Tag: Professor

  • Longtime Professor Offers Administrators Advice (opinion)

    Longtime Professor Offers Administrators Advice (opinion)

    I read articles constantly in various journals, including this one, on how to be successful in various administrative roles—department chair, dean, provost, president, etc. Most of these are addressed to institutions not at all like mine, and many of the pieces are facile.

    I am a senior faculty member bordering 50 years at a small private university of fewer than 900 undergrads and fewer than 500 graduate enrollments. I have held most leadership roles, won just about all the available honors and have had offers from other institutions as dean and vice president, among other roles. I have declined them all because I am at heart a classroom teacher and my dedication to my institution is inviolate.

    In my long tenure, I have seen many senior administrators come and go, and I have kept notes on the bad ones. Some left significant damage not easily repaired. Reflecting on a recently departed senior administrator inspired me to articulate some advice and a few rules for success or failure at institutions such as mine.

    1. Know the institution that you come to serve. This requires far more than a general overview; it necessitates a deep dive into the culture and nature of the place. Do not invoke the platitude “from my experience at other places, I have concluded …” Very large universities may reflect somewhat similar characteristics, but even that is questionable. However, institutions such as mine differ distinctively in their culture, including history, experiences, individuals and makeup. Learn all that you can about this before arriving, and once on campus devote the necessary time to knowing the individuals who are key players, especially those who through long service have shaped the character of the place.
      New administrators often privilege new members of the community, who, like them, are novices, in hopes that they will be more amenable to reshaping the environment. However, it is those with long history who are embedded in the culture and who have deep connections with many important constituencies, including peers, the Board of Trustees and alumni. A new administrator may believe that they have a mandate to change the culture. But traditions are the lifeblood of small institutions, and they don’t die readily. Supposed mandates can dissipate quickly. First gain trust before venturing into this potential minefield.
    2. If the institution is in such despair that immediate drastic action is imperative, ask yourself honestly if you can handle the responsibility of the challenge. Success may be ephemeral, and even if you achieve short-term goals, you may burn bridges that can continue to haunt you. My institution has not experienced existential travail, but some leaders during my tenure have exploited unease and trepidation, taking advantage of fears about salary stagnation, job reductions, benefits suspensions or even, in extreme cases, mentioning other college closings to promote their agendas. Academia today is precarious, and honesty is necessary, but fear is a poor leadership strategy.
    1. Put the institution above yourself. When you lose the trust of the community, it is merely a matter of time. No action is more damning for an administrator than résumé-building for the next position. Every action must be in the interests of the institution rather than one’s own benefit. Over 50 years, I have witnessed several leaders whose actions were so patently self-serving that I wished only that they would move away—whether up or down, I didn’t care. This is a character flaw. What one may consider as career enhancement can come at the expense and livelihood of my peers and colleagues.
      In my early days as an ambitious potential climber, my president counseled me, to privilege my personal career as I pursued the next step might be successful or not. But to privilege my institution with all my energy, talent and commitment would lead to a more fulfilling life. I didn’t appreciate the admonishment at the time, but I came to internalize it. I won’t impose this mindset on others, and personally I would be a wealthier man if I had acted differently, but it has provided a personal career satisfaction that far exceeds any material or ego considerations. My mantra is to “devote heart and soul to the institution to the day of departure, and even beyond.”
    1. Be honest, transparent, ethical and kind. Administrators often have to make hard decisions that drastically affect individual lives. You must act, but do so with integrity, empathy and kindness. Take responsibility for the decisions that you make; do not blame others or the situation for actions that you administer. Eschew pronouncements (which I have heard more than once) that “these actions are for better positioning the institution for long-term success.” That may be true, but tone-deaf remarks do not offer solace to individuals losing their careers for the institution’s “future well-being,” nor do they generally resonate well for institutional morale.
    2. Faculty and staff morale is fragile, particularly at small institutions such as mine. Compromising it is hazardous. Keep steadfast: Sincerity and trust should be your guiding principles. If people trust you, they will bear considerable pain. If they do not trust you, then you will fail no matter what your motives.

    The responsibility of leadership in the contemporary environment is a daunting undertaking. It demands skill, fortitude, courage, principles and character. From my long years of observations, many who carry significant titles do not demonstrate the requisite capabilities. One hopes that the few best practices expressed above may point toward some standards.

    Joe P. Dunn is the Charles A. Dana Professor and chair of the Department of History and Philosophy at Converse University.

    Source link

  • Lawsuit from UCF professor targeted for tweets survives summary judgment motions

    Lawsuit from UCF professor targeted for tweets survives summary judgment motions

    In the summer of 2020, two issues dominated the headlines: the COVID pandemic and the widespread unrest surrounding George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, and the “racial reckoning.” It was in this environment, with the country also at or near the apex of “cancel culture,” that the University of Central Florida tried to fire associate professor of psychology Charles Negy for his tweets about race and society. Negy fought back and sued.

    Five years later, his lawsuit continues — and last week, it brought good news not just for Professor Negy but for everyone who cares about free speech on campus.

    Last week, Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that Negy’s lawsuit could proceed against four of the five administrators he sued. Importantly, the court denied claims of qualified immunity, a doctrine that says public officials aren’t liable for unconstitutional activity unless they knew or should have known their actions were unconstitutional. By denying qualified immunity to UCF’s administrators, Judge Mendoza formally recognized what was obvious from the very beginning: UCF knew or should have known that what it was doing violated the First Amendment, but they went ahead and did it anyway.

    (As a note, Negy is represented by Samantha Harris, a former FIRE colleague, which is how I learned about his case a few years ago.)

    Negy was fired for his speech, then re-instated by an arbitrator

    In the summer of 2020, Negy posted a series of tweets (since deleted) commenting on race and society. (For example, on June 3, 2020, he tweeted: “Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege.”)

    After some students complained to the school about Negy’s tweets, UCF responded by soliciting further complaints about him. That led to the opening of an investigation into Negy’s classroom speech as well. Seven months later, what began as an investigation of tweets led to 300 interviews; which led to a (get ready for this) 244-page report. As I wrote at the time, the report made absolute hash of academic freedom with what struck me as nonsensical lines drawn between speech it believed to be protected and unprotected: 

    According to the UCF investigation, it is protected speech to say that girl scouts preserve their virginity (p. 25), but not that women are attracted to men with money (p. 26). It is protected speech to say that Jesus was schizophrenic (p. 36), but unprotected to say that Jesus did not come into the world to die for everyone’s sins (p. 36). It’s protected to say that Islam is cruel and not a religion of peace (p. 107) but not that it is a toxic mythology (p. 35).

    Based on the report, in January 2021, UCF administrators decided to fire Negy without providing a normally required six-month notice period — allegedly because he was a “safety risk.” (Caution: Dangerous Tweets!) Unsurprisingly, in May of 2022, an arbitrator ordered him re-instated, citing a lack of due process. And as I pointed out then: 

    UCF’s case against Negy was never likely to survive first-contact with a neutral decision-maker. When an investigation of tweets includes incidents from 2005 — the year before Twitter was founded — either the investigator is lying about their purpose or confused about the linear nature of time.

    In 2023, Negy sued the institution and five individuals who had been involved in the UCF decision. Some of Negy’s claims were dismissed last year; the recent ruling was on motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. 

    Why claims only went forward against four out of five defendants

    Last week’s ruling involved two causes of action. The first is a First Amendment retaliation claim against five individual defendants. First Amendment retaliation is basically just what it sounds like: a government employee retaliating against an individual for his or her protected speech. In Negy’s case, his claim is that certain UCF employees didn’t like his tweets, and decided to fire him for those tweets — with everything in-between, including the investigation and report, motivated by the desire to punish him for using his First Amendment rights on the Internet.

    The second cause of action is against one particular UCF employee — the employee who was in charge of writing the report — alleging a direct First Amendment violation. Again, that’s just what it sounds like: a government official censoring Negy’s protected expression. Negy argued UCF’s report claimed that several instances of Negy’s in-classroom speech amounted to discriminatory harassment, when his speech was actually protected by the First Amendment as an exercise of academic freedom. In other words, Negy claimed that the UCF employee violated his First Amendment rights by telling decision-makers that Negy’s speech wasn’t protected. 

    To understand the judge’s ruling, it’ll be helpful to be able to refer to the defendants by something more than pronouns. Let’s meet them!

    The first three were joint decision-makers about what to do with the investigation results. They are: 

    • Alexander Cartwright, the president of UCF. 
      • FUN FACT: While this case was pending, Cartwright received a 20% pay raise, giving him a base salary of $900,000 and potential total compensation of $1.275 million.
      • QUOTE: As quoted in the opinion, Cartwright responded to demands that Negy be immediately fired with: “Sometimes we have to go through a process, as frustrating as … that process is to me.” When asked, Cartwright could not recall what was frustrating about the process. 
    • Michael Johnson, UCF’s provost and executive vice president for academic affairs. 
      • FUN FACT: After 35 years at UCF, Johnson announced his retirement last month. 
      • QUOTE:  Johnson publicly condemned Negy’s tweets the day the investigation started. At a 2022 arbitration hearing, Johnson said Negy was “dangerous” and that “[w]e didn’t see any way to put him safely in a classroom situation again.” Johnson was apparently so unconvincing that the arbitrator re-instated Negy anyway.
    • Tosha Dupras, who was at the time the interim dean of UCF’s College of Sciences. Dupras issued the notice of termination.
      • FUN FACT: Since 2022, this native of Canada has been dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Texas Tech. 
      • QUOTE: When responding to an email calling for Negy’s removal from the classroom long before the investigation was complete, Dupras said: “I agree with the thoughts you have expressed in [y]our email.”  

    Two others had different roles, but were not directly the decision-makers:

    • Nancy Fitzpatrick Myers, then the director of UCF’s Office of Institutional Equity. Myers ran the investigation.
      • FUN FACT: Since 2024, attorney Myers has been director of Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct.
      • QUOTE: From the opinion: “Although Myers stated that OIE performed an independent credibility assessment for the witness statements, she noted that the results were not written down and that it ‘was something [she] was assessing as [she] went through the record.’” 
    • S. Kent Butler, who at the time was UCF’s interim chief Equity, Inclusion and Diversity officer, and is now a professor of counselor education. Butler, Cartwright, and Johnson put out the initial statement soliciting complaints about Negy. 
      • FUN FACT: Butler did crisis management work in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. 
      • QUOTE: Less than 24 hours after the start of the investigation, an incoming freshman asked Butler what would happen to Negy. Butler responded: “The wheels are in motion … [B]elieve that by the time you get on the campus as a freshman, it will have been dealt with.” 

    A brief summary of their roles in Negy’s firing, at least as described in the court’s opinion (I wasn’t there, after all): 

    • Cartwright, Johnson, and Butler issued UCF’s initial statement about Negy, which invited people to submit complaints about him. 
    • Myers wrote and submitted the 244-page report to Negy’s supervisor (not a party to this action), who then recommended Negy’s termination.
    • Cartwright, Johnson, and Dupras made the decision to terminate Negy. 

    The court granted Butler’s motion for summary judgment, deciding that Butler wasn’t at any point in the process a decision-maker. If Butler wasn’t part of the process to decide to terminate Negy, the court reasoned, then he wasn’t in a position to retaliate. I’m not sure I agree; I think putting out a press release inviting people to submit complaints could certainly create a chilling effect on speech, and therefore constitute an act of retaliation. 

    The court seems to view the termination as the only form of retaliation in question, but that isn’t how the complaint was written, which lists the statement as a form of retaliation. Sure, termination is worse, but I think that anything that would chill a person of reasonable fortitude from speaking out is potentially a form of retaliation. Having a government official multiple levels of supervision above you put out a call for complaints specifically about you would be a disincentive for most people, I’d think. But what do I know? “I’m just a caveman… your world frightens and confuses me.” 

    The court also granted Myers’ summary judgment motion on the second claim for direct censorship, ruling that the right to academic freedom over in-class speech has not been clearly established in the Eleventh Circuit. Negy had precedent from other circuits, but not this circuit, to show that in-classroom speech was entitled to some level of academic freedom. The court here is indeed bound by bad circuit precedent. The Supreme Court needs to fix this doctrine at some point. 

    Nevertheless, let’s move on… 

    The court rejects the qualified immunity defense for the retaliation claims

    The remaining defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity, specifically arguing that Negy could not show he was terminated for his tweets. After all, in a vacuum, at no point did any of them say, “You, sir, have the wrong opinions on the Internet, and therefore you must fly from us. Begone!” Instead, there was a long investigation that found lots of things they didn’t like about what he said in the classroom. So their argument, in a nutshell, was that there’s no causality here. Where’s the smoking gun? 

    Negy’s response was that there was no observable “smoking gun” because the entire process was a smokescreen, and the decision to terminate him was effectively made by the time they announced the investigation. (Duh.) Because this was a motion for summary judgment made by the defendants, Negy only had to show the possibility that he could prove it at trial, and so he provided evidence that suggested the decision-makers had a preordained outcome in mind.

    Scroll back and read the quotes in the mini-bios above. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine, given this and more evidence like it, that the investigation was a pretense. 

    There’s a second way the defendants could have gotten qualified immunity: by showing they’d have made the decision to fire Negy even if he hadn’t tweeted those statements, on the basis of the things reflected in the report. But the argument that they would’ve fired Negy for his classroom speech alone faced an awfully big hurdle: their 15 years of deciding not to do that. It wasn’t like Negy woke up one morning in 2020 after a lifetime of milquetoast platitudes and chose rhetorical violence. 

    From following this case, it seems to me that Negy’s entire career has been what I’d describe as punk rock pedagogy: he didn’t care if you loved it or hated it, as long as you remembered the show. There is an argument that the pursuit of truth is enhanced by that kind of teaching — a darned good one given how many of us have experienced it at one time or another. All of our interactions are balances between our honest opinions and what we can say within the bounds of society. There is only one human being I genuinely believe was so intrinsically good that his unfiltered views were socially acceptable to everyone, and Fred Rogers isn’t with us anymore. The rest of us are wearing masks at least some of the time, and letting those masks slip to study our real thoughts is something we might want to allow in a psychology classroom. 

    The court also noted that the purpose of qualified immunity was to avoid liability for unsophisticated decision-makers or decisions that had to be made on-the-spot, where the decision-maker wasn’t in a position to know what they did was unlawful. (The paradigmatic example is that of a police officer who has to make a split-second decision.) The court rejected that rationale: “Defendants had ample time to make reasoned, thoughtful decisions regarding how they wished to proceed with the investigation. Moreover, they had the benefit of making those decisions with counsel.” At some point, while writing their 244-page report, perhaps one of them might have considered the law? (FIRE has pushed this argument before.)

    You stop that censorship right meow

    The excessively logical among you might well be asking: If (diversity officer) Butler’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim was granted because he wasn’t a decision-maker, and (investigator) Myers also wasn’t a decision-maker, why wasn’t Myers able to get summary judgment on the retaliation claim, too? 

    It has to do with something called the “cat’s paw” theory. The name comes from the fable of the monkey and the cat. The short, not-very-artistic version is this: A clever monkey talks a cat into reaching into a fire and pulling chestnuts out of it, promising to share them. Instead, the monkey eats the chestnuts as they come out, and all the cat gets is a burned paw. (Is it just me, or are monkeys in fables always mischievous? Where’s the decent monkey in mythology? Just once, give me the monkey who shares the chestnuts and and even brings some milk. Just once, 17th century French authors, subvert my expectations.) 

    Under the cat’s paw theory, a state actor can be liable for retaliation if they make intentionally biased recommendations to the decision-maker (who then does not independently investigate) in order to reach the desired outcome. Was this a biased investigation? My feelings on the topic are summed up in a 2021 story: 

    The entire process of preparing this report was motivated by complaints about Negy’s tweets. Nobody interviews 300 people over seven months about incidents covering 15 years unless they’re desperate to find something, anything, to use against their target. UCF’s lack of sincerity in their investigation of Negy’s tweets — which, technically, was what they were investigating, based on the spurious allegation that Negy’s offensive tweets were required reading in his classes — is reflected in their decision to investigate allegations as far back as 2005, the year before Twitter was founded.

    I’ll paws here to make clear that I don’t purr-sonally know either Negy or the Defendants. Still, based on the timeline, the purr-ported need for the investigation, and its fur-midible scope, I’m feline like Negy was purr-secuted. The meow-nifestly unfair termination, I feel, is inseparable from the hiss-tory behind the report’s creation. (Okay, I’ll stop. Sorry, I was just kitten around.)

    Institutions need to avoid overreacting to outrage 

    For Negy and the defendants (which is not the name of a punk rock band, yet), the next step is to decide if they can work this out themselves or they need a trial to look deeper into whether UCF’s decision to fire him was effectively made when the investigation started. But there’s a larger principle here that other institutions need to learn before they learn it the embarrassing way UCF has.

    Maybe, just maybe, people saying things that merely offend you isn’t that serious. Maybe having someone in your community of nearly 70,000 students and over 13,000 faculty and staff members who says things that simply offend people is not actually a sign of a dire crisis. Maybe the students who demand that level of ideological conformity are not the ones you should be trying to attract. Because maybe, if you cultivate a level of automatic groupthink that rejects the possibility of dissenting views, you will come to discover that, eventually, your administration has a dissenting view. 

    What if, instead of reacting to every declaration of witchcraft by tightening the buckles on your hats, you tried explaining that lots of things might be offensive, and if you don’t like Negy, you might have luck with one of the thousands of other professors? What if, instead of modeling the kind of purge your ideological opponents might adopt one day if, I don’t know, they were politically powerful at some point, you modeled the idea that we can cooperate across deeply-held but incompatible beliefs? 

    I don’t know much about politics, but… It would certainly be cheaper, wouldn’t it? 

    FIRE will continue to follow Negy’s case and keep you updated. 

    Source link

  • Detained Georgetown Professor Released From ICE Custody

    Detained Georgetown Professor Released From ICE Custody

    Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral fellow and professor at Georgetown University, was released from a federal detention center in Texas on Wednesday after being held for two months.

    Suri, an Indian national, was arrested in March under government claims that he was a threat to U.S. interests and had close connections to a known or suspected terrorist. This week a federal judge in Virginia ordered Suri’s immediate release due to a lack of evidence to support such claims.

    Suri is one of about a dozen foreign nationals in the U.S. targeted by the Trump administration for pro-Palestinian activism, including Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Rümeysa Öztürk and Momodou Taal. While Khalil remains in custody, Mahdawi was released on bail on April 30 and Öztürk was released from federal custody last week. Taal chose to leave the U.S. in April.

    Prior to his arrest, Suri had been in the U.S. for three years on a student visa and was teaching a course on minority rights in South Asia at Georgetown, according to The New York Times. Suri’s lawyers believe he was targeted because his father-in-law served as a political adviser to the Hamas-led government in Gaza in the early 2000s.

    Suri was apprehended outside his home in Rosslyn, Va., on March 15 and was moved among detention centers in Virginia, Louisiana and Texas. Suri described his treatment in the Prairieland Detention Center in Texas as subhuman, saying he was chained at the ankles, wrists and body.

    Other international academics are locked in legal battles with the federal government over challenges to their standing in the U.S.

    A University of Minnesota student, Dogukan Gunaydin, has been in ICE custody since March despite having his case overturned. Alireza Doroudi, who was a doctoral student at the University of Alabama, requested voluntary departure to avoid prolonged detention, according to his attorney. Columbia student Leqaa Kordia was arrested in March and remains in an immigration detention center in Texas.

    Source link

  • ‘What the hell just happened?’ Australia’s flirtation with a levy on international students – By Professor Andrew Norton

    ‘What the hell just happened?’ Australia’s flirtation with a levy on international students – By Professor Andrew Norton

    • This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy at Monash Business School, Monash University.
    • The thoughts of Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, on the levy can be read on the Research Professional News website here.

    For an Australian reader the UK immigration white paper’s proposal for a levy on international student fee revenue sounds familiar. In mid-2023 just such a levy was suggested for Australia by the interim report of a major higher education policy review. Like its UK version, the idea was to reinvest levy revenue in education. While the interim report lacked white paper status, education minister Jason Clare liked the idea enough to mention it in his report launch speech. 

    But now the levy has vanished from the Australian policy agenda. When the Universities Accord final report was released in February 2024 the levy idea was there but postponed, shunted off until after other major funding reforms that will start in 2027 at the earliest. So far as I can find, the Minister – newly reappointed this week after Labor’s election victory on 3 May – has not mentioned the idea in public for 18 months.

    So what happened? Predictably, the universities that stood to lose the most from the levy opposed it. But the bigger reason was that between mid-2023 and late 2023 the politics of international education in Australia were turned upside down. In a few months international education went from a valuable export industry to a cause of Australia’s housing shortages. International student numbers had to be cut. 

    As originally proposed in Australia the international student levy was not linked to migration policy. Some reduction in student demand was predicted, as levy costs were passed on through higher fees. But this was a policy side-effect, not its goal. If too many international students were deterred the levy would not raise enough money to achieve its domestic objectives. The Government needed more effective ways of bringing international student numbers back down. 

    Between October 2023 and July 2024 the Australian Government introduced, on my count, nine measures to block or discourage would-be international students. 

    Among the Government’s nine measures was one that delivered it international student revenue much more quickly than the proposed levy. The Government more than doubled student visa application fees from A$710 (~£330) to A$1,600 (~£745), claiming that the money would be spent on policies benefiting domestic students. During the 2025 election campaign Labor said it would increase visa fees again, to A$2,000 (~£930). The UK’s £524 fee looks cheap by comparison. 

    Higher visa fees and other migration measures had two big advantages over the once-proposed levy from the perspective of the Australian Government – legal ease and speed in delivering on migration goals. In Australia, many migration changes can be made by ministerial determination without parliamentary review. The levy required legislation. Australia’s system of sending controversial legislation to often-bruising Senate inquiries increases political costs, even when the bill ultimately passes.

    What visa fees lack is the Robin Hood element of the Australian levy as proposed. In 2023 the University of Sydney alone earned 14% of all university international student fee revenue. The top six universities received more than half of the total. Levy advocates argue that these gains are built on past taxpayer subsidies and prime real estate. Profits built on these foundations can legitimately be taxed for the wider benefit of Australian higher education. 

    In Australia generally, and under Labor governments especially, an egalitarian political culture gives these levy arguments some resonance. But for the foreseeable future migration is a bigger issue than university funding, and visa policies a more straightforward way of bringing down international student numbers than levies. Perhaps the levy idea will return, but the government’s long silence on the subject suggests that this will not happen anytime soon.

    Source link

  • A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works − and what it means to suddenly lose a grant – Campus Review

    A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works − and what it means to suddenly lose a grant – Campus Review

    In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has terminated more than US$2 billion in federal grants, according to a public source database compiled by the scientific community, and it is proposing additional cuts that would reduce the $47 billion budget of the US National Institutes of Health, also known as the NIH, by nearly half.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • In memoriam: Professor Claire Callender OBE

    In memoriam: Professor Claire Callender OBE

    OBITUARY

    Claire Sorrel Callender

    By Simon Marginson *

    Professor Claire Callender OBE, who held joint professorships at UCL Institute of Education and Birkbeck, University of London, died at home amid her family on Tuesday, 15 April, after the cancer which developed in one lung and was in remission had moved to the other. She dealt with her illness and the rollercoaster of treatments, tests and diagnoses with exceptional strength, characteristic realism and eventually, open acceptance, making the best of her remaining time. Claire’s life and contributions will now be celebrated, but her passing at a relatively young age has sent a wave of sadness through UK and world higher education. She touched the lives of many as a scholar, colleague and mentor; played a central role in policy and public discussion for three decades; and had much respect and friendship in the sector. She was awarded an OBE for services to higher education in 2017. 

    Claire attended Notting Hill and Ealing High School between 1961 and 1972, completed a BSc in Social Administration and Sociology at Bristol in 1979, after a period as a community worker in the Beit She’an Community Centre in Israel, and a PhD in Gender and Social Policy at the University of Wales in 1988. Her thesis topic was ‘Women’s employment, redundancy and unemployment’: both gender and the labour market for graduates were to become lifelong research preoccupations. She worked successively at University College Cardiff, and the Universities of Leeds, Bradford and Sussex (in the Institute of Employment Studies), before becoming head of the Family Finances Research Group at the Policy Studies Institute in London (1994-1998). Her first chair appointment was at London South Bank University as Professor of Social Policy (1998-2008). Claire’s social research star was rising and early in the Blair years (1999-2000) she spent time in the Cabinet Office on secondment as Head of Research in the Women’s Unit and a member of the Senior Management Team.  

    In 2006 and 2007, Claire was a visiting scholar successively at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University, and the Graduate School of Education at Harvard, and was also a Fulbright New Century Scholar in 2007/08, forging productive research collaborations in the United States that continued throughout her career. Her post as Professor of Higher Education Policy commenced at Birbeck in 2008, followed by the Professorship of Higher Education Studies at the Institute of Education (which merged with UCL in 2015) in 2010. She juggled the respective cultures, needs and demands of the two rather different neighbouring institutions with aplomb. Her heart might have been with Birkbeck, and there her policy focus on part-time, adult and evening students had its natural home, while UCL IoE placed her squarely in the centre of the university-policy interface and brought multiple opportunities for fruitful collaborations and ongoing academic friendships. 

    In 2012, she worked with Peter Scott to develop a bid to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for a five-year centre with a multi-project focus on higher education. The bid was unsuccessful but the theme caught the attention of the ESRC and the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE), and in the next ESRC centre round in 2014 there was a specific call for bids focused on the future of higher education, with HEFCE underwriting part of the cost. A team headed by myself was successful, establishing what became the ESRC Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE) with £5.9 million for 2015 to 2020. Claire was named as a Deputy Director alongside a formidable group of England-based researcher-scholars including Peter Scott, Mike Shattock, Gareth Parry, William Locke, Lorraine Dearden, Gill Wyness and Paul Ashwin, as well as Ellen Hazelkorn at Technological University Dublin in Ireland and researchers from seven other international partner universities. 

    Claire convened five CGHE research projects under the heading ‘Social and Economic Impact of Higher Education’. Appropriately, given Claire’s own interests and skillset, these projects were all sharply focused on UK policy issues, while mindful also of global comparisons and relevance. The researchers on her list included the leading economists Bruce Chapman and Lorraine Dearden who together modelled income-contingent loans systems of tuition funding in a dozen countries. They achieved a major breakthrough in Columbia in 2022 where their blueprint was adopted by the ministry. Bruce and Lorraine were awarded the ESRC prize for policy impact and paid tribute to Claire’s role in supporting their work. 

    CGHE received a further tranche of £1.5 million in ESRC funding for 2020 to 2024 before entering its present phase as a largely self-funded operation. Claire continued as Deputy Director, central to CGHE research management and in public forums, and an appreciated mentor to junior researchers. Her own quantitative and qualitative CGHE inquiry into ‘The effects of student loan debt on graduates’ financial and life decisions’, working primarily with Ariane de Gayardon, led to successive papers on the human and social costs for diverse populations associated with the uniform system of student-user charges in England. From 1998 onwards, after fees were introduced into what had been a free higher education system, Claire had been concerned about student financing and its impact, including comparisons between England and Scotland where free education was maintained. She was frequently and eloquently public on those issues. Uncomfortable with debt financing as a deterrent, a long burden and a source of inequalities, like many in higher education she was a staunch advocate of maintenance grants. Her concern that the 2012 full fee system would discriminate against part-timers proved wholly justified when full-time enrolments held up while part-time numbers plummeted. The then Minister for Higher Education, now David (now Lord) Willetts, acknowledged that Claire’s work on the issue was unique and crucial. 

    As this suggests, perhaps the key aspect of Claire’s scholarly work was her eye for policy relevance. During her career she was commissioned to undertake research and/or invited to present evidence to the OECD, the European Commission and governments in Germany, Finland (where she was appointed by the Ministry of Culture and Education to the peer-review panel for the assessment of the Finnish Higher Education System in 2015), Poland, and Malaysia. She reported to numerous Parliamentary Select Committees in UK, and all the major reviews of student funding that took place in the UK after 1997 – including the most recent review, the Augar Report of 2019, where she was extensively cited. Claire’s contributions to research scholarship included more than 125 books, reports and chapters, more than 30 peer reviewed journal papers and numerous conference and seminar presentations. Some of her very best scholarly work was done in the final years. The last journal paper, with Ariane de Gayardon, was published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education earlier this year. Claire became a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in 2003 and her standing in Europe was recognised in 2023 by her elevation to Academia Europaea. The OBE acknowledged her UK policy work. 

    The formal honours were and are appropriate, but they do not capture the essence of Claire Callender in the world: the way she focused her formidable capacity for rational thought on matters to which she was committed, her gravitas that held the room when speaking, and the warmth that she evoked without fail in old and new acquaintances. Claire leaves her partner Annette and a large circle of family and friends. She is much missed.

    * Simon Marginson is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Bristol, Professor of Higher Education (emeritus) at the University of Oxford, and Joint Editor in Chief of the journal Higher Education. He was director of the ESRC Centre for Global Higher Education from 2015 to 2024. 

    _____________________________

    The HEPI staff team were grateful to have known Claire and to have had the honour of publishing some of her critically important work. We learnt a huge amount from her and will be among the very large number of people who will sorely miss her.

    Source link

  • Colonialism-Defending Professor Settles With U of Oregon

    Colonialism-Defending Professor Settles With U of Oregon

    A professor who’s long been controversial for defending colonialism has settled the lawsuit he filed more than two years ago against a former communication manager at the University of Oregon who blocked him from interacting with a university account on Twitter.

    Bruce Gilley—a Portland State University politics and global affairs professor currently serving a stint as A Presidential Scholar in Residence at New College of Florida—filed the lawsuit in August 2022 a former communication manager for the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion.

    Gilley alleged that the Equity and Inclusion Twitter account published a post urging people to “interrupt racism,” suggesting they use this line: “It sounded like you just said [blank]. Is that really what you meant?” Gilley said he was blocked by the account after retweeting the post with the caption “My entry: … you just said ‘all men are created equal.’”

    Gilley and the University of Oregon reached a settlement agreement last week in which the institution admitted the communication manager blocked Gilley. The university agreed in the settlement that its insurer would pay from $95,000 to $382,000 in attorneys’ fees to Gilley’s representatives—the Institute for Free Speech and the Angus Lee Law Firm—and the institution further agreed to a detailed process to clarify its social media policies and train social media managers on them. There will be an email address for people to complain about being blocked, and the whole plan will have a 180-day supervision period for implementation.

    “The guidelines will more clearly state that third parties and the content they post must not be blocked or deleted based on viewpoint, even if that viewpoint can be viewed by some as ‘offensive,’ ‘racist’ or ‘hateful,’” the settlement agreement says.

    In a statement, the university said it “does not agree that it committed any of the violations alleged in Bruce Gilley’s complaint. The agreement reached between the university and Mr. Gilley ended the lawsuit without admission of liability or fault.”

    Source link

  • “Portrayed as a place that isn’t what I know it to be”: Professor Bell on ANU’s public perception

    “Portrayed as a place that isn’t what I know it to be”: Professor Bell on ANU’s public perception

    ANU vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell with Rachel Marape at James Marape, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea’s address to the ANU in February, 2024. Picture: Martin Ollman



    By: Erin Morley

    in Top Stories, VC’s corner


    March 24, 2025

    Australian National University’s (ANU) vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell has made a statement confirming she plans to stand by her university after a “four-month negative media campaign.”

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Pro-Palestinian Journalism Professor Denied Tenure

    Pro-Palestinian Journalism Professor Denied Tenure

    Steven Thrasher, an assistant journalism professor who tried to block police from breaking up a pro-Palestinian encampment at Northwestern University last spring, announced he was denied tenure and will lose his job in August 2026, the end of the next academic year.

    “This has nothing to do with my scholarship or teaching,” Thrasher wrote in a statement he shared on Bluesky. “It is a political hit job over my support for Palestine and for trying to protect our student protesters last year from physical attack, by nonviolently subjecting my own body to assault by the Northwestern Police instead of our students.”

    The incident between Thrasher and campus police came up when Northwestern president Michael Schill went before Congress during a hearing on campus antisemitism. In a June 2024 letter, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce accused Schill of not fully answering members’ questions at the hearing, including about Thrasher.

    Thrasher was suspended from teaching last summer. According to an email from Medill School of Journalism dean Charles F. Whitaker, which Thrasher’s lawyer provided to Inside Higher Ed, the dean initiated disciplinary proceedings in response to complaints about Thrasher’s social media activity and allegedly sexist comments to students, as well as his failure to disclose major course changes and his comments about journalism standards that were “antithetical to our profession.”

    According to Thrasher’s statement, posted Thursday, Whitaker wrote in an explanation of the tenure denial that Thrasher’s teaching was “inadequate with serious concerns reported by some students.” Thrasher said he previously received a “glowing” mid-tenure review in 2023. He also said a university-wide ad hoc faculty committee “exonerated” him after a four-month investigation into issues, including student concerns.

    “I read the situation as a Plan B by Northwestern after Dean Whitaker tried (and failed) to exclude me through the disciplinary process,” Thrasher wrote. “I will appeal this decision at Northwestern and have much more to say.”

    In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, a university spokesperson wrote, “As policy, Northwestern does not comment on personnel matters. The University takes the tenure process very seriously and has adhered to the rules that govern that process. The University has full confidence in the decision-making process of our Medill faculty and dean.”

    Source link

  • VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    SAN FRANCISCO, March 10, 2025 — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Lars Jensen, a math professor unconstitutionally punished for criticizing what he believed was his college’s decision to water down its math standards.

    Reversing a federal district court, the Ninth Circuit held Jensen suffered wrongful dismissal of his claims against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, and that he should have his day in court to prove college administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held Jensen’s right to speak out about the math standards was so clearly established that the administrators were not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

    “This decision is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel in November 2024. “This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment.”

    The dispute began in 2020, when Jensen planned to comment at a TMCC conference about what he perceived to be diminishing academic standards at the college. After administrators prohibited Jensen from sharing his views at a Q&A session, he printed out his planned comments critiquing the college for allowing for “a student graduating from college” while only being “ready for middle school math,” and handed them out to his colleagues during the break. TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break, but he continued to do so without interrupting the session.

    Ellsworth then accused Jensen of “disobeying” her and warned him he had “made an error” defying her. Following through on her veiled threats, Ellsworth sent Jensen an official reprimand. Over the next two performance reviews, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth retaliated by giving him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” As a result, Jensen automatically had to undergo review for possible termination.

    “The college’s actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech,” said Jensen. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision vindicates my First Amendment rights and allows me to have my day in court.” 

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PROFESSOR JENSEN AND HIS ATTORNEYS

    TMCC might have fired Jensen if not for the speedy intervention of FIRE, which wrote a letter objecting that the administrators were violating the First Amendment, which protects faculty at public colleges in commenting as citizens on matters of public concern. TMCC announced that Jensen would not be fired, but the damage to his First Amendment rights was already done, especially with the negative performance evaluations remaining on his file.

    Jensen sued Ellsworth and other TMCC administrators in 2022, arguing the college’s retaliatory actions violated his First Amendment rights as well as his right to due process and equal protection. A district court dismissed the case in 2023. 

    The Ninth Circuit ruled today that the district court erred in dismissing Jensen’s First Amendment claim, because his speech about the college’s academic standards involved a matter of public concern related to scholarship or teaching, and thus receives First Amendment protection. 

    The Court also held the university’s retaliatory actions were likely to chill Jensen’s speech, and that a university’s “interest in punishing a disobedient employee for speaking in violation of their supervisor’s orders cannot automatically trump the employee’s interest in speaking.” The Court warned, in fact, that if an employer could fire an employee solely for refusing to obey an order to stop speaking, a university could unconstitutionally enjoy “carte blanche to stifle legitimate speech.”

    The Court further held the district court erred when it held that claims against the college administrators were barred by qualified immunity, a doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show a government official violated their “clearly established right” before they can hold those officials accountable for damages. The Ninth Circuit held that at the time Jensen spoke out, “it was clearly established that a professor has a right to speak about a school’s curriculum without being reprimanded, given negative performance reviews, and put through an investigation and termination hearing.”

    The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit. 

     

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link