Tag: students

Fairness and protection for students is coming – but not for those that need it now

As well as a new condition of registration on governance (covered elsewhere on the site by my colleague David Kernohan), the Office for Students (OfS) has announced a new approach focussed on providers “treating students fairly”.

There will be a new condition of registration – replacing existing ones on consumer protection guidance and student protection plans – aimed at institutions providing students with clear, easy to access information about what will happen if changes are made to their course, and fair processes for refunds and compensation and complaints.

Broadly, OfS will shift from expecting providers to pay “due regard” to guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority towards itself making judgements – both about compliance with consumer law, and some of its own higher standards for fairness.

It says that students have told the regulator that they want to receive a high quality education that reflects their financial investment and the experience they were promised, and that they want to be treated fairly – but that while many students do not explicitly refer to their experiences as consumers, words such as “fairness” and “honesty” are often used when they describe specific experiences and promises that have not been met.

As cuts continue across the sector, a heavy focus on financial sustainability both inside providers and the regulator almost certainly means an enhanced risk that students will feel unfairly treated when their courses or wider experiences shoulder the burden of savings reductions. Often those feelings will be legally justified.

But the jaw-to-the-floor astonishing thing – given OfS’ positioning as a risk-based regulator – is that none of the new proposals in this area will apply to currently regulated providers:

We recognise that proposing to strengthen protections and ensure consistency of information for students of providers registered under [new] proposed initial condition C5 would mean that different arrangements would be in place for different groups of students, depending on when their provider was registered.

Changes to ongoing regulatory requirements for registered providers are not within the scope of the current consultation. However our ultimate aim is to strengthen protections and ensure consistency of information for all students at all OfS-registered providers. In doing so, we would aim to align ongoing requirements for all registered providers, and we therefore envisage that having different requirements for different providers would be an interim position.

Proposals to achieve this alignment, and to ensure that all students are treated fairly on an ongoing basis, would form part of a future consultation on ongoing requirements for currently registered providers.

That’s right – well over five years since the bones of its new approach were set out in a paper to its board, in a context where the risks to students in this space have intensified significantly, better protecting students inside providers already on the register is parked as an “ultimate aim” with an unspecified date. And so for some, what follows below shifts from “need to get across” to “of mild passing interest for the time being”.

Doing so much harm, doing so much damage

The main thrust of the new approach to “fairness” – telegraphed by Director for Fair Access and Participation John Blake last summer – has a couple of key components.

First, rather than relying on the Competition and Markets Authority, or the courts, or National Trading Standards to take action or make a judgement over an issue, it’s taking that in-house.

And to go alongside that, it’s taking existing legislation – mainly consumer protection law, but there’s other bits too – and adding to it to form a new mega-definition of what it considers to represent “fairness”, partly to address the cat-nip nature of the “consumer” nomenclature.

As well as the engagement feedback it’s had from students, it’s doing this based on experience. Examples it has seen include omitting material information, like additional course costs or registration fees, leading students to make uninformed decisions.

It says it’s come across providers withdrawing offers after acceptance due to over- or under-subscription, leaving students unable to secure alternative options and stuck with financial commitments like accommodation. It has also come across – and referred to trading standards – like contractual terms that limit providers’ obligations during staff industrial disputes that may prevent students from receiving adequate teaching or compensation.

It’s also seen issues involving complaints processes that impose unreasonable barriers, like short submission windows, which hinder students from seeking redress and compensation.

And it’s picked up on false or misleading advertising, including claims about financial aid, course accreditation, or a provider’s status as a university, that may mislead students into pursuing programs that fail to deliver expected outcomes – where as a result, students may complete courses only to find that their certificates lack the value or recognition they anticipated.

One might ask, if it’s seen all of that in its current crop of registered providers, why it’s consulting on souping up its regulation only in newly registered providers for the time being.

But you don’t wanna get involved

But on the assumption (which, from experience, is a dangerous one) it gets there in the end, it’s worth looking at what it’s proposing in detail.

First thing on fairness. Currently, providers have to demonstrate compliance with consumer protection law when they apply to be on the register – but are not required to show how they more broadly ensure “fair treatment” of students.

This, it says, can result in situations where providers meet regulatory conditions but still have unfair policies or terms affecting students. So the proposed changes aim to better protect students by ensuring that providers’ policies and practices are fair and safeguard consumer interests consistently – avoiding a situation where students end up having to legally challenge unfair terms, and moving towards an approach of requiring providers to act fairly from the outset.

In that lovely OfS way, it will then assess whether a provider treats students fairly through a requirement that identifies when a provider does not treat students fairly. The old “I don’t know what a seminar is, but a 100 people in a room isn’t one” is the vibe here.

A bunch of negative behaviours will be set out, and assessments will evaluate whether providers meet the condition by identifying the presence or absence of those negative behaviours – a “streamlined process” that it says will result in a clear “satisfied” or “not satisfied” outcome.

The specifics of that run like this. If actions (or omissions) either fall within one or more descriptions, which it proposes to set out in a separate “OfS prohibited behaviours list”, or give rise to a likelihood of detriment or actual detriment to the student (except where reasonable in all the relevant circumstances), then the application gets the big red “unfair” stamp.

The definition of unfair treatment it’s proposing draws on consumer protection law and CMA guidance, which it says are already familiar to higher education providers (notwithstanding that a whole chunk of it is changing, which I looked at earlier on the site here). The key bit is that OfS is aiming to offer an additional layer of protection beyond editing legal requirements – the proposed list of negative behaviours is not confined to those explicitly prohibited by law.

And for consumer law fans, contract terms that may be regarded as unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the so-called “grey list”) will always be unfair in OfS-world – particularly over changes to courses, refund and compensation policies and contract terms and conditions:

We are proposing to consider documents beyond those that may ordinarily have contractual effect and the condition therefore has a wider scope than consumer protection law. Our initial view is that this is appropriate because students may rely on a wider range of documents in practice.

Some will regard that as overreach – others will feel reassured that the square peg/round hold of applying consumer law to the relationship between student and university will be properly addressed.

The other thing in here for consumer law detail fans is that the draft condition proposes that a provider would not be regarded as treating a student fairly if, in OfS’s reasonable opinion, its actions or omissions (including those that are proposed or likely) give rise to a likelihood of detriment or actual detriment to the student.

That’s odd because, as I explained on the site a few days ago, consumer law and the way the CMA is proposing to apply it is moving away from a “detriment test” and towards banning some behaviours regardless.

And excuses will be available – whether it is reasonable to argue that the course of action proposed or taken is, or was, necessary in the circumstances; whether those circumstances are, or were, in the control of the provider; and whether the provider is doing, or has done, everything possible to limit the extent of any detriment. That opens up all sorts of “what ifs” – including those on “but we were about to collapse and you told us not to collapse” – that OfS officials will doubtless be fielding on webinars in the coming weeks.

One curious aspect of the proposal – at least as it’s set out here – concerns the difference between an “initial” condition and an “ongoing” condition of registration. OfS is proposing new C5 on fairness explicitly here as an “initial” condition – so it’s principally proposing to look at a bunch of documents and policies before it lets a provider onto the register.

Of course not only can those policies change, it’s often the way they’re implemented (or not) and interpreter that matters more – the consultation is oddly silent on whether new C5 will also become an ongoing condition of registration that OfS could intervene on later.

In fact it feels like OfS is under pressure to get registrations going again, isn’t quite ready on this fairness stuff, and so has half slipped it into an announcement on new registrations for the time being.

I know you wanna live yourself

This being OfS, you actually have to fish your way to page 72 of the consultation document at Annex D to see what it’s proposing as prohibited behaviours – and it’s in seven sections, covering key documents, descriptions relating to conduct and omissions, the clarity and legibility of key documents and other information for students, policies on changes to courses, complaints processes, refund and compensation policies and fake reviews.

The first of those picks up much of the casework that it’s been referring to National Trading Standards – clauses that deny students the ability to offset payments due to provider failures, clauses that allow providers to withdraw offers at their discretion, particularly due to oversubscription, penalties for withdrawing or unmet obligations, and those that give universities the ability to terminate contracts or define terms at will.

There’s also stuff on contracts that limit students’ access to legal recourse or impose restrictive dispute resolution processes, those that allow providers to transfer their obligations to other entities without student consent, and ones that allow a provider to determine whether the services supplied conform with the contract.

In the actions and omissions bit, there’s claiming OfS registration or the right to use the term “university” without permission; offering degrees without appropriate authority or contracts; falsely asserting validation, accreditation, or endorsement by another body; displaying unauthorised logos, trust marks, or quality marks; and making definitive claims about future registration, university status, or authorisations that have not been granted.

Pleasing to these eyes at least is also advertising or promoting courses, services, or facilities without disclosing reasonable doubts about the provider’s ability to deliver them; intending not to deliver what was advertised and/or planning to provide an alternative, and applying pressure to force immediate decisions, such as falsely claiming that an offer or its terms are available for a limited time only, depriving students of the opportunity to make an informed choice.

There’s also communicating with prospective students in a non-English language without disclosing that services will be provided in English (!), presenting legal rights as unique features of the provider (!!) and using paid media content to promote services without clearly identifying it as advertising (!!!). It all goes on.

In fact this list gets better as you move down it. Publishing false or inaccurate information about market conditions or competitors to induce students to sign contracts, offering prizes or rewards without delivering them or without disclosing associated costs, and falsely describing services as free when hidden costs exist are in there too – as well as making persistent, unwanted contact with applicants or students through various communication channels – defined partly in reference to harassment legislation.

Maybe you work in a provider where you assume that the further down that list you get, the less likely it is that any of that happens. If you’re paying agents – either domestically or internationally – I can pretty much assure you that there’s a real iceberg below that tip.

Clarity and legibility covers off documents that are hard to read or use unclear language, or fail to specify how they apply to different time periods or categories of students. Complaints unfairness includes strict time limits, no clear contact point, a lack of clear and reasonable timescales, and the one derisory mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s complaints scheme.

And the section on changes hedges its bets a bit – there has to be clear stuff on the circumstances where changes may occur (like alterations to course content, qualifications, mode of study, teaching location, and fees), measures to address the needs of specific student groups, such as those with accessibility needs, and those policies must ensure that all students are treated fairly if such changes are implemented. Examples of where providers reserve too much of a right to make changes after the fact (“but all of those optional modules that you chose here for were not material”, and so on) are missing in action.

Oh – and refund and compensation policies have to clearly outline the circumstances under which students are entitled to refunds or compensation (along with the methods used to calculate both!), and picking up some of that DMCC 2024 stuff, fake reviews are called out too – which include falsely claiming authorship by a student, concealing incentives provided for reviews, manipulating reviews by hiding or removing negative ones, and not taking reasonable steps to prevent or remove fake reviews.

But could you forgive yourself

Some other aspects of note. OfS expects all providers to comply with the law and as a starter any provider found not to have done so gets that “not fair” stamp. That includes consumer protection law, the Education Reform Act 1988 (unrecognised degrees), the Companies Act 2006 (failure to comply with a Secretary of State direction to change a company name, or a name giving misleading indication of activities).

It’s also chucking in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to address circumstances where a provider imposes academic sanctions for non-payment of non-tuition fee debts, the thing that originally led the then Office for Fair Trading to start thinking about the way consumer law applied to students in the first place in the last decade.

Of particular interest is scope. It covers relationships with current, prospective, and former students – the first and third of that list theoretically pick up rights that they often don’t have now. It obviously applies to all modes and levels of study, including online, face-to-face, or hybrid delivery. It naturally extends to providers operating through partnerships or intending to do so. But it also includes ancillary services and the provision of student information – including marketing and advertising.

Ancillary services are defined here as services provided between a provider and a student as part of their higher education experience, including library services, disability support, scholarships, accommodation, and sports facilities:

These services can influence a student’s decision on where to study and their overall higher education experience. Unclear or inaccurate information about these services may affect a student’s choice of provider or course, while unclear or unfair terms of service may negatively impact their experience.

This is very good news for students who, from experience, are often told that stuff on or adjacent to that list can be cut because it’s not “part of the contract” or “on the CMA material information list” (it’s in the footnotes, actually). It should make it much harder to slash that intercampus bus, or cut 24 hour libraries down to 12.

I stand in front of you

What’s that you say? What happens to student protection plans? I’ve written extensively on the failure of that regime on the site before, suffice to say that the Higher Education and Research Act still mentions them, and OfS’ way around that is to argue that Condition C4, introduced in 2021, allows it to issue student protection directions if there is a material risk of a provider ceasing higher education provision – so C3 (have an SPP) is being deleted, and instead the suite of documents it will look at in pursuit of all of the above will, in effect, constitute a provider’s student protection plan.

This makes lots of sense – SPPs were inconsistent, protections were assessed on OfS’ judgement of provider risk rather than the granularity pockets of students face in a large provider, and in theory means consistency from their point of view.

So the silly SPP “risk assessment” goes – the one that right now probably says your university is swimming in cash as it announces a round of redundancies – and instead all of the above will have to appear on a single webpage to allow a “one stop shop” for students.

You might also wonder where that strategy proposal has gone – the one that Jo Johnson proposed before OfS was born, and the one that Gavin Williamson proposed too – a “model contract” that sets out students’ rights and obligations, alongside the obligations of providers. It’s being parked for now as a potential addition:

We may therefore explore development work in this area through further discussion and engagement with the sector, outside the current consultation process and alongside, rather than instead of, the introduction of a new initial condition of registration.

On reflection, one glaring omission in here concerns what a provider can and can’t do when it comes to fee increases for continuing students – a cynic might argue that that’s controversial enough right now without OfS wading in and… protecting students. But given Ofcom has now banned in-contract price increases altogether, it does look like a huge hole.

The other thing I’m surprised to see missing is the protection aspects of progression. There are plenty of providers that advertise a “BA in Wonkhe studies with an integrated foundation year” which technically and internally consists of an FY and a degree course – where the closure of the degree course seems to not trigger the same protections for those left high and dry as a second or third year disappearing. See also students who were “sold” a UG on the basis of progression to a vital PGT qualification.

It’s also disappointing to see little mention of the sort of pressure that students can be under to make what the CMA, in its draft guidance on the DMCC, would call a “transactional decision” like agreeing to a (contract) variation. CMA’s definition of consumer vulnerability and its insistence than in practice, offering students the chance to exit a contract if they’re not happy with changes is not one most can make is a huge issue across the sector right now – and both is and will be a big driver of those “dishonesty” and “unfairness” perceptions that OfS leads the consultation off with. The lack of mention of the issues in the ongoing Student Group Claim – especially when OfS was pontificating about those issues during Covid – is wild.

The single mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) is also one to ponder on – partly because it’s the OIA that has tended to take the lead on judging (conceptually at least) fairness for students. Even if we set aside the politics, it won’t help for two sets of guidance to be floating around on what “fairness” means in practice – and students surely deserve these two grown-ups getting in a room to reconcile their advice on rights.

One other thing that continues to vex me about the proposals and the approach is the obsession with OfS’ powers over student power. Some of this sort of stuff is about providers doing the right thing – but so much of it is about students understanding their rights, so that when someone says “well all those optional modules aren’t contractual”, they can put up a fight.

It really wouldn’t be hard for OfS to write in something similar to that which we saw in Poland recently – where it’s the law that SUs are given the support to tell students about their rights (and responsibilities) in a way that barely goes near the catnip of consumerism. Beyond the wording of policies, some students are going to be treated unfairly sometimes – steps that ensure they know it beyond a feeling are surely a precursor to effective regulation. It’s hard to ever accept OfS announcements about student focus or student empowerment without that shift in approach that other regulators seem to understand.

As such, the framing of it all is a bit odd given, as I say, this is being proposed as an initial rather than an ongoing condition of registration at this stage – sat within this need to announce what it’s doing about a growing backlog of applications. Some of the wording only really makes sense in terms of what providers do in practice, not what some PDF says on a website. We’re left assuming that what’s in here will, at some later date, apply beyond the day OfS says yes or no to a new provider – but even critiquing that appears to be outside of the scope of the consultation.

It’s certainly interesting for OfS to be consulting providers, SUs and students and students on stuff that won’t apply to most of them, but might, in a slightly different way, apply them at an unspecified future time.

Overall, this looks like great news for students – finally, an education regulator properly thinking through the ways in which students are treated unfairly. But to return to the astonishing aspect of all of this – what is being proposed here is one set of rights for students in a new(ly registering) provider, and another set of much weaker ones for everyone else, all in the name of “fairness”, at just the point that providers are under pressure to not deliver on some of the promises they made to students.

The lack of justification or explanation for that is alarming – and while I often do my best to not speculate or attribute motive, it would be hard for students braving a read of this to conclude anything other than OfS has resolved that the financial sustainability horse needs to have fully bolted before the regulatory framework stable door is closed in their interests.

Source link

February 6, 2025
‘Betraying an entire generation of students’? What do Trump University and Matt Goodwin’s excoriating new book tell us about universities today?
Browsing in a good bookshop sure beats scouring the internet for things to read. And when I was recently in my local independent bookshop (the Book House in Thame since you ask), I stumbled across a new biography of Donald Trump focusing on his pre-politics business career. Seeing that the book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump squandered his father’s fortune and created the illusion of success by Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, included a section on Trump University, I snapped it up.

Every leader’s weaknesses are clear before they rise to power if you look in the right places. We knew Gordon Brown’s seriousness could merge into tantrums long before the revelations about throwing phones at staff came to light, and we knew Boris Johnson’s joie de vivre hampered an eye for detail long before he caught the ball ‘from the back of the scrum’ and entered Number 10. If Nigel Farage ever makes it to the top job, as ever more people seem to be predicting, no one will be able to claim his destructive approach to politics was previously hidden.

Similarly, this new biography of Trump written by two New York Times journalists proves the US President’s weaknesses were evident beneath the bluster throughout his long business career in hotels, casinos and golf courses. If the authors are right, Trump has long been prone to taking big risks on a hunch, to acting litigiously and to seeking credit for things that aren’t his doing. The title suggests he was a Lucky Loser, though perhaps that is just an uncharitable way of saying he was a big winner against the odds.

As a businessman, the book shows how Trump began lucky, with ‘the equivalent of half a billion dollars from his father’, and ended lucky, with ‘another half billion as a reality television star’. These allowed him to take on huge debts, aided by paying as little tax as possible and reclaiming what tax he had paid whenever he could (as during Obama’s Great Recession recovery programme).

Trump’s dollars from the TV show ‘The Apprentice’ came not so much from appearance fees as from his right to half the profits from any sponsorship deals and from lending his name to all sorts of businesses attracted by his TV success, from health supplements to early video phones. These enabled him to keep afloat. But there were many lows to Trump’s business career and a number of his big projects declared bankruptcy in the 1990s and 2000s, leading the two authors to conclude, ‘He would have been better off betting on the stock market than on himself.’

If there’s one person responsible for Trump’s rise to the top, it is Mark Burnett, a British Falklands veteran who is now the United States Special Envoy to the UK. Burnett invented the TV programme ‘Survivor’ before creating an urban equivalent in The Apprentice (and later also creating ‘The Voice’). And if there’s one thing responsible for Trump’s rise it seems to be vanilla-and-mint Crest toothpaste as Proctor & Gamble were the first mass consumer company to do serious sponsorship of The Apprentice. They paid $1.1 million to get the contestants to come up with a new toothpaste, thereby drawing attention to the actual new vanilla-and-mint product sitting on shop shelves.

Ostensibly, this all has little to do with higher education. But Trump University (also known as Trump U) is one of the most notable of all the current US President’s past projects and one of the ventures undertaken just before he stood for the Presidency for the first time. Trump not only lent his name to the project, he also invested millions of dollars in return for 93% of the business –like Victor Kiam, he liked it so much he bought the company. But the authors of this book conclude the whole thing was a disaster from start to finish.

Beginning as a way to sell recorded lectures to small and medium-sized businesses, Trump University quickly moved into get-rich-quick in-person seminars. The Trump Elite Gold programme had a fee of $34,995 (about the same as the entire cost of a three-year degree in England or Wales). Prospective learners were told, ‘There are three groups of people … People who make things happen; people who wait for things to happen; and people who wonder, “What happened?”’ If you wanted to be in the first group, you were encouraged to open your wallet or else borrow the necessary fee.

One failed applicant for The Apprentice, Stephen Gilpin, found himself tapped up to work for Trump U but later wrote an exposé that claimed, ‘the focus for Trump University was purely on separating suckers from their money.’ At the time, Trump said he hand-picked the instructors, but he did no such thing. The whole venture ended up in three major lawsuits, which were settled just as Trump became President for the first time.

In the end, the story of Trump University confirms a truism: it is vital to protect the use of the term ‘University’ and to police it actively and in real time. The book serves as a reminder that – as Jo Johnson has argued persuasively on the HEPI blog – pausing new awards for University Title means the Office for Students is giving less attention to this area than it should.

It is ironic that the global leader of right-wing populism should not only have sought to establish his own ‘University’ but that, having done so, it should embody in such exaggerated form all the negatives that populists tend to ascribe to traditional universities: poor value for money; an unoriginal curriculum taught by ill-trained staff; and insufficient personal attention to students. However, if a new book being published today attacking UK and US universities, Bad Education: Why our universities are broken and how we can fix them by Matt Goodwin, is any guide to populism more generally, then the failure of Trump U has not deterred the attacks on places that actually do have the legal right to call themselves a ‘University’.

Goodwin starts with a chapter called ‘Why I decided to speak out’ though it could just have easily been called ‘The grass is always greener’ or ‘Looking back with rose-tinted spectacles’. The book’s core argument is that:

the rapid expansion of the university bureaucracy, the sharp shift to the left among university academics and the politicization of the wider system of higher education have left universities in a perilous state.

As a result, Goodwin argues, ‘our universities are not just letting down but betraying an entire generation of students.’

He notes that, as the number of EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) champions has gone up, some types of diversity, such as diversity in academic thought, have gone down. But Goodwin is a political scientist rather than a historian and the problems he identifies are not as new as he makes out. Far-left students used to disrupt Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph and Leon Brittan when they spoke on campus; now they try and block Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix. The issue of whether such individuals should be allowed to speak even if some people on campus will be ‘offended’ are the same. The recourse to legislation in response is the same too: the rows of the 1980s led to the Education (No. 2) Act (1986) and the rows of today led to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (2023).

Notably, Goodwin’s views seem to have changed even more over time than the institutions he criticises. Two decades ago, Goodwin was a progressive studying for a PhD under Professor Roger Eatwell, an expert in fascism and populism at the University of Bath, after which he moved to Manchester and Nottingham, where he worked with political scientists like Rob Ford and Philip Cowley, and thereafter to Kent. These days, Goodwin has not only given up his professorship but is found speaking at Reform UK meetings while accepting a job as a GB News presenter.

And while Goodwin says his book has been 20 years in the making, it reads like it was 20 weeks in the writing. That is not meant to be rude for the piece is pacey, personal and polemical – and all the more readable for that. But while it is based in part on others’ research – including pieces of HEPI output – it generally draws from just one well: the place inhabited by Eric Kaufman, Jonathan Haidt and Niall Ferguson. The dust jacket includes endorsements from Douglas Murray, Claire Fox and Nigel Biggar among others.

Goodwin’s pamphleteer-style of writing ensures his text has little in common with the meticulous research on recent university history by Mike Shattock or Roger Brown and Helen Carasso or Steve Jones (who will be writing his own review of the book for HEPI in due course). Nonetheless, whisper it quietly but – whether you like his general approach or not, whether you like his new acquaintances or not and whether you like his writing style or not – Matt Goodwin may have something of a point.

Universities do not always welcome or reflect the full diversity of viewpoints in the way that perhaps they should, given their business is generating and imparting knowledge. It has been said many times before by others, so it is far from original, yet that doesn’t make it false. Goodwin quotes the US economist Thomas Sowell: ‘when you hear university academics talk about diversity, ask them how many conservatives are in their sociology department.’ It seems a fair question.

But grappling with that is not easy. The best answer, Goodwin argues, is a muscular response. Rather than leaving it to the sector to resolve its own issues, he wants to see hard-nosed interventions from policymakers and regulators:

only government action and new legislation, or pressure from outside universities, can change the incentive structures on campus. This means adopting a proactive rather than a passive strategy, making it clear that the individual freedom of scholars and students is, ultimately, more important than the freedom or autonomy of the university.

At the very end, Goodwin even argues someone should ensure ‘all universities be regularly audited for academic freedom and free speech violations’, with fines for any that transgress. Yet that begs more questions than it answers: we don’t know who would do the audit or what the rules for it would be.

So there is a paradox at the heart of Goodwin’s critique. He ascribes the problems he sees to flaws in the ‘system’ whereby the number of university administrators, institutions’ central bureaucracy and the pay of vice-chancellors have all increased rapidly. But such changes have often reflected:
1. external influences, such as the increase in the regulation of education (in response to scandals of the Trump U variety);
2. the need to have flattering statistics (such as to present to the Treasury in the battle for public resources); and
3. recognition that the old ways of working are not going to root out inappropriate behaviours (for example, sexual harassment).
Perhaps making universities more accountable to regulators and policymakers will make them bastions of free speech in the way Goodwin hopes, but might it not just clog up the lives of academics even more?

Reprinted with permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. All rights reserved.
Source link
February 6, 2025
Encouraging first-gen students to study abroad

Study abroad is tied to personal and professional growth for college students, but crossing the border can be an enormous hurdle or feel unattainable for some learners.

A new initiative at Bucknell University seeks to empower and support first-generation and low-income students who are interested in experiential learning and study away through workshops, financial aid and mentorship.

In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader speaks to Chris Brown, Bucknell’s Andrew Hartman ’71 and Joseph Fama ’71 Executive Director of the Center for Access and Success, to learn more about the center and how it reduces barriers to student participation in high-impact activities.

Listen to the episode here and learn more about The Key here.

Read a transcript of the podcast here.

Source link

February 5, 2025
Colleges promote media literacy skills for students

Young people today spend a large amount of time online, with a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report noting teens ages 12 to 17 had four or more hours of daily screen time during July 2021 to December 2023.

This digital exposure can impact teens’ mental health, according to Pew Research, with four in 10 young people saying they’re anxious when they don’t have their smartphones and 39 percent saying they have cut back their time on social media. But online presences can also impact how individuals process information, as well as their ability to distinguish between news, advertisement, opinion and entertainment.

A December Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found seven out of 10 of college students would rate their current level of media literacy as somewhat or very high, but they consider their college peers’ literacy less highly, with only 32 percent rating students as a whole as somewhat or very highly media literate.

A majority of students (62 percent) also indicate they are at least moderately concerned about the spread of misinformation among their college peers, with 26 percent saying their concern was very high.

To address students’ digital literacy, colleges and universities can provide education and support in a variety of ways. The greatest share of Student Voice respondents (35 percent) say colleges and universities should create digital resources to learn about media literacy. But few institutions offer this kind of service or refer students to relevant resources for self-education.

Methodology

Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab polled 1,026 students at 181 two- and four-year institutions from Dec. 19 to 23. The margin of error is 3 percent. Explore the findings yourself  here, here and here.

What is media literacy? Media literacy, as defined in the survey, is the ability or skills to critically analyze for accuracy, credibility or evidence of bias in the content created and consumed in sources including radio, television, the internet and social media.

A majority of survey respondents indicate they use at least one measure regularly to check the accuracy of information they’re receiving, including thinking critically about the message delivered, analyzing the source’s perspective or bias, verifying information with other sources, or pausing to check information before sharing with others.

A missing resource: While there are many groups that offer digital resources or online curriculum for teachers, particularly in the K-12 space, less common are self-guided digital resources tailored to young people in higher education.

“Create digital resources for students” was the No. 1 response across respondent groups and characteristics and was even more popular among community college respondents (38 percent) and adult learners (42 percent), which may highlight students’ preferences for learning outside the classroom, particularly for those who may be employed or caregivers.

Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism offers a free self-directed media literacy course that includes webinars with journalism and media experts, as well as exercises for reflection. Similarly, Baylor University’s library offers a microcourse, lasting 10 minutes, that can be embedded into Canvas and that awards students a badge upon completion.

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte provides a collection of resources on a Respectful Conversation website that includes information on free expression, media literacy, constructive dialogue and critical thinking. On this website, users can also identify online classes, many of which are free, that provide an overview or a deeper level look at additional topics such as misinformation and deepfakes.

The American Library Association has a project, Media Literacy Education in Libraries for Adult Audiences, that is designed to assist libraries in their work to improve media literacy skills among adults in the community. The project includes webinars, a resource guide for practitioners.

Does your college or university have a self-guided digital resource for students to engage in media literacy education? Tell us more.

Source link

February 3, 2025
Unifying supports for first-generation students on campus

First-generation students make up around 20 percent of the University of South Carolina student population.

University of South Carolina

While first-generation students are a growing population in higher education, they remain less likely to retain or complete a credential, compared to their continuing-generation peers.

A new initiative at the University of South Carolina unifies assistance for students who are the first in their families to attend college to guide them through the university and provide a sense of belonging. The First-Generation Student Center is connected to a first-generation living-learning community and offers embedded academic and socioemotional support, which reduces the need for students to seek support independently.

What’s the need: USC serves a large number of first-generation learners—one in five undergraduate students or around 6,000 individuals.

“We know from our campus data on students in our long-standing TRIO program that they do not have the gaps in retention and graduation that our other first-generation students have,” says Shelley Dempsey, assistant provost for graduation and retention. “However, the program is at max capacity.  It was time for our university to provide additional options to serve students in a similar demographic who are not able to be a part of the TRIO program.”

The center was designed to provide increased and more specialized services for learners in a physical space that promotes students’ feelings of belonging.

Dempsey sees particular benefits with first-generation student support, including social capital growth and impacting future generations of their families. But Dempsey also notes improving processes and the student experience for first-generation degree attainment is a benefit for the institution as a whole.

How it works: The First-Generation Center (FGC), which opened in fall 2024 within Maxcy College residence hall on campus, includes a variety of support services and resources.

A dedicated director and assistant director support the center, as does a faculty director, who oversees the living and learning community for 151 first-generation students.

Within the center, students can engage with an embedded mental health counselor for one-on-one in-person or virtual sessions, as well as group sessions on common themes like homesickness and exam anxiety. The Student Success Center has embedded staff presence for drop-in hours, and the FGC hosts other partners across campus, including financial aid, the career center and the meal card office, to provide insights into navigating higher ed.

“The idea is that if we can have all of these offices have a presence in the FGC as a safe space, then we build comfort and confidence with the first-generation students to utilize them in their locations outside the FGC as well,” Dempsey says.

This fall, the center hosted a series called First-Gen Connections that provided relevant information related to campus experiences and deadlines. Athletics staff led a discussion on how students can earn ticket priority for sporting events and offered students a behind-the-scenes tour of the football stadium, for example.

How it’s going: Since launching the center, USC leaders have seen an increase in first-generation student involvement. The center was advertised through meetings, events and campus media including newsletters, but word of mouth has been the most effective marketing campaign.

Several sections of University 101, USC’s first-year seminar program, also meet in the center, which helps raise awareness of the support offerings.

This fall, efforts to include first-generation students were noticeable in mini-grant applications for research and creative projects alongside a mentor, with 55 percent of applicants being first-gen learners.

“We want our first-generation students to know that they are just as capable, and sometimes that takes bringing the info to them in a designated space so that they don’t have to navigate the large university and unfamiliar lingo or jargon for themselves,” Dempsey says.

What’s next: The current target is incoming and first-year students, with the hopes of continuing to involve them as they progress through the institution, but administrators hope to reach graduate students, as well.

“We are in the process of conducting a needs assessment to know how to increase our supports going forward,” Dempsey says.

The university will also track other student metrics including involvement in high-impact practices, GPA, DFW rates, campus involvement and leadership opportunities. Additionally, leaders will compare utilization of support services among first-gen students who engage with the center compared to their peers who are also first-gen but not associated with the center.

If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

Source link

February 3, 2025
Is going to university still worth it? A widening participation student’s view

By David Lam, Activities Officer at the Students’ Union Bath.

As a child, I always envisioned a very traditional educational journey. I would work my way through high school, do my A levels and then end up at a good university, graduating into a well-paid job. I think this is the journey most undertake or are pointed towards as we were told that university students almost always earn more than those without one. It’s a no-brainer, right?

However, there have been recent conversations about the value of going to university and getting a degree. Being a student is tough right now, because:

Despite these challenges, record numbers of students from TUNDRA 1 (lowest participation) backgrounds have made it to university. A remarkable stat! But why has this happened? I believe university opens so many more opportunities for you besides a good education and, for this reason, people would prefer to earn and learn rather than not doing it at all.

Going to university allows you to access a whole load of new experiences through societies and sports clubs at a relatively low cost and without much commitment. At Bath, there are over 200 groups that you can join, ranging from common interests like football and board games to more niche ones like sailing and gliding. I am sure there are equally wide offers at other universities. Having gone to a state school, I never had the opportunity to try all these things while others from more privileged backgrounds did.

Studying at Bath meant I had access to a wide range of placements for my year in industry. Without the wonderful placement team showing me all the world had to offer, I would not have known where to start, nor would I have ever considered doing a placement. I had always seen movies that involved people going for the best year of their life abroad in a sunny place, making friends for life and being temporarily free from studying. I decided I wanted that experience too, but then the Covid-19 Pandemic hit, meaning my opportunities suddenly shrank. Despite the setback of a global pandemic, I eventually found an opportunity and I ended up working in Madrid as a Physical Education (PE) teacher in an international school. It was the best year of my life, living the dream I’d seen on TV, thanks to my university’s placement team’s support.

Attending university exposes you to people from diverse backgrounds. Coming from a small town in the Midlands, predominantly made up of white British residents, I was one of only three kids of colour in my entire primary school. So arriving in Bath and encountering people who looked like me was a strikingly different experience. Some of my closest friends come from all over the world and, yes, eventually when we all leave Bath, I will be visiting them at some point! The chances of me making such friendships would have been minimal had I stayed in my little town and I would have nowhere near as enlightened an understanding of other cultures as I have now.

University is often the first real taste of freedom for many, marking the transition from life at home to living independently. You are no longer surrounded by an endless supply of clean clothes or home-cooked meals; instead, you are managing your own routine and life, all within the relatively safe university environment. This shift into the big wide world fosters resilience and builds people skills. You will inevitably encounter challenges, like that one housemate who never does their dishes. But part of the university experience is learning to handle these issues yourself, having the tough conversations and solving problems independently rather than relying on someone else to step in. Along the way, you will meet both amazing people and those who are not so great. While no degree teaches you how to interact with others, living with a diverse group of people forces you to learn those essential skills.

For these reasons, I still believe there is value in going to university. While not everyone’s experience is the same, the underlying benefits remain. The university experience represents a beacon of opportunity and opens so many doors. It leads to things you would have never imagined doing, like living in another country for a whole year or writing a blog for a higher education think tank. Seeing the Office for Students turn its attention to the wider student experience, rather than exclusively to education, is welcome. I believe more places should be taking this holistic view and I look forward to seeing what their new strategy comes out with it.

Source link

February 3, 2025
Shaping higher education for commuter students

For the first time, there are now more commuter students in the UK – students who continue to live at home whilst studying, rather than relocating to attend university – than traditional residential students.

Surprised? You’re not alone. My research on commuter students suggests that even commuter students themselves don’t realise that there are others like them. In common with most of those who shape higher education pedagogy, policy, practices and plans for the future, they believe that they are a minority, an anomaly, inconsistent with the (presumed) majority of “normal,” residential students.

The sector is increasingly waking up to the needs and experiences of commuter students, supported by the inclusion of commuters in the Office for Students Equality of Opportunity Risk Register in England – Emma Maslin has explored this further on the site.

It is essential, for students, higher education institutions and the future viability of our sector, that we increase awareness of commuter students – who they are and what they need – and that we reshape higher education provision for this growing cohort.

Students will benefit from a better experience and outcomes. Institutions will benefit from higher retention, league table position and therefore recruitment. The sector as a whole will benefit from greater financial stability and clear evidence to the government that we are meeting their priorities and truly expanding access and improving outcomes for non-traditional students.

Who commutes – and why?

Commuter students are diverse. However, there is a strong correlation between being a non-traditional student – those targeted by widening participation initiatives – and being a commuter student.

This is because many of the reasons that students have historically been unable or unwilling to enrol in higher education are the same as those that make them unable or unwilling to relocate. These include affordability, being first in family to higher education, from a low-participation neighbourhood, having caring or family commitments, over 25. Commuters are also likely to be in employment, be home owners, to be studying part time, at lower-tariff universities. Finally, my research suggests that commuter students are more likely to be local students, not long-distance learners.

This said, commuting isn’t always about widening participation. It is likely that the undersupply of student accommodation and resultant increasing prices, alongside the cost-of-living crisis, are encouraging traditional students to remain at home. There is also evidence to suggest that international and postgraduate students are more likely to be commuters, both key target markets for UK higher education institutions.

Relocation as a predictor of success

But why does this matter? Data tell us that commuter students have a poorer experience throughout the student lifecycle. Choice of institution, access to learning, resources, support and extra-curricular activities, are all restricted. Commuters are less able to engage with in-person learning activities and are isolated from their learning community.

They feel less a sense of belonging, more a sense of burden. In consequence, commuter students have lower attainment, continuation and graduate outcomes than their residential counterparts.

In part, this is because higher education has been designed without consideration of the need to travel. Pedagogy, policy and processes have historically been and continue to be shaped around residential students. Assessments, extracurricular activities, facilities, learning and wellbeing support, teaching activities, timetabling—all continue to be premised on the residential model, structured for the residential student, provided at a time and in a place that assumes that students live on or near to campus.

What next?

The first step is to see our commuters. Count them, to make them count. Make them visible, not only to decision makers and practitioners, but also to each other. Provide information for commuters, before, during and after application. Create a sense of belonging, building community through awareness, acceptance and actions such as repurposing unused parts of the estate, for commuter students – a common room, sleeping areas.

Next, review all policies for accessibility, with particular focus on timetabling, attendance, learning and teaching, support services and skills development.

Make changes where necessary, enabling students to maximise access, whilst minimising travel. Rethink in-person learning and make attendance worth it. Consider online learning, but avoid hybrid learning and include on-commute learning options.

Myth busting

For commuter students, access to learning isn’t just about distance. It’s not even just about transport. We need to look at the acceptability, accessibility, affordability and availability of transport. However, we also need to recognise that access and participation are also about students’ activities, responsibilities and relationships, outside of the classroom.

The data tell us that our commuter students are struggling to adapt to pedagogy, policies and practices that are based on the assumption that they will relocate to attend university. Our ability to adapt our provision to their needs is likely to be key to the future sustainability of many of our institutions, if not the sector as a whole.

This article is the first in our series on commuter students where we’ll explore their student journey and what support institutions and the sector can provide to enhance their experience. If you’d like to get involved in the series, we’d welcome further contributions, email [email protected] to pitch us an article.

Source link

February 2, 2025
Chicago Public Schools Launches Long-Awaited Site to Show How Schools Are Doing – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Chicago Public Schools launched new school profiles on its website — a milestone in the district’s five-year push to change how it portrays the quality of its campuses.

The new school accountability dashboards replace the district’s controversial number ratings for schools, which CPS put on hold and then scrapped during the pandemic. Those ratings had drawn the ire of educators and some community members, who said they unfairly stigmatized campuses that serve students with high needs. The old level ratings had also factored into high-stakes decisions about school closures and staff overhauls.

Some parents who’ve provided feedback on the shift said families welcome having a one-stop repository of information on school performance again. But they said they’d like to see simpler, more accessible language in information about the metrics the district included to put the numbers into context. And they noted that a busy parent must click repeatedly to get to each metric — only to find out in many cases that these numbers aren’t available yet.

Bogdana Chkoumbova, the district’s chief education officer, said the new system aimed to strike a balance.

“We didn’t want this to be just another state report card; we are embracing the complexity of the data,” she said. “If it looked like a one-pager in red and green, that just brings in the trauma.”

The new profiles went up in mid-December, the day after the window to apply to the district’s selective and magnet programs closed. Chkoumbova said the timing was not intentional. After all, families could find most of the information available on the dashboards so far on schools’ Illinois Report Card profiles.

For now, the profiles include only a portion of the data they’ll eventually feature — mostly traditional metrics such as test scores, chronic absenteeism, and graduation rates. Later this year, the district is gearing up to add long-anticipated information that gets at students’ experience and well-being — metrics that in some cases officials are still weighing how to best capture.

Still, CPS leaders say the launch of the new dashboards is an important start. They can be a handy tool as the members of a new, partly elected school board learn about the district and its schools. District officials plan to show off the profiles at the board’s monthly meeting on Thursday.

“We are transitioning to a completely new way of how we view student success and the district’s role in supporting schools,” said Chkoumbova.

The dashboards are available here by scrolling to the bottom and looking up a school.

The new profiles are five years in the making

Chicago first set out to overhaul how it measures and publicly communicates about school quality in 2019. At that time, school board members called on district officials to do away with the School Quality Rating System, or SQRP, policy, which many considered too focused on metrics that are affected by poverty levels and other demographics of the student body. The district formally adopted a new Continuous Improvement and Data Transparency policy in 2023.

With input from academics, parents, and others, the district tried to design a more holistic approach, bringing in a wider array of metrics, including some that got at the experience students have on campus — and at whether the district is providing schools the resources they need to improve that experience.

After years of largely behind-the-scenes work, the new dashboards went live quietly in December, giving principals and other educators a chance to weigh in.

Claiborne Wade, the father of four CPS students, served on a district committee that provided input on the new accountability system. He said he is a big believer in the district’s efforts to take a more holistic look at school performance.

“It’s more than test scores and attendance rates and graduation rates,” he said. “Those are important, but so is making sure we have funds for extracurricular activities and parents have a seat at the table.”

Last week, Wade presented the new dashboards to a group of 10 parents actively involved at DePriest Elementary on the West Side, where he works as a family coordinator as part of the Sustainable Community Schools program. Some liked that the new dashboards offer information about each metric and how to interpret it. But many felt these explanations were too heavy on education jargon and terms such as “alternate assessments.”

Jaqueline Vargas, the mother of two CPS students and two district graduates, said the site asks parents to do too much navigating — especially given that many metrics are not landing on the dashboard until later this year.

“You have to click a lot, but when you finally get there, the information isn’t there,” said Vargas, who also served on the district’s Transparency Committee.

She said she would love to see more information on parent leadership groups and parent engagement more generally, photos of principals, and readily accessible listings of the specialized programs and support services a campus offers. One of her CPS graduates was really interested in cooking while in high school, but the family had no idea that even though their neighborhood high school did not offer a culinary program, two nearby campuses did.

Hal Woods, chief of policy with the parent advocacy group Kids First Chicago, said the dashboards are clearly a work in progress. The layout can be more user-friendly. The metrics available so far are largely what SQRP offered, though the recently released dashboards do include some new information, such as whether a school has quality curriculums.

Parents are eager to see the full set of metrics later this year, Woods said — including those that show how schools are providing social and emotional support to students, a task that recent research has shown greatly affects outcomes such as high school graduation.

The district aims to better measure the student experience

Like districts across the country, CPS is still grappling with how to measure the student experience on campus more fully, said Elaine Allensworth of the University of Chicago’s Consortium on School Research. For the past two years, the district has given students a survey called Cultivate, which was developed by Allenworth’s team at the university. But she says the survey was designed to give teachers information about students’ experiences in their classrooms — not as an accountability tool for families and others.

“There’s a concern that if the survey becomes public, teachers would feel under pressure to make their schools look good and won’t feel as comfortable using it for their own development,” she said.

The district also explored how to best present another key piece of the student experience: extracurricular activities. The district could likely do more than simply listing the activities a school offers, Allensworth said. The new dashboards show the portion of students who participate in any activities. But are these activities high-quality? Are outside partners chipping in?

Chkoumbova said the district will continue to work on improving the platform. In late February, it will include new data on the growth toward math and reading proficiency on state tests that students make — a metric that Ellensworth said is much more telling about how well a school is doing than the portion of students who meet state standards on these tests.

Chkoumbova feels CPS is on the right track.

“We are trailblazers,” she said. “There are very few systems that have taken such an innovative and different approach.”

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

February 1, 2025
Florida lawmakers pass bill to roll back in-state tuition for undocumented students
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Florida lawmakers passed an expansive immigration package this week that would remove undocumented students’ eligibility for in-state tuition rates at public colleges.
- If signed into law, the reversal would take effect July 1. However, the legislation has intensified a growing rift between the state’s Republican lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis as they compete to show their loyalty to President Donald Trump and his goal of cracking down on immigration.
- DeSantis heavily criticized the package, saying Wednesday that it “fails to honor our promises to voters, fails to meet the moment, and would actually weaken state immigration enforcement.” The governor said he would veto it unless legislators approved more restrictive immigration measures.
Dive Insight:

For a decade, Florida has permitted undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges if they attended their last three years of high school in the state and enrolled in higher education within two years of graduation.

Republican State Sen. Randy Fine first proposed rolling back the allowance in December as a standalone bill. In January, DeSantis cited the bill as a priority when he abruptly called a special legislative session aimed at helping Trump implement tougher immigration policies.

Florida has two public higher education systems — the Florida College System and the State University System of Florida, which oversee 28 colleges and a dozen universities, respectively.

In the 2023-24 fiscal year, just over 2,000 nonresident students attending one of the university system’s institutions received a waiver to pay in-state tuition, according to an analysis of the bill prepared by the Senate appropriations committee’s staff. In the Florida College System, the number was almost 4,600 that year. The combined discounts were valued at almost $40.7 million, it said.

The analysis did not disaggregate the student data by immigration status, and it’s unclear how many undocumented students would be affected by the revocation of the tuition waiver. One report from 2023 estimated about 40,000 undocumented students attended Florida colleges in 2021.

It’s also unclear if colleges would benefit financially from the end of the waiver, the analysis said.

“Some students who are undocumented for federal immigration purposes may choose to pay the out-of-state fee while others may choose to withdraw from school,” it said. “Institutions may experience an increase in fee revenue as students pay the out-of-state fees, or experience declines in fee revenue as those students decide to withdraw from school and are not replaced by other students.”

Republican lawmakers praised the final legislative package — given the backronym title Tackling and Reforming Unlawful Migration Policy, or TRUMP, Act — and said it would help the state act in partnership with the federal government.

The bill’s sponsors in the Florida House and Senate, as well as the top Republicans in both chambers, also repeatedly invoked Trump’s name in prepared statements.

“Supporting President Trump’s mission to secure our borders, Florida stands ready to act with the most aggressive immigration policy ever introduced,” said House Speaker Daniel Perez.

Senate President Ben Albritton touted the state’s previous work on immigration.

“When it comes to cracking down on illegal immigration, Florida is already so far ahead of most states,” he said.

But in a press release two days later, DeSantis’ office dismissed the legislators’ work as a half-measure.

Republicans hold a veto-proof supermajority in both chambers of the Legislature. Typically, this supercharged influence would be unlikely to matter, as the governor’s mansion is also held by a Republican.

But DeSantis’ lack of approval adds uncertainty and diminishes the odds of the package becoming law. Without his approval, it is unclear if legislators would return to the drawing board or if enough Republicans would band together to overrule his veto.

DeSantis’ popularity within his own state party has weakened recently.

The governor’s decision to call the special session did not receive unanimous support from his peers. The dissenters criticized the move as inappropriately getting ahead of Trump’s policies.

Shortly after the session began, Florida lawmakers ended it and called their own as a means of prioritizing their goals over DeSantis’. And both Reps. Perez and Fine have publicly criticized DeSantis.

Perez suggested to the Tampa Bay Times on Thursday that DeSantis hadn’t sufficiently communicated with legislators ahead of the session. He added that “all options are on the table” to get anti-immigration legislation passed — including overriding a DeSantis veto.

The $500 million package seeks to enact measures outside of the higher education sector. It would create the position of chief immigration officer to coordinate enforcement actions with the federal government. It would also mandate the death penalty for undocumented immigrants found guilty of capital crimes — a rule that would run contrary to longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and could spur legal challenges.

Nikki Fried, chair of the Florida Democratic Party, did not mince words in response to the bill’s passage Tuesday.

“Florida Republicans have lost their damn minds this week,” Fried said in a statement. “Despite attempts from Democrats to protect students, this legislation promises to kick Dreamers out of college before they can finish their degree and gives huge bonuses to local law enforcement for working with ICE to ramp up deportations. It’s an unconscionable abuse of power for a state legislature.”
Source link
January 31, 2025
Statement: Trump restores crucial due process rights for America’s college students

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced today it agrees with a federal court ruling that appropriately found the Biden-era Title IX rules to unconstitutionally restrict student First Amendment rights.

Those rules, effective in August 2024, infringed on constitutionally protected speech related to sex and gender. They also rolled back crucial due process rights for those accused of sexual misconduct on campus, increasing the likelihood that colleges would arrive at unreliable conclusions during those proceedings. OCR announced it will instead enforce the 2020 rules adopted during the first Trump administration which carefully considered the rights of complainants and respondents alike, while providing robust free speech and due process protections.

The following can be attributed to Tyler Coward, FIRE lead counsel for government affairs:

The return to the 2020 rules ensures that all students — whether they are the accused or the accuser — will receive fair treatment and important procedural safeguards. That includes the right of both parties to have lawyers present during hearings, the right for both attorneys to cross-examine the other party and witnesses, and the right to receive all of the evidence in the institution’s possession. Colleges are also required to adopt a speech-protective definition of sexual harassment that enables schools to punish genuine harassment instead of merely unpopular speech.

Restoring the Trump administration’s rules means that students can once again feel secure that their rights to due process and free speech will be respected while ensuring administrators have the tools they need to punish those who engage in sexual misconduct and harassment.

Source link

January 31, 2025