to the culture of the institution, understanding the aspiration and history, and how my own interests can be integrated into that vision is absolutely worthwhile.”

    Institutional vs. Individual Focus

    President Talentino identified a key leadership challenge: helping people understand institutional needs beyond their individual or departmental perspectives. She noted that this represents one of her biggest adjustments from faculty and provost roles to the presidency.

    “Focus on self and focus on own department rather than institutional-wide awareness was a little bit of a surprise to me,” she admitted, “but I guess that’s what makes it challenging and never boring.”

    The Value Proposition Message

    All three presidents emphasized the importance of clearly articulating their institutions’ value propositions to various constituencies. President Sobh stressed the power of concrete outcomes: “Being able to say 97% of my students continue on and are employed at this level and they are guaranteed a job and 85% live locally—that’s an incredibly powerful statement.”

    President Gustafson focused on framing liberal arts education in terms of workforce development and democratic leadership: “All of us are important contributors to workforce development. If we can shape our message around workforce development, economic development, and providing leaders for a democratic society, that’s very helpful.”

    Looking Forward

    These three presidents demonstrate that successful leadership during uncertain times requires a combination of strategic thinking, cultural sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Their approaches vary based on institutional type and regional context, but common themes emerge: the importance of transparency, the need for long-term planning with short-term flexibility, and the value of viewing challenges as opportunities for innovation.

    As small colleges continue to navigate demographic shifts, policy changes, and evolving student needs, these leadership insights offer practical guidance for presidents, boards, and stakeholders committed to the distinctive mission of small college education.

    The conversation reveals that while the challenges facing small colleges are significant, innovative leadership and strategic adaptation can position these institutions not just to survive, but to thrive in serving their communities and students.

    The complete webinar is available on the Small College America YouTube Channel at https://youtu.be/ya1FBu9eS5Q, and the audio podcast can be accessed at https://smallcollegeamerica.transistor.fm/19

    Small College America is a podcast series that presents critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast will delve into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience. The series is co-hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds.

    Source link

  • Can College Presidents Tell Us the Truth?

    Can College Presidents Tell Us the Truth?

    “Truth? You can’t handle the truth!” Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men captures the tension at the heart of American higher education: can college presidents confront veritas—the deep, sometimes uncomfortable truths about their institutions—or will they hide behind prestige, endowments, and comforting illusions?

    At the foundation of academia lies veritas, Latin for truth or truthfulness, derived from verus, “true” or “trustworthy.” Veritas is not optional decoration on a university crest; it is a moral and intellectual obligation. Yet 2025 reveals a system where veritas is too often sidelined: institutions obscure financial mismanagement, exploit adjunct faculty, overburden students with debt, and misrepresent outcomes to the public.

    The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) embodies veritas in action. In “Ahead of the Learned Herd: Why the Higher Education Inquirer Grows During the Endless College Meltdown,” HEI demonstrates that truth-telling can thrive outside corporate funding or advertising. By reporting enrollment collapses, adjunct exploitation, and predatory for-profit practices, HEI holds institutions accountable to veritas, exposing what many university leaders hope will remain invisible.

    Leadership failures are a direct affront to veritas. “Scam Artist or Just Failed CEO?” scrutinizes former 2U CEO Christopher “Chip” Paucek, revealing misleading enrollment tactics and financial mismanagement that serve elite universities more than consumers. These corporate-style decisions in a higher education setting betray the very principle of veritas, prioritizing appearance and profit over educational integrity and human outcomes.

    Student journalism amplifies veritas further. Through Campus Beat, student reporters uncover tuition hikes, censorship, and labor abuses, demonstrating that veritas does not belong only to administrators—it belongs to those who seek to document reality, often at personal and professional risk.

    Economic and political realities also test veritas. In “Trumpenomics: The Emperor Has No Clothes,” HEI exposes how hollow economic reforms enrich a few while leaving the majority behind. Academia mirrors this pattern: when prestige is elevated over substance, veritas is discarded in favor of illusion, leaving students and faculty to bear the consequences.

    Structural crisis continues. In “College Meltdown Fall 2025,” HEI documents federal oversight erosion, AI-saturated classrooms with rampant academic misconduct, rising student debt, and mass layoffs. To honor veritas, leaders would confront these crises transparently, but too often they choose comforting narratives instead.

    Debt remains one of the clearest tests of institutional veritas. HEI’s “The Student Loan Mess: Next Chapters” shows how trillions in student loans have become instruments of social control. The Sweet v. McMahon borrower defense cases illustrate bureaucratic inertia and opacity, directly challenging the principles of veritas as thousands of debtors await relief that is slow, incomplete, and inconsistently applied.

    Predatory enrollment practices further undermine veritas. Lead generators, documented by HEI, exploit student information to drive enrollment into high-cost, low-value programs, prioritizing revenue over truth, clarity, and student welfare. “College Prospects, College Targets” exposes how prospective students are commodified, turning veritas into a casualty of marketing algorithms.

    Through all of this, HEI itself stands as a living testament to veritas. Surpassing one million views in July 2025, it proves that the public demands accountability, clarity, and honesty in higher education. Veritas resonates—when pursued rigorously, it illuminates failures, inspires reform, and empowers communities.

    The question remains: can college presidents handle veritas—the unflinching truth about student debt, labor exploitation, mismanagement, and declining institutional legitimacy? If they cannot, they forfeit moral and public authority. Veritas is not optional; it is the standard by which institutions must be measured, defended, and lived.

    Sources

    Source link

  • Did Presidents Honor Campus Protest Deals?

    Did Presidents Honor Campus Protest Deals?

    Last spring, as pro-Palestinian demonstrators set up encampments from coast to coast, a small number of college presidents struck agreements with students to get them to pack up their tents.

    But a year after those protests ended, have the presidents lived up to their promises?

    While the agreements varied widely by campus, the answer appears to mostly be yes, though many initiatives are still in progress.

    Divestment from Israel or companies with ties to the Israeli government or military was the most common demand student protesters made, and while some presidents agreed to hold votes on the issue, they made no promises about how such decisions would go. In the vast majority of cases, universities outright rejected divestment demands; on rare campuses where administrators agreed to divest, the actions were largely contained, focused mostly on defense contractors.

    Beyond divestment votes, colleges also struck agreements on multiple other points, including scholarships for displaced Palestinian students and increased support for Muslim students. Here’s a look at where such promises stand a year after the encampment protests ended.

    Northwestern University

    Few protest deals made more headlines than the one at Northwestern University, where President Michael Schill signed on to the Dearing Meadow agreement, as it came to be known, in late April of last year. Schill agreed to various concessions in exchange for protesters concluding the encampment. Those promises included support for Palestinian students and visiting Palestinian faculty, more space for Muslim student groups, and greater transparency in how the university invests its $14.3 billion endowment.

    In signing the agreement, Schill caught the attention of Congress, which summoned him for a hearing last May alongside the leaders of Rutgers University and the University of California, Los Angeles. Schill defended the agreement, pushing back on GOP scrutiny.

    The Daily Northwestern, the university’s student newspaper, confirmed that Schill has followed through on various initiativess; the university is currently supporting at least one Palestinian scholar and providing temporary space for Muslim students and the Middle Eastern and North African Student Association. (Renovation for a permanent space is ongoing.) The newspaper also confirmed that Northwestern added support for Jewish and Muslim students through the office of Religious and Spiritual Life, which funds weekly Shabbat dinners. But Northwestern officials have been reticent to discuss such efforts, ignoring requests for comment from the student newspaper and Inside Higher Ed.

    (Multiple student activists also did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.)

    Despite promising more transparency on its endowment, Northwestern does not appear to be living up to that part of the deal. According to the agreement, Northwestern “will answer questions from any internal stakeholder about specific holdings, held currently or within the last quarter, to the best of its knowledge and to the extent legally possible.” Officials promised to respond to such inquiries within 30 days or, if unable to do so, to “provide a reason and a realistic timeline.”

    However, The Daily Northwestern reported last month that it sent officials questions about endowment holdings in February and did not receive a response within 30 days. The student newspaper noted that Northwestern did not provide a reason for the delay or a timeline for a response. A student reporter told Inside Higher Ed that the newspaper followed up on March 30 and the university then referred the questions to the Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility.

    The Daily Northwestern is still awaiting answers.

    Rutgers University

    Rutgers also struck a deal with encampment protesters last spring. As at Northwestern, that agreement landed then-president Jonathan Holloway in front of Congress mere weeks later.

    Rutgers leaders agreed to eight of the students’ 10 demands; while they rejected calls to divest from Israel and terminate a partnership with Tel Aviv University, they agreed to accept 10 displaced Gazan students, establish Arab cultural centers at each Rutgers campus, seek a partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank, hire faculty members who specialize in Palestinian and Middle East studies, and release a statement calling for a ceasefire, among other concessions.

    Rutgers officials said all of the agreed-upon initiatives are currently in progress.

    Rutgers agreed to eight out of 10 of the protesters’ demands.

    “Work continues to advance a series of actions we believe will strengthen and build upon positive change across our community,” spokesperson Megan Schumann told Inside Higher Ed. “These efforts are grounded in the university’s values of free expression, inclusion, and mutual respect—and in the fundamental right of all members of our community to learn, teach, and carry out the university’s essential work in a safe and supportive environment.

    University of Oregon

    At the University of Oregon, the administration’s agreement with protesters included a statement calling for a ceasefire and condemning genocide, the addition of visiting scholars with expertise in Palestine and Israel, support for academics displaced by the war, new faculty hires with related expertise, new cultural spaces, and more.

    Officials said they have lived up to their end of the agreement, though some initiatives are still underway. They noted that the university has already awarded its first International Crisis Response Scholarship, which was established by the agreement to support students affected by the conflict, and the recipient has begun studies at UO. The university has also funded two speaking events as part of its Special Initiative on Constructively Engaging the Conflict and the Pursuit of Peace in Palestine/Israel. Another five proposals for speaking events have already been approved, according to officials. Past and upcoming events have focused on topics such as Palestine and the future of U.S. campus activism and Palestinian identity.

    Other efforts, such as faculty recruiting, are ongoing, with several academic units submitting hiring-plan proposals that are undergoing a standard review process. Plans to forge partnerships with Birzeit University in the West Bank and several universities in Israel are also underway.

    Evergreen State College

    The public institution in Washington agreed to various concessions in a deal with protesters. Officials launched four committees to work on different issues, including “divestment from companies that profit from gross human rights violations and/or the occupation of Palestinian territories,” according to language in the signed protest agreement. Another task force will develop policies to determine whether the college should accept or reject grants that “facilitate illegal occupations abroad, limit free speech, or support oppression of minorities.” The other two task forces are slated to review policing at Evergreen State and to develop a new “non–law enforcement” model for crisis responses.

    President John Carmichael also kept his promise to protesters by making a statement on the bloodshed in Gaza last May, in which he called for a ceasefire, the release of hostages and the restoration of international law, which he wrote “requires that the International Court of Justice fairly adjudicate charges of genocide.” He also urged the university community to be “on guard against Islamophobia and antisemitism as we engage with each other in this moment.”

    Those efforts are ongoing; the agreement provided a timeline for the task forces to complete their work, with deadlines to adopt their recommendations ranging from spring 2026 to 2030.

    California State University, Sacramento

    When Sacramento State struck an agreement with pro-Palestinian protesters last May, students framed the move as divestment in a social media post. But a more accurate reading would be that the university determined it did not have direct investments in companies profiting off the war effort and declared that it would not pursue such holdings. The university also established a “de minimis policy for indirect investments that prioritizes socially responsible investments,” a spokesperson wrote to Inside Higher Ed.

    Sacramento State president Luke Wood said at the time, “The finance committee of our University Foundation has been so committed to socially responsible investments that we have no direct investments in any of the companies about which many of our students have concerns.” He also announced a policy to formalize socially responsible investment practices, in order to “avoid funding students’ education based on companies that profit from war and desolation,” the spokesperson said.

    University leaders announced multiple other actions at the same time, which Wood said grew out of listening sessions with over 1,500 students, faculty, staff and alumni that began when he arrived the previous year. Those changes include introducing more halal and kosher food options on campus, new cultural centers and training on Islamophobia and antisemitism, as well as university task forces to address both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Other efforts include the development of recruitment plans to attract Palestinian and Jewish students to the university.

    (This section has been updated to incorporate the university’s response.)

    Sonoma State University

    Sonoma State University may offer the most visible case of promises made and broken.

    Last spring, then-president Mike Lee agreed to demands from protesters that included reviewing contracts to consider divestment opportunities, introducing a Palestinian studies curriculum and adding Students for Justice in Palestine members to a Sonoma State advisory council. Most controversially, he agreed to what was effectively an academic boycott, promising not to “pursue or engage in any study abroad programs, faculty exchanges, or other formal collaborations that are sponsored by, or represent, the Israeli state academic and research institutions.”

    However, the agreement was not approved by his bosses in the California State University system, prompting officials to walk the deal back and Lee to retire suddenly. A new deal put forward by an acting president who replaced Lee scrapped much of the prior agreement.

    A campus spokesperson noted that despite the changes to the initial agreement, SSU Foundation officials met with students to discuss investment holdings and launched other actions, including a three-part lecture series providing “differing viewpoints on the situation in Gaza and differing religious perspectives,” as well as new groups to support Jewish life.

    A photo of pro-Palestinian protesters at Brown University.

    Protesters at Brown University demand divestment, April 29, 2024.

    Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

    Divestment Demands

    Multiple universities agreed to hold votes on some form of divestment in response to protesters, including Brown University, the University of Minnesota, the New School and others.

    Governing boards, however, have largely rejected divestment except in a few cases.

    The University of San Francisco announced several weeks ago that it would divest from four U.S. companies with ties to the Israeli military: Palantir, L3Harris, GE Aerospace and RTX Corporation. The university plans to sell off direct investments in those companies by June 1.

    Nearby San Francisco State University has also adopted a form of divestment; in December, the public university’s governing board voted to add new investment screening policies. Now SFSU will no longer invest in companies that make 5 percent or more of their revenues from weapons manufacturing. SFSU also adopted more transparency around endowment holdings.



    Source link

  • Republican lawmakers grill 3 more college presidents over antisemitism concerns

    Republican lawmakers grill 3 more college presidents over antisemitism concerns

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Republicans on the House’s education committee grilled three college presidents Wednesday about how they’ve handled alleged incidents of antisemitism in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war, expanding their probe beyond the Ivy League and other well-known research universities. 

    The leaders came from Haverford College, a small private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania; DePaul University, a private Catholic research university in Chicago; and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, a public institution in California. 

    All three institutions have been a hotbed of political activity for over a year. Pro-Palestinian protesters set up encampments at both Haverford and DePaul last year. Cal Poly also saw demonstrations, including a pro-Palestinian protest held around the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. 

    Republicans on the House Committee on Education and Workforce said they sought to crack down on campus antisemitism and uphold Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin in federally funded programs. 

    However, some Democrats accused the panel’s GOP members of using antisemitism concerns to quell free speech. They also blasted the Trump administration for detaining international students involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and for its heavy cuts to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which investigates antisemitism and other discrimination allegations at colleges and schools. 

    Wednesday’s hearing was the first the House education committee has held on campus antisemitism since President Donald Trump retook office. Since then, his administration has frozen funding at several high-profile institutions that have been probed by the committee, claiming the colleges haven’t done enough to protect students from antisemitism. 

    “The Trump administration has taken a sledgehammer to due process rights of institutions,” said Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top Democrat on the committee. “The public has seen a barrage of reports of this administration taking action without any investigation, such as taking away federal funding.” 

    Haverford’s federal funding threatened

    Haverford President Wendy Raymond and DePaul President Robert Manuel struck a conciliatory tone in their opening remarks, and all three leaders outlined steps they have recently taken to protect Jewish students from discrimination, including setting up an antisemitism task force and tightening protest rules.

    “I recognize that we haven’t always succeeded in living up to our ideals,” Raymond said. “I remain committed to addressing antisemitism and all issues that harm our community members. I am committed to getting this right.”

    Last year, a group of Haverford students sued the college over allegations it had denied Jewish students the ability to participate in classes and educational activities “without fear of harassment if they express beliefs about Israel that are anything less than eliminationist.” 

    The lawsuit contains accounts of several incidents and comments it says are antisemitic, including one professor sharing a social media post on Oct. 11, 2023. The post included an image the lawsuit described as Hamas breaking through the border between Gaza and Israel and stating, “We should never have to apologize for celebrating these scenes of an imprisoned people breaking free from their chains.” 

    A federal judge dismissed the case in January but allowed plaintiffs to file an amended lawsuit, which they did that month.  

    Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, asked Raymond whether the professor who shared the post had faced disciplinary action, but the Haverford president declined throughout the hearing to talk about individual cases or share specific figures on disciplinary actions. The professor, Tarik Aougab, is listed on Haverford’s website as a faculty member.

    “Many people have sat in this position who are no longer in the positions as president of universities for their failure to answer straightforward questions,” Stefanik replied. 

    Source link