Tag: Process

  • Breaking the Bottleneck: How Process Mapping and Policy Reform Drive Enrollment Growth

    Breaking the Bottleneck: How Process Mapping and Policy Reform Drive Enrollment Growth

    In today’s fiercely competitive higher education landscape, enrollment leaders are being asked to do more with less. That means more inquiries, more conversions, and more starts, all while working with fewer resources and a shrinking pool of students actively seeking traditional degree paths.

    What separates the institutions that are growing from those that are treading water? In my experience, it’s the willingness to question the status quo. The leaders seeing results are the ones taking a hard look at internal processes and policies and making bold decisions to remove what’s in the way of progress.

    The urgency to remove enrollment barriers

    Many institutions face enrollment plateaus not because they lack student interest, but because of self-imposed friction. Burdensome application requirements, slow review cycles, and legacy processes that haven’t evolved with changing student expectations can all stand in the way of progress.

    Students today expect seamless, responsive experiences. They compare your enrollment process not only to peer institutions but also to the intuitive digital experiences they encounter every day. If your application process is full of red tape or requires too many steps, students will disengage and likely move on to a more accessible option.

    Colleges and universities that want to stay competitive need to start clearing the path. By taking the time to understand how your enrollment process actually operates and identifying where students tend to get stuck, you can make meaningful changes that increase both efficiency and enrollment success.

    Start with a map: Uncovering friction through process review

    The first step to solving an enrollment slowdown is understanding where it’s happening. That’s where process mapping comes in.

    At Collegis, we partner with institutions to conduct comprehensive process assessments. We document and analyze every step of the applicant journey, from inquiry through registration, to uncover inconsistencies, delays, and points of friction that may be limiting your enrollment funnel. We often find that a student’s experience varies widely depending on who they interact with or when they enter the process, revealing a need for greater consistency and coordination.

    In many cases, we find students getting stuck at multiple points across the enrollment journey, starting with the application itself. Lengthy or confusing questions, lack of helpful guidance, and irrelevant fields can all create unnecessary complexity early on. Students may also encounter inconsistent or impersonal communication, making it unclear what to expect next or where they stand in the process.

    Further down the funnel, delays often occur during application review, sometimes taking a week or more due to internal handoffs or manual processes. In some cases, applications sit idle because there’s no system in place to move files forward or flag them for outreach. These gaps add up, slowing momentum and causing potential students to disengage.

    When you can see the entire process visualized, it becomes easier to ask the right questions:

    • Is the application process intuitive and easy to navigate, or are we introducing unnecessary complexity?
    • Are there clear next steps and calls to action for students at each stage?
    • Do students receive consistent, timely communication that reflects where they are in the journey?
    • Is the messaging and cadence of our marketing and operational emails aligned with what students hear from admissions counselors?
    • Are there opportunities to streamline handoffs, automate manual steps, or standardize the process to ensure every student receives a cohesive experience?

    Process mapping isn’t just a troubleshooting exercise. It’s a strategic investment in institutional agility and student-centered design. Institutions that complete this type of review often uncover both quick wins and opportunities for deeper transformation.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Rethink the rules: Policies that reduce friction and drive results

    Some of the most impactful improvements we’ve seen don’t require major investments or cutting-edge technologies. More often, they come from rethinking the policies that shape your admissions process and how those policies either support or hinder the student experience.

    When we conduct policy reviews with our partner institutions, we often find that some admissions requirements add more complexity than value. It’s crucial to determine whether each requirement is truly essential to making an informed admissions decision. By removing or refining requirements that no longer serve a clear purpose (such as excessive documentation or overly rigid review criteria) institutions can streamline internal workflows and reduce avoidable delays. These targeted adjustments not only improve operational efficiency but also create a more accessible and student-centered experience.

    Impact in action: Practical examples of enrollment transformation

    These are not just hypothetical improvements. We’ve worked directly with institutions to implement these strategies and have seen the tangible impact they can deliver. Here are a few real-world examples that show how practical adjustments have translated into measurable results:

    • Waiving letters of recommendation for applicants who meet a defined GPA threshold. This eliminates a common bottleneck while maintaining admissions rigor.
    • Simplifying transcript requirements by only requesting documentation that includes a conferred degree and any prerequisite coursework required for program entry. Additional transcripts are collected later if necessary, which speeds up the initial review process.
    • Automating workflows that trigger application reviews as soon as all checklist items are complete. This ensures students move through the process without unnecessary delays.
    • Setting up notifications to ensure timely engagement. For example, alerts can be set when a new inquiry or applicant hasn’t received contact from an admissions counselor within 24 hours, or when application reviews are taking longer than expected.

    These types of changes create a more efficient, student-centered process that helps institutions convert interest into enrollment more effectively.

    Don’t just tweak the process, transform it

    If your institution is still relying on outdated processes and rigid policies, now is the time to reevaluate. The enrollment environment is only becoming more competitive. But with the right changes, your institution can become more efficient, more agile, and more appealing to today’s students.

    This isn’t about cutting corners or lowering standards. It’s about rethinking how your process serves students. Process mapping helps uncover ways to simplify steps, ensure consistency, and build trust through clear communication and meaningful staff connections. The result is an experience that’s more efficient, more personal, and better aligned with your institution’s goals.

    Let’s break the bottleneck together

    A process mapping assessment is a powerful starting point. At Collegis, we go beyond identifying issues. We work side by side with our partners to solve them. Our approach is collaborative, our recommendations are practical, and our focus is always on impact.

    If your institution is ready to accelerate enrollment growth, strengthen internal operations, and deliver a more consistent and personalized experience for your students, let’s talk.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Jim Callinan leads enrollment strategy and operational excellence at Collegis Education, where he partners with higher education institutions to design and deploy data-informed admissions and student-journey models. With nearly 20 years of higher education experience, Jim brings deep expertise in aligning cross-functional teams across technology, marketing, analytics, enrollment, and student success to drive growth, streamline operations, and elevate the student and staff experience. His collaborative approach helps institutions align strategy, process, and performance to achieve sustainable success.

    Source link

  • Why mentorship networks are essential in the college admissions process

    Why mentorship networks are essential in the college admissions process

    Key points:

    As the vice president of academic affairs and a member of the admissions committee at SSP International (SSPI), a nonprofit organization offering immersive scientific experiences, I review hundreds of applications each year from rising seniors for our flagship program, Summer Science Program. What we’ve learned is that many of our bright and talented students are navigating their academic careers without access to the same supports as similarly high-achieving students.

    Where other Summer Science Program applicants might benefit from private tutors, college consultants, or guidance from parents familiar with the college application process and the high stress of today’s competitive college market, these students rise to the top of the applicant pool without leaning on the same resources as their peers.

    This is especially true for first-generation students who will be the first in their families to graduate from high school, go through the college admissions process, apply for financial aid, and enroll in college. Not only do they need to be more resourceful and self-reliant without the support of their personal networks, but they also often take on the responsibility of guiding their parents through these processes, rather than the other way around.

    School counselor shortage

    For many students who are underrepresented in academia, their exposure to different colleges, careers, and networks comes from their school counselors. While the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommends a minimum student-to-school counselor ratio of 250:1, the nationwide shortage of counselors led to a national average ratio of 385:1 between 2020-2023. That is a lot of strain on counselors who already serve as jacks of all trades–needing to keep up with evolving college admissions processes, understand the financial circumstances of hundreds of families, provide emotional support, and stay on top of the job market to advise accordingly. This ultimately affects the level of personalized counseling students receive.

    Making the college admissions process accessible

    In 2020, SSPI launched College Link, a mentorship program offering Summer Science Program alumni access to one-on-one or group mentoring. Mentors support students during their transition from high school to college through guidance on financial aid, early decision/early action processes, college applications, personal essay writing, resume workshopping, and more. To date, College Link has served over 650 mentees and recruited over 580 mentors sourced from SSPI’s 4,200 alumni network.

    This mentorship network comprises individuals from various backgrounds, leading successful and diverse careers in academia and STEM. Mentors like Dr. Emma Louden, an astrophysicist, strategist, and youth advocate who also helped develop the program, provided SSPI’s recent alumni with insights from their real-world professional experiences. This helps them explore a variety of careers within the STEM field beyond what they learn about in the classroom.

    Demographic data from last year’s Summer Science Program cohort showed that 37 percent of participants had parents with no higher education degree. That is why College Link prioritizes one-on-one mentoring for first-generation college alumni who need more personalized guidance when navigating the complexities of the college application and admission process.

    College Link also offers group mentoring for non-first-generation students, who receive the same services from several mentors bringing great expertise on the varying topics highlighted from week to week.

    With the support of College Link, nearly one hundred percent of Summer Science Program alumni have gone on to attend college, including MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Caltech and other prestigious institutions.

    Using College Link as a blueprint

    As the U.S. continues to face a counselor shortage, schools can further support students, especially first-generation students, through the college admissions process by creating mentorship networks using the College Link model. Schools can tap into their alumni network and identify successful role models who are ready to mentor younger generations and guide them beyond the admissions process. With the widespread implementation of Zoom in our everyday lives, it is now easier than ever to build networks virtually.

    Mentorship networks in schools can provide additional support systems for high school students and alleviate the pressures school counselors experience daily during college admissions season. Let’s continue to ensure the college admissions process is accessible to all students.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Toward a Trauma-Informed Writing Process (opinion)

    Toward a Trauma-Informed Writing Process (opinion)

    “Your writing isn’t academic enough.”

    A single sentence from a faculty mentor cut deeper than I expected—because it wasn’t the first time my voice had been questioned. I spent decades believing I was not good enough to become a writer. Not because I lacked skill or insight, but because I was writing through a deep wound I didn’t yet understand.

    That statement was a flashpoint, but the wound began long before:

    • When I, as a shy Guatemalan immigrant child, felt I was lacking academically and learned to shrink my voice.
    • When I was told that my ways of knowing—grounded in culture, emotion, embodiment—didn’t belong in academic writing.
    • When I absorbed the perfectionism and shame that academia breeds.

    For years, I edited myself into invisibility—performing an academic voice that was praised for its polish and precision but stripped of everything that made it mine.

    And I am not alone.

    The Invisible Wounds We Carry

    In my work as a writing consultant and developmental editor, I hear the same story over and over: Brilliant scholars—often from historically excluded communities—are convinced they are bad writers when, in reality, they are carrying unprocessed writing trauma.

    We rarely name it as such. But that is what it is:

    • The trauma of repeatedly being told your voice is wrong or not “rigorous.”
    • The trauma of navigating academic culture that rewards conformity over authenticity.
    • The trauma of absorbing deficit narratives about your language, identity or intellectual worth.

    Academic spaces can be punishing, performative and isolating. Add in past wounds—whether from classrooms, reviewers, supervisors or broader systems—and writing becomes more than putting words on a page. It becomes a battleground.

    I once had a client who burst into tears during a one-on-one session with me. She opened the document she had avoided for weeks. The moment her fingers hovered over the keyboard, she said, her chest tightened. She felt dizzy, like the room was closing in.

    “I can’t do this,” she whispered.

    What was she working on? A simple literature review. But there was nothing simple about it.

    Her body remembered: her first-year doctoral seminar, where she was told her writing wasn’t academic enough. Being cut off in class. Watching her white male peer echo her words and be praised for his “insight.”

    Writing didn’t feel liberating. It felt like re-enactment.

    Her tears weren’t a breakdown. They were a breakthrough. Her nervous system was doing exactly what it was designed to do: keep her safe.

    I’ve experienced that spiral, too. Sitting in front of a blank screen, begging my brain to write something!—only to be met with my inner chorus:

    • I teach people how to write—what’s my problem?
    • I’m not going to say anything that hasn’t already been said.
    • This is going to take forever—and I’d rather not disappoint myself.
    • I’m not really a good writer. I’m just faking it.

    Even after years of writing—journals, academic papers, dissertation, books—it still doesn’t feel easy. I have to work at it each day. Writing, for me, is like a relationship. At first, it’s exciting. Words flow; ideas spark. But eventually, the doubts creep in. You start to ghost your own document.

    But real relationships, and real writing, require showing up. Even when you’re tired. Even when it’s hard. Even when it feels like your worst critic lives inside your own head.

    This Isn’t All in Your Head—It’s All in Your Body

    These blocks that haunt you as you imagine writing aren’t signs that you shouldn’t write the thing. These are survival strategies your nervous system uses to protect you. And yes—they show up at your desk.

    This is all to say that, in my experience, writing blocks tend to be trauma responses—not character flaws or technical writing issues. Now, are there times when folks are challenged by things like time management? Of course. But to me, that is just a symptom of something deep-seated.

    We’re told to “just sit down and write,” as if our struggle is solely or partly a matter of discipline, time management or motivation. But often, it’s not that we don’t want to write. We actually really want to write. It’s that our body—our entire nervous system—is sounding an alarm.

    Not safe. Not ready. Not now.

    The response varies. It’s not one-size-fits-all. But it’s always trying to protect us.

    Let’s break these responses down.

    1. Fight: You argue with your work. Nothing sounds good enough. Every sentence feels off. You rewrite the same paragraph 10 times and still hate it. You pick fights with your draft like it owes you money. You hover over the “delete” key like a weapon. You get lost in perfectionist loops, convinced that your argument is weak, your evidence lacking, your phrasing too soft, too bold, too elementary, too you.

    This is the part of you that learned, somewhere along the way, that the best defense is a good offense. If you criticize your writing first, no one else can beat you to it.

    It’s a form of protection dressed as hypervigilance.

    It’s exhausting. And it’s not your fault.

    1. Flight: You avoid it completely. The minute you open the document, your chest tightens. So instead, you check your email, clean the kitchen, research grants for a project you haven’t even started, reformat your CV for the fifth time or suddenly become very concerned about the state of your inbox folders. Every task feels urgent—except the one you actually need to do.

    It doesn’t mean you don’t care. It means your system is trying to escape danger. And in academia, writing often is danger, because of what it represents—exposure, judgment, potential rejection—and what it can lead to: excommunication, cancellation, even deportation.

    Flight says, “If I don’t go near the source of pain, I won’t have to feel it.” But avoidance doesn’t erase fear. It buries it. And that buried fear just grows heavier.

    1. Freeze: You stare at the screen, paralyzed. You’ve carved out time, made the tea, lit the candle—and still, nothing happens. The cursor blinks like it’s mocking you. You reread the same sentence 30 times. You open a new tab, then another. You scroll, refresh, skim, click—but you’re not absorbing anything.

    Your body might go still, but inside, it’s chaos: looping thoughts, spiraling doubts, blankness that feels like suffocation.

    This is shutdown. Your brain says, “Too much.” So it hits pause.

    It might look like laziness, but it’s actually self-preservation.

    1. Fawn: You overfocus on pleasing others.

    This one’s sneaky. You’re writing. You’re producing. But you’re doing it in someone else’s voice. You try to imagine what your adviser would say. You filter every word through Reviewer 2’s past critiques. You write with a white, cis-hetero-masculine ghost looking over your shoulder.

    You say what you think you should say. You cite whom you think you have to cite. You mute your own voice to keep the peace.

    You’re not writing to be heard. You’re writing to be accepted.

    Fawning isn’t about submission. It’s about safety. It’s about staying small so you don’t become a target. But in doing so, you slowly disappear from your own work.

    What if your block isn’t failure?

    What if it’s your body’s way of saying:

    “This way of writing doesn’t feel safe.”

    “These expectations aren’t sustainable.”

    “You are not a machine. You are a whole human.”

    Writing as a Site of Healing, Not Harm

    If we understand writing blocks as trauma responses, then the answer isn’t more pressure or productivity hacks.

    The answer is care.

    A trauma-informed writing practice prompts us to shift our questions:

    • Instead of “Why am I procrastinating?” ask, “What am I protecting myself from?”
    • Instead of “How can I write more?” ask, “What would make this feel safer?”
    • Instead of “Why can’t I just get it done?” ask, “What do I need to feel supported right now?”

    This practice is about making room for your whole self at the writing table.

    It includes:

    • Slowing down to listen to your resistance. What is it trying to tell you? What stories or fears are surfacing?
    • Creating emotional safety before expecting output. That might mean grounding rituals, community check-ins or simply naming your fear out loud.
    • Reframing writing as healing, not harm. What if writing wasn’t about proving your worth but about reclaiming your voice? What if it became a place to process, reflect, resist—and even rest?

    Because here’s the truth: You can’t punish yourself into productivity.

    You can’t shame your voice into clarity.

    But you can write your way into wholeness—slowly, gently, in your own time.

    Resistance Is Wisdom

    Let’s stop treating our writing resistance as evidence of failure. What if it’s an invitation to listen? A clue to your next move? A doorway into a new way of knowing? Let’s not avoid resistance but lean into it, face it and treat it with compassion.

    Ask yourself,

    • What if my block isn’t a wall, but a mirror?
    • What if my voice needs tenderness, not toughness?
    • What if my writing can be a place where I feel more like myself, not less?

    Maybe the goal isn’t to “push through” your writing block.

    Maybe it’s to create the conditions where it feels safe enough to speak your voice.

    You don’t need to force yourself to write like someone you’re not.

    You don’t need to perform brilliance to be taken seriously.

    You don’t need to sacrifice your health on the altar of productivity.

    You need practices that restore your voice, not erase it.

    You need writing that nourishes, not punishes.

    A trauma-informed writing practice invites your whole self to the page. It makes room for and challenges you to lean into the imperfection, reflection and vulnerability. It reframes writing not as punishment but as possibility.

    Toward a More Human Academy

    In this political moment—where academic freedom is under attack, DEI initiatives are being dismantled and scholars are being silenced for telling the truth—we can’t afford to ignore how trauma shapes whose voices get heard, cited or erased.

    Trauma-informed writing is a form of resistance.

    It’s how we push back against systems that demand performance over presence, conformity over courage.

    It’s how we cultivate an academy where all voices—especially those long excluded—can write with power, truth and unapologetic authenticity.

    I’m still healing my own writing wounds. Maybe you are, too.

    But here’s what I know now: Writing wounds don’t heal overnight.

    They heal when we meet them with compassion—every time we dare to put words on a page.

    Aurora Chang is the founder of Aurora Chang Consulting LLC, where she provides developmental editing, holistic faculty support and writing consulting rooted in compassion and authenticity. A former professor and faculty developer, she now partners with academics to reclaim their voices, sustain their careers and write with purpose.

    Source link

  • U.K. Weighs Streamlining Visa Process for Researchers

    U.K. Weighs Streamlining Visa Process for Researchers

    The U.K. government has been urged to remove barriers in the visa process for researchers in order to capitalize on new U.S. restrictions imposed by Donald Trump.

    The U.S. president last weekend announced a $100,000 fee for applicants to the H-1B visa program, making a vital visa route used by skilled foreign workers in the U.S. inaccessible to many.

    The U.K. is reportedly considering removing fees for its global talent visa in response. The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) warned that high visa costs are already a significant barrier but said it is not the only change that needs to be made.

    In a new report, CaSE highlights the obstacles presented by the current system, including concerns raised by professionals who handle visa and immigration issues at U.K. research institutions.

    It warns that information about who is eligible for the visa route is often ambiguous and hard to navigate. According to the Wellcome Sanger Institute, which contributed to the report, the language around “exceptional talent” can be intimidating for talented applicants, although many institutions also receive a large number of low-quality applications.

    “These examples point to a wider issue of confusion and unclear messaging about who is eligible, resulting in missed opportunities and cost inefficiencies,” says the report.

    Visa policy is also increasingly complex and can put a significant strain on organizations, according to CaSE.

    The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSL), a research organization that specializes in molecular plant-microbe interactions, said visa support now demands a full-time employee in human resources as well as external support costing more than $21,000 per year in legal fees.

    “The U.K. visa system is becoming increasingly complex, unclear and time-consuming—especially for research institutes like TSL that depend on international talent.

    “Policy changes are poorly communicated, portals outdated and guidance inconsistent, requiring our HR to spend extensive time interpreting information.”

    TSL said that without a fair and functional visa system, the U.K. risks reaching a “breaking point in our ability to attract global talent and sustain world-leading research.”

    Alicia Greated, executive director of CaSE, said U.K. research faces “major challenges” under the current system. She wants to see the government take action that will improve things for skilled workers and those that employ them.

    Greated welcomed reports that the Labour administration was considering reducing visa fees for highly skilled researchers, adding, “If these changes happen, they will put the U.K. in a strong position to compete on the global skills market, especially given the changes in the opposite direction in the U.S.”

    However, she said that the removal of indefinite leave to remain, or permanent residency, from individuals already settled in the U.K.—as Reform UK is advocating—would be extremely damaging to U.K. R&D and the wider economy, as well as individuals and their families.

    “Policy proposals like this also have a negative impact on the attractiveness of the U.K. as a destination for the world’s brightest and best researchers because people may worry their right to be in the country could be taken away.”

    Source link

  • Not Just Another AI Statement: Modeling Process and Collaboration in Higher Education

    Not Just Another AI Statement: Modeling Process and Collaboration in Higher Education

    Not Just Another AI Statement: Modeling Process and Collaboration in Higher Education

    [email protected]

    Wed, 09/24/2025 – 03:00 AM

    A guest post from Crystal N. Fodrey and Kristi Girdharry.

    Byline(s)
    Crystal N. Fodrey
    Kristi Girdharry

    Source link

  • Selecting and Supporting New Vice Chancellors: Reflections on Process & Practice – PART 2 

    Selecting and Supporting New Vice Chancellors: Reflections on Process & Practice – PART 2 

    Author:
    Dr Tom Kennie

    Published:

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Dr Tom Kennie, Director of Ranmore 

    Introduction 

    In the first blog post, I focused on the process of appointing new Vice Chancellors. with some thoughts and challenges to current practice. In this second contribution, I focus more on support and how to ensure that the leadership transition receives as much attention as candidate selection.  

    Increasingly, the process of leadership transitions often starts way before the incoming successful candidate has been appointed. Depending on the circumstances which led to the need for a new leader, the process may involve a short or extended period with an Interim Leader. This can be an internal senior leader or someone externally who is appointed for a short, fixed-term period. This in itself is a topic for another day. It does, however, require careful consideration as part of the successful transition of a new leader (assuming the interim is not appointed to the permanent role). 

    Reflections to consider when on-boarding Vice Chancellors 

    Rules of engagement with the Interim or Existing post-holder  

    Clear rules of engagement must be agreed with the appointed Interim. Among those rules are those relating to the engagement with the Board. Often these can feel quite implicit and unspoken. I’d encourage both parties to be much more explicit and document their mutual expectations to share with each other.     

    Incoming Vice Chancellor transition plan (individual and team-based) 

    Moving onto the post-appointment, pre-arrival period is an important phase in the process of ensuring a successful outcome. How can the incoming leader prepare (whilst often doing another big job)? How might the team prepare the way for the incoming leader? And, how might the existing or interim leader hold things together during this period? This is often a period of heightened anxiety within the senior leadership team (although rarely surfaced and discussed). Working with the team during this phase can help to reduce the danger of siloed working and help prepare the team for the arrival of the new leader.  

    Outgoing Vice Chancellor transition plan  

    Frequently overlooked is the importance of ensuring a successful transition for the current post-holder (assuming it has not been a forced exit). Beware of placing too much focus on the new person. Often, as indicated earlier, the current post holder may have many months to go before the new person can start. They also require support and encouragement. And, of course, recognition for their period in office.  

    Day 1 and week 1 

    The lead-up to day 1 requires significant consideration by the new Vice Chancellor. Meeting the new ‘inner office’ and considering how and in what ways the new Vice Chancellor is different in style and expectations compared to the outgoing leader is an important factor. Induction processes will, no doubt, feature heavily in the first few weeks, but a new Vice Chancellor should ensure that they control the transition process. This requires careful coordinated communication and choreography.   

    First x days (what’s the right number?) 

    Every new Vice Chancellor should be wary of being persuaded to work towards delivering a plan by some (often arbitrary) date, typically 90-100 days after their arrival. Understanding the context of the institution, and working with this, is more important. 

    Potential surprises & dilemmas  

    A new Vice Chancellor should expect a few surprises when they start. Context and culture are different and these will have an impact on the interpretation of events. To ensure success, these should be soaked up and immediate responses should be avoided. In time, it will be much easier to work out how to respond and what needs to change. 

    Match and ideally exceed expectations  

    Whilst clearly important and easy to say, it is vital to ensure the Vice Chancellor priorities are clarified with the Chair. Having done this, the senior team should be invited to similarly clarify their priorities. Lastly, these should be shared across the team. This, by itself, is likely to signal a new way of working. 

    A final proposal  

    The process of appointing Vice Chancellors is clearly an important matter for Chairs of Governing Boards. Whilst guidance is provided by the Committee of University Chairs (CUC), the latest edition of the document Recruiting a Vice Chancellor was published in 2017. Much has changed in the past eight years and it feels timely for a fresh look given the very different context and shifts in practice. 

    To close, it is worth remembering that nobody comes fully ready for any senior leadership role. Gaps exist and context and culture are different from the new perspective even if the candidate has had a prior role in a different place. You might wish to consider offering some independent support for your new Vice Chancellor. This could be through being a member of a peer-group and/or individual transition coaching. Being in charge is a lonely place and it can be constructive to be able to talk through dilemmas, issues and opportunities in a safe space. Sometimes this can’t be with one’s Chair or Senior Team.  

    Lastly, don’t be too judgemental and try and give any new Vice Chancellor the benefit of the doubt – well at least for a short while! 

    Source link

  • Selecting and Supporting New Vice Chancellors: Reflections on Process & Practice – PART 1 

    Selecting and Supporting New Vice Chancellors: Reflections on Process & Practice – PART 1 

    • This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Dr Tom Kennie, Director of Ranmore.
    • Over the weekend, HEPI director Nick Hillman blogged about the forthcoming party conferences and the start of the new academic year. Read more here.

    Introduction 

    Over the last few months, a number of well-informed commentators have focused on understanding the past, present and to some extent, future context associated with the appointment of Vice Chancellors in the UK. See Tessa Harrison and Josh Freeman of Gatensby Sanderson Jamie Cumming-Wesley of WittKieffer and Paul Greatrix. 

    In this and a subsequent blog post, I want to complement these works with some practice-informed reflections from my work with many senior higher education leaders. I also aim to open a debate about optimising the selection and support for new Vice Chancellors by challenging some current practices. 

    Reflections to consider when recruiting Vice Chancellors 

    Adopt a different team-based approach 

    Clearly, all appointment processes are team-based – undertaken by a selection committee. For this type of appointment, however, we need a different approach which takes collective responsibility as a ‘Selection and Transition Team’. What’s the difference? In this second approach, the team take a wider remit with responsibility for the full life cycle of the process from search to selection to handover and transition into role. The team also oversee any interim arrangements if a gap in time exists between the existing leader leaving and the successor arriving. This is often overlooked.  

    The Six Keys to a Successful Presidential Transition is an interesting overview of this approach in Canada. 

    Pre-search diagnosis  

    Pre-search diagnosis (whether involving a search and selection firm or not) is often underestimated in its importance or is under-resourced. Before you start to search for a candidate to lead a university, you need to ensure those involved are all ‘on the same page’. Sometimes they are, but in other cases they fail to recognise that they are on the same, but wrong, page. Classically, this may be to find someone to lead the organisation of today, and a failure to consider the place they seek to be in 10 years. Before appointing a search firm, part of the solution is to ensure you have a shared understanding of the type of university you are seeking someone to lead.   

    • Role balance and capabilities 

    A further diagnostic issue, linked to the former point, is to be very clear about the balance of capabilities required in your selected candidate. One way of framing this is to assess the candidate balance across a number of dimensions, including:  

    • The Chief Academic Officer (CAO) capabilities; more operational and internally focussed. 
    • The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) capabilities; more strategic and initially internally focussed. 
    • The Chief Civic Officer (CCO) capabilities: more strategic and externally focussed; and 
    • The Chief Stakeholder Relationship Officer (CSRO): more operational and externally focussed. 

    All four matter. One astute Vice Chancellor suggested to me a fifth; Chief Storytelling Officer (CSO). 

    Search firm or not?   

    The decision as to whether to use a search firm is rarely considered today – it is assumed you will use one. It is, however, worth pausing to reflect on this issue, if only to be very clear about what you are seeking from a search firm. What criteria should you use to select one? Are you going with one who you already use, or have used, or are you open to new players (both to you and to the higher education market)? The latter might be relevant if you are seeking to extend your search to candidates who have a career trajectory beyond higher education.  

    ‘Listing’ – how and by whom?   

    Searching should lead to many potential candidates Selecting who to consider is typically undertaken through a long-listing process and from this a short-list is created. Make sure you understand how this will be undertaken and who will be doing it. When was the last time you asked to review the larger list from which the long list was taken?  

    Psychometrics – why, which and how? 

    A related matter involves the use of any psychometric instruments proposed to form part of the selection process. They are often included –yet the rationale for this is often unclear. As is the question of how the data will be used. Equally importantly, if the judgment is that it should be included, who should undertake the process? Whichever route you take, you would be wise to read Andrew Munro’s recent book on the topic, Personality Testing In Employee Selection: Challenges, Controversies and Future Directions 

    Balance questions with scenarios and dilemmas 

    Given the complexity of the role of the Vice Chancellor, it is clearly important to assess candidates across a wide range of criteria. Whilst a question-and-answer process can elicit some evidence, we should all be aware of the limitations of such a process. Complementing the former with a well-considered scenario-based processes involving a series of dilemmas, which candidates are invited to consider, is less common than it should be. 

    Rehearse final decision scenarios  

    If you are fortunate as a selection panel, after having considered many different sources of evidence, you will reach a collective, unanimous decision about the candidate you wish to offer the position. Job almost done. More likely, however, you will have more than one preferred candidate – each providing evidence to be appointable albeit with evidence of gaps in some areas. Occasionally, you may also have reached an impasse where strong cases are made to appoint two equally appointable candidates. Preparing for these situations by considering them in advance. In some cases, the first time such situations are considered are during the final stage of the selection exercise. 

    In part 2 I’ll focus more on support and how to ensure the leadership transition is given as much attention as candidate selection. 

    Source link

  • Education Department wants to streamline process for pulling federal funds from colleges

    Education Department wants to streamline process for pulling federal funds from colleges

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education plans to propose regulations for “streamlining” the process for pulling federal funding from the colleges it determines have violated civil rights law. 
    • The notice of the forthcoming proposal was published in the Trump administration’s Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, which provides a glimpse of the federal government’s regulatory priorities and schedule for releasing new rules. 
    • The new proposal — which could be released this month — is intended to simplify the process for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights to seek “termination of Federal financial assistance to institutions that intentionally violate Federal civil rights laws and refuse to voluntarily come into compliance,” the notice says. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Under the Trump administration, the Education Department and other agencies have opened a flurry of civil rights investigations into colleges and K-12 schools. Some have targeted their diversity efforts and policies that allow transgender students to play on teams and use bathrooms aligning with their gender identities. Others have accused colleges of failing to address antisemitism. 

    Amid these investigations, the Trump administration has pressured colleges to strike deals with the federal government by freezing or pulling vast sums of federal research funding. 

    The University of Pennsylvania, for instance, resolved an Education Department investigation in July by agreeing to bar transgender women from competing on women’s sports teams. Penn also agreed to give Division I titles and records to cisgender women who had lost against Lia Thomas, a transgender woman who last competed on the university’s swim team in 2022.

    The deal came after the Trump administration had pulled $175 million in federal contracts from Penn. Similarly, Columbia University and Brown University — which were both accused of failing to address campus antisemitism — have paid lofty sums to settle the administration’s allegations after the federal government froze hundreds of millions of dollars of their research grants.

    The notice in the Unified Agenda says the Education Department plans to align civil rights enforcement procedures better with statutory requirements. The agency’s new regulations would pertain to enforcement of Title IX and Title VI. Title IX bars discrimination based on sex, while Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin. 

    The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. 

    Not every college targeted by the administration has been pressured into striking a deal. 

    The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion from Harvard University after the Ivy League institution refused to yield to demands to make sweeping changes to its admissions, hiring and campus policies. Harvard took the administration to court over the frozen funds, with a federal judge ruling in the university’s favor this week. 

    The Trump administration had said it was pulling the funding because the university had not done enough to address antisemitism on campus. Yet the judge overseeing the case said the evidence does not “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard.” 

    The Unified Agenda also provides a look at the agency’s other regulatory priorities, with changes coming down the pike for rules governing accreditation, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, and colleges’ reporting requirements for foreign gifts and contracts. 

    The Education Department recently kicked off the process to craft regulations to implement the sweeping changes mandated by the massive domestic policy bill passed by Republicans this summer. 

    The legislation will phase out Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate and professional students to borrow up to the cost of attendance. It also creates lifetime federal loan limits, with a cap of $100,000 for most graduate students and $200,000 for professional students. And it will consolidate a handful of federal loan repayment options into just two — one income-based repayment plan and one standard plan with fixed payments. 

    Additionally, the policy package threatens to cut off federal student loan eligibility to college programs that can’t prove they provide an earnings boost. Undergraduate programs, for example, must show that at least half of their graduates earn more than a typical high school student in their state.

    The American Council on Education and over 40 other higher education groups have urged the Education Department to work with Congress to delay implementing these changes until July 1, 2027. 

    The Education Department is currently on track to issue the rules no earlier than March 2026 — and likely later than that given the complexity of the law, according to the letter. As a result, the regulations would “impose major changes to financial aid and student loan repayment for millions of students and borrowers only months before they take effect,” the organizations said.

    Source link

  • Thinking About AI’s Threat to the Writing Process

    Thinking About AI’s Threat to the Writing Process

    I will never forget the student who—upon being given 15 minutes at the end of class to get rolling on the writing assignment I’d just given—whipped out their phone and starting furiously typing away.

    At first, I thought this was an act of defiance, a deliberate wasting of time I’d been generous enough to provide following a carefully constructed discussion activity that was meant to give students sufficient kindling to get the flames of the first draft flickering to life.

    I said something about maybe texting people later and the student said that they were working on their draft, that they, in fact, first wrote everything on their phone. Not wanting to make a fuss in the moment, I shut up about it, but a week or so later in an individual conference I asked the student about their method, and they showed me the reams and reams of text in their phone’s Notes app.

    The phone itself was a fright, the screen cracked, a particularly dense web of fractures at the bottom, but when I asked the student to show me how they used the app for writing, it became clear that they could type at a speed comparable or better to the average student on a computer keyboard.

    I’d been teaching the writing process for my entire career, talking students through the steps and sequence to producing a satisfactory piece of work—prewriting, drafting, revision, editing, proofreading—with more detailed dives into each of those stages, but until that incident I didn’t fully appreciate that I shouldn’t be teaching the writing process per se, I should be giving students the kinds of challenges that allowed them to develop their own writing processes.

    As I considered this distinction, I realized how truly idiosyncratic my own process is and how different it can be depending on the occasion and situation. An outside observer looking at how I put together a column or book or proposal would see all manner of inefficiency and declare my method … madness.

    But the key thing about my method is that it’s mine, and I think I have sufficient proof that it works. It may continue to evolve over time, which I suppose we could equate with improvement, but it’s really just different.

    My student’s strategy was rooted in resource constraints, both time and money. Typing on the phone had started as a way to get stuff done during brief in-between times when working as a bicycle delivery person for one of the downtown-Charleston sandwich shops. They’d capture a draft on the phone on the fly and then transfer it to a computer for further development. The phone text had notes like “put thing from that thing here” as place markers for sources or evidence.

    I realized that this method required the student to fundamentally work from a place of their own thoughts and ideas, something that was actually at odds with some of their first-year writing classmates who had been conditioned to defer to their readings, seeing their job as students to prove that they’d read and (generally) understood the content, rather than building on that content with ideas of their own, as I’d been asking them to do.

    At the time of the conference, the student didn’t even have a computer, having had theirs stolen and not having sufficient funds at the time to immediately replace it. The student had been using the terminals in the library computer lab for the nonphone work.

    This conference also revealed the reason for the rather up-and-down nature of this student’s work that semester. This was a clearly curious and driven person who had a number of extra challenges at simply completing the work of college. The assignment we were working on at the time, an alternate history analysis where students had to take a past event, change some aspect of it and imagine a different future, was probably the most challenging experience of the semester, but according to my archives at least, it proved to be this student’s best work.

    Writing the initial draft untethered from any sources or even being able to easily move between information online and the text on the screen required the student to think creatively and analytically in ways that unlocked interesting insights into their choice of subject. Because of fate and circumstance, and without me really planning it, this student was getting a high-level experience in how to harness their own mind.

    I started thinking more deeply about the intersection between the affordances of the tools and the writing process. One of the biggest shifts in my method over the years was when I acquired an external monitor that allowed me to see two full pages of text simultaneously on screen. This was something I’d longed for for years but resisted because I’m cheap. I now have a hard time working without it.

    This incident happened as I was also experimenting with approaches to alternative grading, so it became a natural fit to start asking students to reflect more purposefully on the literal mechanics of their writing process so they could identify missing needs that they might be able to fulfill.

    At the time I hadn’t yet come up with my framework of the writer’s practice, but now I can see how integral asking students to be this mindful about their own process can be to the development of a practice.

    It’s also a good route for introducing mindfulness into the choices they may make when it comes to using generative AI tools. If they understand their labor and its meaning, they will have the capacity to assess how using the tool may enhance or—what I think is more likely—distort their process. It is also a reminder to us to design challenges that encourage the kind of labor we want students to be doing.

    Before we retreat to old technology that dodges these challenges, like blue books, I think we could do a lot of good by really leaning in to helping students see writing as an experience that will differ based on their unique intelligences, and that if they pay attention, if what they are doing matters, they can come to know themselves a bit better.

    Source link

  • Trump’s executive orders: Due process, ‘breathtaking sweeps,’ and the evils of intentional vagueness — First Amendment News 472

    Trump’s executive orders: Due process, ‘breathtaking sweeps,’ and the evils of intentional vagueness — First Amendment News 472

    Beginning next week, First Amendment News (FAN) will be moving to Substack. Be sure to sign up and follow us there for future installments!

    “No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit . . . The instant case presents an unprecedented attack on . . . foundational principles. . . . Here, deciding what process was due to plaintiff is unnecessary, because no process was provided.” — Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice (Dist. Ct., D.C., May 2)

    “[T]he Court found that Ms. Rumeysa Ozturk has demonstrated a substantial claim of a violation of due process.” — Ozturk v. Hyde (Dist. Ct., VT, May 16)

    “[T]his directive has a breathtaking sweep . . .” — Jenner & Block v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (Dist. Ct., D.C., May 23)

    Maxim: #1: Vagueness and due process cannot coexist, at least not in any system of constitutional justice worthy of the name. 

    Maxim #2: The broader the law’s sweep, the greater the likelihood that it was designed to be arbitrarily punitive.

    It is undeniable: Many of Donald Trump’s executive orders run wildly afoul of basic tenets of fairness. Time and again, he has ordered his subordinates to enforce orders that are shockingly vague and disturbingly broad. Both in their conception and execution, such orders patently violate the commands of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. And yet, the public and the courts are asked to countenance such abridgments of law in the name of unfettered executive prerogative.

    Clarity and precision in lawmaking are fundamental to any system of justice. That call for clarity, which traces back at least to Roman law, finds expression in Montesquieu’s “Spirit of Laws” and William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” Laws must be “plainly and perspicuously penned,” is how Blackstone tagged it.

    In “Federalist No. 62,” James Madison condemned those laws that were “incoherent that they cannot be understood.” The idea is rooted in basic fairness, in due process of law. Such a process is especially important in the First Amendment context.

    Whether it be in executive orders directed at DEI practices, law firms, universities, libraries, or immigrants, among others, the basic problem of vagueness is the constitutional cancer present in all of them. 

    As Justice Thurgood Marshall made clear in 1972’s Grayned v. City of Rockford, vagueness offends fairness because (i) it provides no meaningful warning to ordinary persons as to “what is prohibited,” (ii) it provides no “explicit standards” to law enforcement officials, judges, and juries necessary to avoid “arbitrary and discriminatory application,” and (iii) vague laws chill protected speech insofar as the “boundaries of the forbidden areas [are not] clearly marked.” 

    Justice William Brennan explained the First Amendment importance of that principle in 1963’s NAACP v. Button: “Standards of permissible . . . vagueness are strict in the area of free expression. . . [I]n the area of First Amendment freedoms, the existence of a [vague mandate is] susceptible of sweeping and improper application.”

    In the unconstitutional process, lawyers, scientists, librarians, universities, law firms and others are chilled into silence — and that is precisely the point.

    The evils of vagueness, among other constitutional wrongs, were thoughtfully identified by federal district court Judge Adam B. Abelson in the recent Maryland District Court case National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump. In relevant part, Judge Abelson began: 

    This Court remains of the view that Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their facial free speech and vagueness claims . . . The Challenged Provisions forbid government contractors and grantees from engaging in “equity-related” work and from “promoting DEI” in ways the administration may consider to violate antidiscrimination laws; they demand that the “private sector” “end . . . DEI” and threaten “strategic enforcement” to effectuate the “end[ing]” of “DEI”; and they threaten contractors and grantees with enforcement actions with the explicit purpose of “deter[ring]” such “programs or principles.” 

    Judge Adam B. Abelson

    Thereafter, he emphasized that the Court was 

    …deeply troubled that the Challenged Provisions, which constitute content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech (in addition to conduct), have the inherent and ineluctable effect of silencing speech that has long been, and remains, protected by the First Amendment. And they do so through impermissibly vague directives that exacerbate the speech-chilling aspects of the Challenged Provisions.

    To elucidate that point, he added:

    Historically, the metaphor used to describe the effect of laws that restrict speech is “chill.” The more apt metaphor here is “extinguish.” Part of the explicit purpose and effect of the Challenged Provisions is to stifle debate — to silence selected viewpoints, selected discourse — on matters of public concern. They forbid government contractors and grantees from engaging in discourse — including speech such as teaching, conferences, writing, speaking, etc. — if that discourse is “related” to “equity. ” And they direct the “private sector” to “end” diversity, to “end” equity, and to “end” inclusion. See J21 Order § 4(b) (directing agencies to “encourage the private sector to end . . . DEI”). “End” is not a mere “chill.” “Deter[rence]” is not a side-effect of the Challenged Provisions; their explicit goal is to “deter” not only “programs” but “principles” — i.e. ideas, concepts, and values. After all, the opposite of inclusion is exclusion; the opposite of equity is inequity; and, at least in some forms, the opposite of diversity is segregation.

    Such are but some of the evils rooted in many of Trump’s executive orders. Those affronts to due process and First Amendment principles are so obvious as to render their design intentional (see “Trump’s ‘So what?’ stratagem,” FAN 470).

    Trump’s Justice Department defends such lawlessness by procedural obfuscation coupled with political rhetoric and claims of unrestrained executive prerogative. When that fails they take cover by being evasive, as revealed in oral arguments in the Second Circuit case of Ozturk v. Hyde: 

    The appeals court judges pushed . . . [Department of Justice attorney Drew] Ensign on whether or not the Trump administration believed that both students’ speech was lawful speech.

    “We have not taken a position on that,” Ensign told the panel of three judges, saying concerns over where the students’ cases should be heard were more important.

    “Help my thinking along,” Judge Barrington D. Parker then said. “Take a position.”

    “Your honor, I don’t have authority to take a position on that right now,” Ensign replied.

    Drew Ensign Former Arizona Deputy Solicitor General

    Drew Ensign

    In the unconstitutional process, lawyers, scientists, librarians, universities, law firms and others are chilled into silence — and that is precisely the point. 

    Consider as well this from an article in The New York Times by Stephanie Saul:

    The Trump administration is set to cancel the federal government’s remaining federal contracts with Harvard University — worth an estimated $100 million, according to a letter that is being sent to federal agencies on Tuesday. The May 27 letter [from the U.S. General Services Administration] also instructs agencies to “find alternative vendors” for future services.

    The additional planned cuts, outlined in a draft of the letter obtained by The New York Times, represented what an administration official called a complete severance of the government’s longstanding business relationship with Harvard.

    The letter is the latest example of the Trump administration’s determination to bring Harvard — arguably the country’s most elite and culturally dominant university — to its knees, by undermining its financial health and global influence. Since last month, the administration has frozen about $3.2 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard. And it has tried to halt the university’s ability to enroll international students.

    Related

    A new episode of the Academic Freedom Podcast has been released. The podcast is sponsored by the Academic Freedom Alliance and the Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech at Yale Law School.

    This episode features a conversation with Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School and former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. His recent working paper, ‘Our Money or Your Life!’ Higher Education and the First Amendment,’ explores the First Amendment constraints on federal funding to American universities.

    In the last few weeks, the Trump administration has made several announcements that it is withholding a significant amount of federal funds from specific universities, notably Columbia University and Harvard University, and that those funds will not be released until those universities comply with a set of demands. Harvard received a letter on April 11 demanding changes in Harvard’s governance, faculty hiring practices, student admissions practices, viewpoint diversity among the faculty, and student disciplinary policies, among other things. On May 5, the Secretary of Education sent a letter to Harvard informing the university that the federal government will award it no grants for scholarly research in the future. Reportedly, there is more than $2 billion dollars at stake.

    On the podcast we talk through what the Trump administration is doing, what the consequences are for Harvard and other affected universities, and what constitutional issues are raised by the administration’s actions in denying Harvard access to federal research funds. In the process, we get a short course on First Amendment doctrine relating to viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional conditions.

    Trump’s lackey: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr

    Commissioner of Federal Communications Commission Brendan Carr discusses how FCC funding has helped expand patient care at the University of Mississippi Medical Center's Center for Telehealth, during a news conference at the telehealth center in Ridgeland, Mississippi, on April 1, 2021.

    FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr

    “He has . . . abandoned the FCC’s posture as an independent regulator in favor of an openly personal embrace of Trump.”

    Four months into his tenure as head of America’s top communications regulator, Brendan Carr appears to be running a Trumpian playbook to transform a long-independent agency.

    Immediately after being promoted by President Donald Trump to chair the Federal Communications Commission, on Jan. 20, Carr launched investigations into top media companies, including NPR, PBS and Comcast.

    Related

    Latest update of Zick’s Executive Orders repository 

    SCOTUS denies review in middle school ‘two genders’ shirt case 

    This past Monday the Supreme Court denied review (7-2) in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough. The issue raised in that case was whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.

    Summary of facts: “In this case, L.M.’s [middle] school prohibited him from wearing a non-obscene, non-vulgar shirt stating, ‘There Are Only Two Genders,’ because the message ‘would cause students in the LGBTQ+ community to feel unsafe.’. The school even banned him from wearing the same shirt on which he covered the words ‘Only Two’ with a piece of tape on which he wrote “CENSORED” so that the message read, ‘There Are [CENSORED] Genders.’”

    The petition had been distributed for conference twelve times.

    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a separate dissent, which in part read:

    This case presents an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive. In this case, a middle school permitted and indeed encouraged student expression endorsing the view that there are many genders. But when L. M., a seventh grader, wore a t-shirt that said “There Are Only Two Genders,” he was barred from attending class. And when he protested this censorship by blocking out the words “Only Two” and substituting “CENSORED,” the school prohibited that shirt as well.

    The First Circuit held that the school did not violate L. M.’s free-speech rights. It held that the general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools. And it employed a vague, permissive, and jargon-laden rule that departed from the standard this Court adopted in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969).

    FBI reopens probe into Dobbs Supreme Court leak

    The FBI will launch new probes into the 2023 discovery of cocaine at the White House during President Joe Biden’s term and the 2022 leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a top official announced on Monday. Dan Bongino, a rightwing podcaster-turned-FBI deputy director, made the announcement on X, saying that he had requested weekly briefings on the cases’ progress. . . .

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: Heather Mac Donald on Trump & free speech


    “[M]y reaction to everything that Trump is doing, and I agree almost across the board with his substantive aims whether it’s with regards to the universities, whether it’s regards to immigration, is what would we feel if the democratic administrations were doing this exact same thing in favor of their values? Everything we’re doing sets a precedent. Again, I acknowledge the precedent has already been set. . . . I’m still very nervous about the government using power because even though I’m not deeply libertarian, I do think that the hope of a neutral arbiter of a government that is restrained by rules that are content-free that are politics-free is one of the biggest yearnings of humanity, at least in the west.” — Heather Mac Donald

    Heather Mac Donald discusses the Trump administration’s free speech record amidst its battles with higher ed, mainstream media, law firms, and more.

    Mac Donald is a Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her most recent book is “When race trumps merit: How the pursuit of equity sacrifices excellence, destroys beauty, and threatens lives.”

    Related

    • Heather Mac Donald, “The White House’s Clumsy Attack on Harvard,” City Journal (April 15) (“The administration is growing ever bolder in its crusade against the institutions responsible for left-wing ideology — whether elite law firms or universities. That crusade is unquestionably justified. Its targets deserve little sympathy. . .”)

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions 

    Petitions denied

    Emergency Applications 

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Beginning next week, First Amendment News (FAN) will be moving to Substack. Be sure to sign up and follow us there for future installments!

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 471: “Seven free speech groups issue a call to oppose Trump’s First Amendment violations… Why aren’t there more?”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE.

    Source link