Tag: Reality

  • Anti-DEI rhetoric is not same as legal reality (opinion)

    Anti-DEI rhetoric is not same as legal reality (opinion)

    The Trump administration’s anti-DEI playlist has been booming out onto the quad since Inauguration Day. Executive orders denounced “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences,” and the Department of Justice promised to investigate “illegal DEI” activities. The Department of Education asserted that universities have “toxically indoctrinated students” with ideas about “systemic and structural racism” before launching its “End DEI Portal.” Meanwhile, more than 30 states have considered or enacted laws curtailing DEI.

    University responses have been varied and sometimes chaotic. Some have canceled, then reinstated cultural events. Some have scrubbed DEI websites and canceled race-focused events. Others have vowed to “resist.” More than 60 higher education organizations called on the department to rescind its DEI Dear Colleague letter, while one lawsuit seeks to block the DCL and another has won a preliminary injunction as to the executive orders.

    In sum, this is the year the culture war turned into a food fight. It’s understandably chaotic, but the chaos isn’t entirely warranted by the legal moves the administration is making. Behind all the angry words are sober laws that didn’t change on Inauguration Day. The administration’s attack on DEI is rooted in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Naturally, that seminal law doesn’t mention DEI. Here’s what it says:

    “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

    The anti-DEI initiative is based on this law because, unlike other antidiscrimination laws, it prohibits differential treatment almost without exception. This has been especially true since Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, the 2023 Supreme Court case that ended affirmative action based on race.

    Why Title VI?

    Title VI, which bars racial discrimination, is very different from the antidiscrimination laws covering sex and disability, since those laws often require the kind of differential treatment that is illegal in matters of race. For example, Title IX does not require that women and men try out for the same basketball team. To the contrary, it requires that men and women be given equal opportunity to benefit from the program, which in some cases requires the kind of separate-but-equal approach famously made illegal by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. Disability laws are even more rooted in equitable practices like reasonable accommodation, accessible facilities and so on. Discrimination is avoided not by treating people the same but by treating people differently in certain defined ways.

    One key difference between conservative and progressive approaches to antidiscrimination law is about equal versus equitable treatment. Conservatives lean toward equal treatment where possible, so the law that achieves that most clearly is found in Title VI and its constitutional corollary, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The resulting law is simple and powerful: no differential treatment based on race, color or national origin.

    But it is also quite narrow. It doesn’t make DEI illegal, and it won’t “dismantle DEI.” That would require new laws, restricted funding and so on. All that may happen, and some already has—but it can’t be achieved with Title VI, even in the hands of an energetic Office for Civil Rights.

    Political Rhetoric vs. Legal Reality

    The yawning gap between political rhetoric and legal reality is perfectly embodied in the Education Department’s new “End DEI Portal.” Its provocative name appears in the press release—but not on the portal itself, which never mentions DEI (save for in the domain name). The portal is a complaint form for “illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning” based on civil rights law. It’s a tool constructed by lawyers that differs little from the Biden-era complaint form.

    To be sure, the “End DEI Portal” name will induce people to report practices that aren’t illegal—and that will have a chilling effect. But its implementation sticks to the letter of the law. There are many other examples like it.

    Breaking Down the EO and DCL

    The Jan. 21 executive order on DEI has sweeping political language, but its legal provisions are quite conventional. Agencies are ordered to end “discriminatory and illegal” activities and enforce civil rights laws—two long-standing obligations, though opinions vary on how well they have been carried out. It instructs agencies to “combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences” and describes “illegal DEI” as programs “that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.” For example, under the executive order, federal contractors must now certify that they do not “operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.” Not any DEI program: any that violate antidiscrimination laws.

    The phrase “illegal DEI” invites misunderstanding—but it does not, nor could it, mean that DEI programs are illegal.

    Importantly, the executive order says it cannot limit free speech or teaching —even if that speech or teaching advocates for “the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.” These sober reassurances come near the end, several paragraphs after many people appear to have stopped reading.

    OCR’s Dear Colleague letter is made with the same ingredients: Heated political language condemns DEI programs, while legal language tracks Title VI. The upshot is that, in the department’s view, differential treatment based on race, color or national origin violates the law. OCR followed up with an FAQ document laying this out in detail. It is rooted in law familiar to every civil rights lawyer, and it follows a strict reading of Title VI law that comes from Students for Fair Admissions.

    Problems Still to Be Solved

    Well before the 2024 election, several public universities ended race-based scholarships, and Duke University transformed a race-based scholarship into a program open to all. In a sense, it’s surprising that scholarships based on race or national origin survived this long. The federal regulations implementing Title VI mention financial aid nine times in the section prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, and this language has been the same since at least 1980.

    But even simple things can be uncertain in law. A related regulation allows that universities “may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limiting participation by persons of a particular race, color, or national origin.” This would seem to open the door to scholarships and perhaps other practices based on race. But Title VI of the Civil Rights Act never mentions affirmative action, and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause may forbid it.

    Because of the obvious risks, university programs have long been designed not to classify people by race, color or national origin—but some common practices are in for some scrutiny. Consider a donor who has made a restricted gift to provide scholarship support to students from a specific country—it doesn’t matter if it’s Canada or Kenya. Since Title VI bars preference by national origin, can the university no longer offer that scholarship? If so, how should it be altered to conform to Title VI? Possibilities like this almost seem absurd, but they are among the issues colleges are working out right now.

    Race-based housing or mentoring programs are certainly open to challenge, but it remains to be seen how many such programs there really are. It isn’t illegal for a student club, house, activity or even a scholarship program to be of interest mainly to students of one race. It becomes a problem when a college compels behavior or allocates resources based on race. Take housing as an example. Ethnically themed houses are pretty common, and many are open to anyone. If selection is race-neutral, these should be fine. But it will be no surprise if OCR chooses to investigate housing assignment processes to confirm that they are actually race-neutral.

    The State Attack on DEI

    Over all, the law hasn’t changed much at the federal level, though its enforcement is sure to be more focused. When all the dust has settled, this may be true at the state level, too. I won’t describe the legislation pending in all the different states, but a quick look at Iowa’s DEI laws may shed some light.

    Iowa’s HSB60 is titled “An Act prohibiting private institutions of higher education that participate in the Iowa tuition grant program from establishing diversity, equity, and inclusion offices.” The bill, which closely follows the structure and language of similar legislation passed for Iowa’s public universities last year, does what the title says, so the question is— what is the definition of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” under Iowa law? For both private and public universities, DEI is defined as carrying out policies or procedures “on the basis of” or “with reference to” race, color or ethnicity—and in some cases gender identity, sex or sexual orientation. The definition also includes promoting “as the official position” of the college any of a series of concepts associated with DEI.

    That certainly seems comprehensive—perhaps DEI is indeed illegal in Iowa. But both pieces of legislation explicitly do not apply to academic course instruction, research or creative works, student organizations, invited speakers, performers, or health services. You can drive a truck through these exceptions—a truck roughly the size of a college. These expansive exceptions are probably commanded by the First Amendment, which is one of the reasons why “illegal DEI” in Iowa ends up being pretty similar to “illegal DEI” in the Trump executive orders. It’s shaped like an admittedly very expansive reading of Title VI—with a little Title IX on the side.

    DEI and Religious Liberty

    Free speech is the First Amendment protection that comes to mind most naturally in higher education, but another one might become important for some colleges: the free exercise clause guaranteeing religious liberty. Some colleges state their commitment to diversity in unmistakably religious terms. One can imagine a practice rooted in religious belief that arguably violates the letter of Title VI—for example, distributing certain committee memberships in a representational way, perhaps by national origin. Or, for a college with long-standing missionary connections, scholarships directed to students from certain international religious communities.

    Practices like this could result in a direct collision of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A very similar scenario was briefly discussed in a recent Supreme Court case, but the court did not resolve it. We may not know the answer unless it comes up. Because the free exercise clause protects not just beliefs but also actions—up to a point—certain practices related to diversity could conceivably have more constitutional protection if they are faith-based.

    So Why Are Some Universities Ditching DEI?

    Over all, it looks like getting into compliance with the law will require small but meaningful adjustments—and perhaps a lot of them. But this doesn’t explain why some universities are retreating from DEI altogether. I can think of four reasons why some are making this move. Three just reflect the reality of 2025, but the fourth may be an unforced error.

    First, state legislatures control public university funding, so even those that don’t pass anti-DEI laws can express their displeasure through the budget. When an institution like the University of Akron cancels race-oriented programs that are clearly protected under the First Amendment and the Jan. 21 executive order, the real reason may be the State Senate’s opposition to DEI.

    Second, research universities rely on big pipelines of grant money from agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Those pipelines have been shown to be fragile, so when a private research university in a very blue state reduces its DEI program, as the University of Southern California appears to have done, it may be out of concern for research grants. Exactly how these funding streams relate to DEI has yet to be fleshed out, but it’s understandable if universities are connecting the two.

    Third, the executive branch may also use its hiring discretion to roll back DEI. In February, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia wrote in a letter to the dean of Georgetown Law School that his office would not hire anyone “who is a student or affiliated with a law school or university that continues to teach and utilize DEI.” There are potential legal problems with this, but it’s hard to see how universities can compel the federal government to hire their graduates. The retreat from DEI may be motivated in part by factors like this.

    A fourth explanation is that some university leaders are confusing political language with changes in the law. This is a critical mistake: We believe in rule of law, not rule by law. The law only changes when Congress changes it. The administration’s DEI executive orders did not purport to change the law; neither did the Office for Civil Rights or the Department of Justice. They are expressing sharp views on what the law is—and, in their view, what it has been since the Students for Fair Admissions case in 2023.

    From that perspective, everyone is playing with the same legal cards they had before Inauguration Day. What matters now is our collective commitment to play those cards according to the rules of the game. There’s a lot of change coming, and the courts are destined to be very busy.

    Dan Currell was a senior adviser in the Office for Civil Rights in the first Trump administration.

    Source link

  • Open universities: between radical promise and market reality

    Open universities: between radical promise and market reality

    by Ourania Filippakou

    Open universities have long symbolised a radical departure from the exclusivity of conventional universities. Conceived as institutions of access, intellectual emancipation, and social transformation, they promised to disrupt rigid academic hierarchies and democratise knowledge. Yet, as higher education is increasingly reshaped by market logics, can open universities still claim to be engines of social progress, or have they become institutions that now reproduce the very inequalities they sought to dismantle?

    This question is not merely academic; it is profoundly political. Across the globe, democratic institutions are under siege, and the erosion of democracy is no longer an abstraction – it is unfolding in real time (cf EIU, 2024; Jones, 2025). The rise of far-right ideologies, resurgent racism, intensified attacks on women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, and the erosion of protections for migrants and marginalised communities all point to a crisis of democracy that cannot be separated from the crisis of education (Giroux, 2025). As Giroux (1984) argues, education is never neutral; it can operate as both a potential site for fostering critical consciousness and resistance and a mechanism for reproducing systems of social control and domination. Similarly, Butler (2005) reminds us that the very categories of who counts as human, who is deemed grievable, and whose knowledge is legitimised are deeply political struggles.

    Open universities, once heralded as radical interventions in knowledge production, now find themselves entangled in these struggles. Increasingly, they are forced to reconcile their egalitarian aspirations with the ruthless pressures of neoliberalism and market-driven reforms. The challenge they face is no less than existential: to what extent can they uphold their role as spaces of intellectual and social transformation, or will they become further absorbed into the logics of commodification and control?

    My article (Filippakou, 2025) in Policy Reviews in Higher Education, ‘Two ideologies of openness: a comparative analysis of the Open Universities in the UK and Greece’, foregrounds a crucial but often overlooked dimension: the ideological battles that have shaped open universities over time. The UK Open University (OU) and the Hellenic Open University (HOU) exemplify two distinct yet converging trajectories. The UK OU, founded in the 1960s as part of a broader post-war commitment to social mobility, was a political project – an experiment in making university education available to those long excluded from elite institutions. The HOU, by contrast, emerged in the late 1990s within the European Union’s push for a knowledge economy, where lifelong learning was increasingly framed primarily in terms of workforce development. While both institutions embraced ‘openness’ as a defining principle, the meaning of that openness has shifted – from an egalitarian vision of education as a public good to a model struggling to reconcile social inclusion with neoliberal imperatives.

    A key insight of this analysis is that open universities do not merely widen participation; they reflect deeper contestations over the purpose of higher education itself. The UK OU’s early success inspired similar models worldwide, but today, relentless marketisation – rising tuition fees, budget cuts, and the growing encroachment of corporate interests – threatens to erode its founding ethos.

    Meanwhile, the HOU was shaped by a European policy landscape that framed openness not merely as intellectual emancipation but as economic necessity. Both cases illustrate the paradox of open universities: they continue to expand access, yet their structural constraints increasingly align them with the logic of precarity, credentialism, and market-driven efficiency.

    This struggle over education is central to the survival of democracy. Arendt (1961, 2005) warned that democracy is not self-sustaining; it depends on an informed citizenry capable of judgment, debate, and resistance. Higher education, in this sense, is not simply about skills or employability – it is about cultivating the capacity to think critically, to challenge authority, and to hold power to account (Giroux, 2019). Open universities were once at the forefront of this democratic mission. But as universities in general, and open universities in particular, become increasingly instrumentalised – shaped by political forces intent on suppressing dissent, commodifying learning, and hollowing out universities’ transformative potential – their role in sustaining democratic publics is under threat.

    The real question, then, is not simply whether open universities remain ‘open’ but how they define and enact this openness. To what extent do they serve as institutions of intellectual and civic transformation, or have they primarily been reduced to flexible degree factories, catering to market demands under the guise of accessibility? By comparing the UK and Greek experiences, this article aims to challenge readers to rethink the ideological stakes of openness in higher education today. The implications extend far beyond open universities themselves. The broader appeal of this analysis lies in its relevance to anyone interested in universities as sites of social change. Open universities are not just alternatives to conventional universities – they represent larger struggles over knowledge, democracy, and economic power. The creeping normalisation of authoritarian politics, the suppression of academic freedom, and the assault on marginalised voices in public discourse demand that we reclaim higher education as a site of resistance.

    Can open universities reclaim their radical promise? If higher education is to resist the encroachment of neoliberalism and reactionary politics, we must actively defend institutions that prioritise intellectual freedom, civic literacy, and higher education for the public good. The future of open universities – and higher education itself – depends not only on institutional policies but on whether scholars, educators, and students collectively resist these forces. The battle for openness is not just about access; it is about the kind of society we choose to build – for ourselves and the generations to come.

    Ourania Filippakou is a Professor of Education at Brunel University of London. Her research interrogates the politics of higher education, examining universities as contested spaces where power, inequality, and resistance intersect. Rooted in critical traditions, she explores how higher education can foster social justice, equity, and transformative change.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • A virtual reality, AI-boosted system helps students with autism improve social skills

    A virtual reality, AI-boosted system helps students with autism improve social skills

    Key points:

    This article and the accompanying image originally appeared on the KU News site and are reposted here with permission.

    For more than a decade, University of Kansas researchers have been developing a virtual reality system to help students with disabilities, especially those with autism spectrum disorder, to learn, practice and improve social skills they need in a typical school day. Now, the KU research team has secured funding to add artificial intelligence components to the system to give those students an extended reality, or XR, experience to sharpen social interactions in a more natural setting.

    The U.S. Office of Special Education Programs has awarded a five-year, $2.5 million grant to researchers within KU’s School of Education & Human Sciences to develop Increasing Knowledge and Natural Opportunities With Social Emotional Competence, or iKNOW. The system will build on previous work and provide students and teachers with an immersive, authentic experience blending extended reality and real-world elements of artificial intelligence.

    iKNOW will expand the capabilities of VOISS, Virtual reality Opportunity to Integrate Social Skills, a KU-developed VR system that has proven successful and statistically valid in helping students with disabilities improve social skills. That system contains 140 unique learning scenarios meant to teach knowledge and understanding of 183 social skills in virtual school environments such as a classroom, hallway, cafeteria or bus that students and teachers can use via multiple platforms such as iPad, Chromebooks or Oculus VR headsets. The system also helps students use social skills such as receptive or expressive communication across multiple environments, not simply in the isolation of a classroom.

    IKNOW will combine the VR aspects of VOISS with AI features such as large language models to enhance the systems’ capabilities and allow more natural interactions than listening to prerecorded narratives and responding by pushing buttons. The new system will allow user-initiated speaking responses that can accurately transcribe spoken language in real-time. AI technology of iKNOW will also be able to generate appropriate video responses to avatars students interact with, audio analysis of user responses, integration of in-time images and graphics with instruction to boost students’ contextual understanding.

    “Avatars in iKNOW can have certain reactions and behaviors based on what we want them to do. They can model the practices we want students to see,” said Amber Rowland, assistant research professor in the Center for Research on Learning, part of KU’s Life Span Institute and one of the grant’s co principal investigators. “The system will harness AI to make sure students have more natural interactions and put them in the role of the ‘human in the loop’ by allowing them to speak, and it will respond like a normal conversation.”

    The spoken responses will not only be more natural and relatable to everyday situations, but the contextual understanding cues will help students better know why a certain response is preferred. Rowland said when students were presented with multiple choices in previous versions, they often would know which answer was correct but indicated that’s not how they would have responded in real life.

    IKNOW will also provide a real-time student progress monitoring system, telling them, educators and families how long students spoke, how frequently they spoke, number of keywords used, where students may have struggled in the system and other data to help enhance understanding.

    All avatar voices that iKNOW users encounter are provided by real middle school students, educators and administrators. This helps enhance the natural environment of the system without the shortcomings of students practicing social skills with classmates in supervised sessions. For example, users do not have to worry what the people they are practicing with are thinking about them while they are learning. They can practice the social skills that they need until they are comfortable moving from the XR environment to real life.

    “It will leverage our ability to take something off of teachers’ plates and provide tools for students to learn these skills in multiple environments. Right now, the closest we can come to that is training peers. But that puts students with disabilities in a different box by saying, ‘You don’t know how to do this,’” said Maggie Mosher, assistant research professor in KU’s Achievement & Assessment Institute, a co-principal investigator for the grant.

    Mosher, a KU graduate who completed her doctoral dissertation comparing VOISS to other social skills interventions, found the system was statistically significant and valid in improving social skills and knowledge across multiple domains. Her study, which also found the system to be acceptable, appropriate and feasible, was published in high-impact journals Computers & Education and Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies.

    The grant supporting iKNOW is one of four OSEP Innovation and Development grants intended to spur innovation in educational technology. The research team, including principal investigator Sean Smith, professor of special education; Amber Rowland, associate research professor in the Center for Research on Learning and the Achievement & Assessment Institute; Maggie Mosher, assistant research professor in AAI; and Bruce Frey, professor in educational psychology, will present their work on the project at the annual I/ITSEC conference, the world’s largest modeling, simulation and training event. It is sponsored by the National Training & Simulation Association, which promotes international and interdisciplinary cooperation within the fields of modeling and simulation, training, education and analysis and is affiliated with the National Defense Industrial Association.

    The research team has implemented VOISS, available on the Apple Store and Google Play, at schools across the country. Anyone interested in learning more can find information, demonstrations and videos at the iKNOW site and can contact developers to use the system at the site’s “work with us” page.

    IKNOW will add resources for teachers and families who want to implement the system at a website called iKNOW TOOLS (Teaching Occasions and Opportunities for Learning Supports) to support generalization of social skills across real-world settings.

    “By combining our research-based social emotional virtual reality work (VOISS) with the increasing power and flexibility of AI, iKNOW will further personalize the learning experience for individuals with disabilities along with the struggling classmates,” Smith said. “Our hope and expectation is that iKNOW will further engage students to develop the essential social emotional skills to then apply in the real world to improve their overall learning outcomes.”

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Bell English hosts Korean actors for new reality TV show

    Bell English hosts Korean actors for new reality TV show

    The post Bell English hosts Korean actors for new reality TV show appeared first on The PIE News.

    Source link

  • Korean reality TV showcases language learning in the UK

    Korean reality TV showcases language learning in the UK

    The series, premiering on February 5, was filmed at Bell English Schools’s Cambridge premisis in August 2025, which hosted Dong-Il Sung, Kwang-Kyu Kim, Ki-Jun Um, Hyuk Jang, and Seung-Hwan Shin for two weeks in August 2024.  

    The program, Shala Shala, follows the actors’ authentic experiences of learning English alongside other students, taking part in activities, and staying with host families and in Bell Cambridge’s on-campus residences.  

    “These are male, middle-aged actors who are famous in South Korea, but who have got to a certain point in their career and maybe they want to try more roles in English or maybe they want to travel personally with their families,” Rebecca Stead, head of marketing at Bell Educational Services told The PIE News. 

    “So, the premise of the show was that it’s never too late to late to learn English,” Stead added.  

    To make it as authentic as possible, 50 hidden cameras were set up around the school to capture the actors’ true experiences taking classes with Bell’s summer learners. 

    While Stead maintained that the actors were “great students”, the program’s trailer reveals a somewhat bumpy path to language learning success.  

    “It was a big operation and really interesting for us staff to see how a TV program is made, and the other students were really excited to have the actors around,” she added.  

    The premise of the show was that it’s never too late to late to learn English

    Rebecca Stead, Bell English

    With seven schools for adult students and young learners across the UK, Bell’s Cambridge institution is its flagship location offering year-round language courses to learners of all ages.  

    “We’ve got these beautiful gardens and traditional buildings, and it’s in Cambridge, which is such an attractive destination. It’s very much that quintessential image of what a lot of people from other countries imagine the UK to be like,” Stead noted.

    “Not only are we showcasing Bell but we’re also showcasing the UK and what a valuable experience it is to study and travel here, so hopefully it will be a positive thing for the industry as a whole.”  

    The program comes at a time of slowing recovery for the UK’s ELT sector, with levels likely to be a “new normal” for the sector, according to a recent report by English UK.  

    The program will be airing on YouTube as well as the South Korean television network JTBC on February 5, 2025.  

    Source link

  • Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Hi everyone. I’m Alex Usher, and this is the World of Higher Education podcast. If you’re a really faithful listener, you may remember that when the show was in beta and we were fooling around with formats and guests, we did an episode about Mexican higher education and its tribulations under the populist president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador or AMLO for short.

    Our guest that day was my friend, Alma Maldonado Maldonado, an education researcher at Cinvestav, which is the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute. That interview was so brilliant, we turned this podcast into a full-time investigation of higher education developments in various countries around the world.

    Today, Alma’s back with us again to talk about how things have and have not changed in Mexico over the past two years. The big story there is that there’s a new president in town. Last spring, Claudia Sheinbaum became the country’s first ever woman president. One who happens to have a PhD in engineering with a specialty in energy and sustainability.

    You’d think that might be an advantage to a higher education sector, but Scheinbaum comes from AMLO’s Morena party and her instincts seem to be to continue her predecessor’s tradition of attacking higher education as being a dissolute elite enterprise.

    So what does this mean for Mexican higher education? Well, in general, it’s not good. Alma takes us through the implications of Morena’s supermajority in Congress, as well as its early attempts to put fiscal pressure on universities, and its continued fascination with the experimental and kind of shambolic Benito Juarez universities.
    Spoiler alert, there are not a lot of silver linings in this story, either for public or private sector universities in Mexico. But enough from me, let’s hand things over to Alma to explain.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.16 | Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Alma, almost two years ago, then-President López Obrador had about a year and a half left in his mandate and was essentially at war with the university sector and the scientific community. How did his administration end with respect to higher education? Did anything change? Did things get better or worse in his final months? Were there any significant policy shifts we should know about?

    Alma Maldonado Maldonado (AMM): Hi Alex, thanks for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be here. Well, I think most things didn’t change. Essentially, everything stayed the same. His rhetoric and narrative against higher education institutions, against graduates from abroad, and especially against UNAM, continued until the end of his term, unfortunately.

    There wasn’t anything that made him change that rhetoric. One reason for this is that he had political capital—he knew his base supported him fully. So, why change something that was working for him? On the contrary, the attacks on universities and the restriction of resources continued right until the end.

    AU: So, nothing was resolved. But earlier this year, there were elections for the presidency and both the Chambers of Deputies and the Senate. Did higher education play any role in that election? Were there significant policy differences between the parties?

    AMM: Not really. Education didn’t feature much in the campaign—similar to what we see in the U.S. It just wasn’t important. There were only a few mentions here and there about education, but in general, it wasn’t a key part of any campaigns.

    What we did see, unfortunately, was this sort of competition around scholarships. One candidate would say, “I’ll offer scholarships for secondary education,” and the other would respond, “Well, I’ll offer scholarships for secondary, but also primary, and even preschool!” That was the extent of the debate around education policy between the two main candidates. I’m not surprised but it was very disappointing because in a country like Mexico, where education can be a major driver of social change, it wasn’t given the attention it deserves.

    AU: The winner of the election was Claudia Sheinbaum of the Morena party, the same party as López Obrador. But she has a somewhat different image—she’s a scientist with an advanced degree from UNAM, a doctorate, I think. Does her presidency signal any kind of shift for higher education?

    AMM: It’s complicated. On paper, yes, she’s better. She has a PhD from UNAM and worked as an academic—one of the few cases where an academic has become president. Not the first, of course, but still, it’s notable.

    She has a pro-science and pro-higher education rhetoric, especially given her background in the student movement at UNAM in the 1980s. She fought alongside people like Emanuel Ordorica, Carlos Simas (her former husband), and Antonio Santos. She wasn’t a leader in that movement, though now some are rewriting history to present her as one.

    Her narrative emphasizes free higher education and the idea that education is a right, not a privilege. But since she took office a few months ago, we haven’t seen much change in terms of the most important issue—financing. It’s clear: follow the money.

    In the initial draft of the national budget, the funding for UNAM and other major universities was cut. Later, the government said, “Oh no, it was a mistake. We didn’t mean to cut the budget. Sorry, let’s fix it.” Imagine—someone who champions free higher education putting universities in that position. It’s a contradiction.

    AU: She has large majorities in both chambers of parliament, so she has significant power to implement her agenda. Why do you think she proposed cuts to education funding initially?

    AMM: Well, because she’s seen as the president of higher education and science. Reducing the budget as her first move would’ve been disastrous for her image.

    But you’re right—she has total control of Congress and the Senate. Right now, she’s focused on other reforms, particularly in the judicial system, and she’s changing a lot of laws. Education isn’t on the map because López Obrador already changed the Constitution’s third article, which governs education. There’s no immediate need for her to revisit it.

    AU: Let’s circle back to the budget cuts. Last month, the proposed budget included a cut of 10 billion pesos—about 500 million U.S. dollars—to higher education, with half of that falling directly on UNAM. There was significant outcry, and she backtracked somewhat. Do we know how this will end up? Will the universities be held whole, or are cuts still coming?

    AMM: They decided to reorganize the budget, but now they’re cutting other areas instead. Unfortunately, that includes initial education and other sectors. They also cut the Senate’s budget, which has caused disputes.

    In terms of higher education, they’ve claimed that funding will remain the same as last year, with a slight adjustment for inflation. But the adjustment is minimal—about 3%—while experts estimate inflation at around 5% but they’re just adding 3%. So, effectively, there’s still less money to spend. There’s less money for infrastructure, materials, and other essentials. Universities are in a slightly better position than they were a few weeks ago, but the situation remains difficult. The contradictions in her policies have drawn a lot of criticism.

    AU: Why was so much of the proposed cut targeted at UNAM? Was it deliberate? Is there animosity toward the university?

    AMM: There’s speculation about that. Some believe it was a punishment for UNAM’s independence, particularly regarding topics like judicial reform. UNAM has maintained a critical stance, which Morena and Claudia don’t like.

    Let’s not forget that one of the first things López Obrador did when he came to power six years ago was to modify the Constitution’s third article, removing university autonomy. When there was backlash, they said, “Oh, it was a mistake. We didn’t mean it.” But there have been many such “mistakes.”

    AU: Going back to AMLO, he also set a goal of increasing enrollment by 1.5 million students while also underfunding institutions at the same time. How did that play out? Did he reach that goal? How did the funding play into the final result?

    AMM: Currently, enrollment coverage in higher education is about 44%—very low compared to other Latin American countries. AMLO’s goal was to reach 50%, but he fell short.

    Now, Claudia Sheinbaum is aiming for 55%. I don’t think that’s realistic. The common system in Mexico is to add 5% on any policy, even if the last one isn’t achieved. To achieve that, they’d need to add about 1.2 million students, which isn’t feasible with the current system.

    The problem is that the educational spaces being created aren’t in the places where students want to go. There’s a clear contradiction between their enrollment goals and actual planning.

    AU: Part of AMLO’s strategy was the Benito Juárez Universities—small, access-oriented institutions in remote areas. You previously described them as “Potemkin institutions.” What’s the current situation? Will Sheinbaum continue with this policy?

    AMM: Yes, she’s continuing the project. But as I’ve said before, it remains very obscure. We don’t know who attends these universities, who teaches there, or what students are learning. I have a student doing their master’s dissertation on these universities, and they can’t get access for research.

    Sheinbaum recently announced plans to open 50 more. But we don’t even know what’s happening with the existing 140—or whether that number is accurate. There have been protests at these universities over issues like unreceived degrees and inadequate resources. I wouldn’t be surprised that Colombia would adopt them because they’re friends of Claudia. The idea is that these institutions could increase 40,000 new spaces. While they’re meant to provide education in remote areas with programs tailored to local communities, they’re not addressing the larger participation gaps.

    AU: We’ve been talking mainly about the public sector, but what about the private sector? Institutions like Tecnológico de Monterrey are highly regarded. How does the disarray in the public sector affect them? Does it make them stronger?

    AMM: I think they are struggling too, but we need to distinguish between the high-prestige institutions and the low-prestige ones. So, let’s start with the high-prestige institutions like Tecnológico de Monterrey or Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara.

    They are struggling financially, particularly because some scholarships they used to receive for graduate programs have been eliminated. For example, many students in their graduate programs previously got scholarships from the National Science and Technology Council. But now, under the current rhetoric, those scholarships are only being given to students in public institutions.

    This has forced high-prestige private institutions to get more creative with their resources to maintain their programs.

    On the other hand, there are low-prestige private institutions, some of which are as bad as the Benito Juárez Universities. They lack quality, but the government lets them operate because they solve a demand problem. Parents want their kids to attend college, and these institutions offer that possibility, even if the education isn’t great. Families make sacrifices to pay for these degrees because, in their minds, a degree is still a degree.

    And then, in the middle, there are institutions that are more decent in terms of quality. But the big question is: who ensures the quality of these institutions? That’s been a longstanding issue, and it hasn’t improved under the current government.

    AU: It’s a classic trade-off we see in many countries. Alma, we’ve covered a lot of doom and gloom. Are there any bright spots you foresee for 2025?

    AMM: I wish I could say I see more positive things coming, but honestly, I don’t. A big part of my concern is tied to North America and what a Trump presidency could mean for Mexico. If he returns to power, we’re likely to face serious challenges around migration and broader U.S.-Mexico relations.

    It’s really sad that Mexico didn’t take advantage of opportunities to strengthen ties with the U.S. while Biden was in office. There could have been agreements, collaborations, and advancements, but those didn’t materialize.

    In the face of all this, creativity will be key. Maybe we’ll see new programs to support migrants with higher education degrees who end up staying in Mexico. It’s critical that we do better this time than we did during the Dreamers situation. But honestly, I’m not confident that the government is prepared to handle these challenges effectively. So, unfortunately, I don’t see much good news ahead.

    AU: Well that’s a good reminder that international affairs do intrude on higher education affairs sometimes. Alma, thanks for being with us.

    AMM: Thank you very much, Alex.

    AU: And thank you to our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Samantha Pufek. If you have comments or questions, reach out at [email protected]. Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel. Join us next week when Michael Shattock will discuss governance in European universities. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

    Source link