Tag: U.S

  • How cuts at U.S. aid agency hinder university research

    How cuts at U.S. aid agency hinder university research

    Peter Goldsmith knows there’s a lot to love about soybeans. Although the crop is perhaps best known in America for its part in the stereotypically bougie soy milk latte, it plays an entirely different role on the global stage. Inexpensive to grow and chock-full of nutrients, it’s considered a potential solution to hunger and malnutrition.

    For the past 12 years, Goldsmith has worked toward that end. In 2013, he founded the Soybean Innovation Lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and every day since then, the lab’s scientists have worked to help farmers and businesses solve problems related to soybeans, from how to speed up threshing—the arduous process of separating the bean from the pod—to addressing a lack of available soybean seeds and varieties.

    The SIL, which now encompasses a network of 17 laboratories, has completed work across 31 countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. But now, all that work is on hold, and Goldsmith is preparing to shut down the Soybean Innovation Lab in April, thanks to massive cuts to the federal foreign aid funds that support the labs.

    A week into the current presidential administration, Goldsmith received notice that the Soybean Innovation Lab, which is headquartered at the University of Illinois, had to pause operations, cease external communications and minimize costs, pending a federal government review.

    Goldsmith told his team—about 30 individuals on UIUC’s campus that he described as being like family to one another—that, though they were ordered to stop work, they could continue working on internal projects, like refining their software. But days later, he learned the university could no longer access the lab’s funds in Washington, meaning there was no way to continue paying employees.

    After talking with university administrators, he set a date for the Illinois lab to close: April 15, unless the freeze ended after the government review. But no review materialized; on Feb. 26, the SIL received notice its grant had been terminated, along with about 90 percent of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s programs.

    “The University of Illinois is a very kind, caring sort of culture; [they] wanted to give employees—because it was completely an act of God, out of the blue—give them time to find jobs,” he said. “I mean, up until [Jan. 27], we were full throttle, we were very successful, phones ringing off the hook.”

    The other 16 labs will likely also close, though some are currently scrambling to try to secure other funding.

    Federal funding made up 99 percent of the Illinois lab’s funding, according to Goldsmith. In 2022, the lab received a $10 million grant intended to last through 2027.

    Dismantling an Agency

    The SIL is among the numerous university laboratories impacted by the federal freeze on U.S. Agency for International Development funds—an initial step in what’s become President Donald Trump’s crusade to curtail supposedly wasteful government spending—and the subsequent termination of thousands of grants.

    Trump and Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth and a senior aide to the president, have baselessly claimed that USAID is run by left-wing extremists and say they hope to shutter the agency entirely. USAID’s advocates, meanwhile, have countered that the agency instead is responsible for vital, lifesaving work abroad and that the funding freeze is sure to lead to disease, famine and death.

    A federal judge, Amir H. Ali, seemed to agree, ruling earlier this month that the funding freeze is doing irreparable harm to humanitarian organizations that have had to cut staff and halt projects, NPR and other outlets reported. On Tuesday, Ali reiterated his order that the administration resume funding USAID, giving them until the end of the day Wednesday to do so.

    But the administration appealed the ruling, and the Supreme Court subsequently paused the deadline until the justices can weigh in. Now, officials appear to be moving forward with plans to fire all but a small number of the agency’s employees, directing employees to empty their offices and giving them only 15 minutes each to gather their things.

    About $350 million of the agency’s funds were appropriated to universities, according to the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, including $72 million for the Feed the Future Innovation Labs, which are aimed at researching solutions to end hunger and food insecurity worldwide. (The SIL is funded primarily by Feed the Future.)

    It’s a small amount compared to the funding universities receive from other agencies, like the National Institutes of Health, also the subject of deep cuts by Trump and Musk. But USAID-funded research is a long-standing and important part of the nation’s foreign policy, as well as a resource for the international community, advocates say. The work also has broad, bipartisan support; in fiscal year 2024, Congress increased funding for the Feed the Future Initiative labs by 16 percent, according to Craig Lindwarm, senior vice president for government affairs at the APLU, even in what he characterized as an extremely challenging budgetary environment.

    Potential Long-Term Harms

    Universities “have long been a partner with USAID … to help accomplish foreign policy and diplomatic goals of the United States,” said Lindwarm. “This can often but not exclusively come in the form of extending assistance as it relates to our agricultural institutions, and land-grant institutions have a long history of advancing science in agriculture that boosts yields and productivity in the United States and also partner countries, and we’ve found that this is a great benefit not just to our country, but also partner nations. Stable food systems lead to stable regions and greater market access for producers in the United States and furthers diplomatic objectives in establishing stronger connections with partner countries.”

    Stopping that research has negatively impacted “critical relationships and productivity,” with the potential for long-term harms, Lindwarm said.

    At the SIL, numerous projects have now been canceled, including a planned trip to Africa to beta test a pull-behind combine, a technology that is not commonly used anymore in the U.S.—most combines are now self-propelled rather than pulled by tractor—but that would be useful to farmers in Africa. A U.S. company was slated to license the technology to farmers in Africa, Goldsmith said, but now, “that’s dead. The agribusiness firm, the U.S. firm, won’t be licensing in Africa,” he said. “A good example of market entry just completely shut off.”

    He also noted that the lab closures won’t just impact clients abroad and U.S. companies; they will also be detrimental to UIUC, which did not respond to a request for comment.

    “In our space, we’re well-known. We’re really relevant. It makes the university extremely relevant,” he said. “We’re not an ivory tower. We’re in the dirt, literally, with our partners, with our clients, making a difference, and [that] makes the university an active contributor to solving real problems.”

    Source link

  • U.S. Department of Education Launches “End DEI” Portal (US Department of Education)

    U.S. Department of Education Launches “End DEI” Portal (US Department of Education)

    WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Education launched EndDEI.Ed.Gov, a public portal for parents, students, teachers, and the broader community to submit reports of discrimination based on race or sex in publicly-funded K-12 schools.

    The secure portal allows parents to provide an email address, the name of the student’s school or school district, and details of the concerning practices. The Department of Education will use submissions as a guide to identify potential areas for investigation.

    “For years, parents have been begging schools to focus on teaching their kids practical skills like reading, writing, and math, instead of pushing critical theory, rogue sex education and divisive ideologies—but their concerns have been brushed off, mocked, or shut down entirely,” said Tiffany Justice, Co-Founder of Moms for Liberty. “Parents, now is the time that you share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools. This webpage demonstrates that President Trump’s Department of Education is putting power back in the hands of parents.”

    Source link

  • Struggling soup kitchens and hospitals in Sudan face uncertainty amid U.S. aid freeze (CBS News)

    Struggling soup kitchens and hospitals in Sudan face uncertainty amid U.S. aid freeze (CBS News)

    When President Trump ordered a 90-day freeze on foreign aid, no one felt the impact more than the people of Sudan. Two years of civil war has left more than 25 million Sudanese starving in what is the largest humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen. Debora Patta reports.

    Source link

  • Legacy Admissions Hit Historic Low as More States Ban Practice at U.S. Colleges

    Legacy Admissions Hit Historic Low as More States Ban Practice at U.S. Colleges

    Legacy preferences in college admissions have plummeted to their lowest recorded level, with just 24% of four-year colleges still considering family alumni status in admissions decisions, according to a comprehensive new report from Education Reform Now. The dramatic decline signals a potential end to a controversial practice that critics have long condemned as perpetuating inequality in higher education.

    The report, authored by James Murphy, director of Career Pathways and Postsecondary Policy, found that 420 institutions continue to provide admissions advantages to children of alumni, marking a sharp decline from previous years. The practice has seen particularly steep drops since 2015, when nearly half of all four-year colleges considered legacy status. Between 2022 and 2023 alone, 92 colleges abandoned legacy preferences, representing an 18% decrease that coincided with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to ban race-conscious admissions.

    This decline stems from both voluntary institutional decisions and new state legislation. In 2024, California, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia joined Colorado in restricting legacy admissions through state laws. The report indicates that 86% of colleges that ended legacy consideration did so voluntarily, while 14% were required by state legislation. Several more states are expected to introduce similar legislation in 2025.

    Legacy preferences remain most entrenched at selective private institutions, particularly in the Northeast. More than half of colleges that admit 25% or fewer applicants still provide advantages to alumni children. The practice is now rare at public institutions, with just 11% still considering legacy status. In 24 states, no public colleges provide legacy preferences at all. New York stands out as having the highest concentration of colleges maintaining legacy admissions, with one in seven U.S. institutions still using the practice located in the Empire State.

    The report challenges several common defenses of legacy admissions, including arguments that they help build campus community or are necessary for fundraising. It cites evidence that 76% of colleges successfully foster campus communities without legacy preferences, and questions whether wealthy institutions with multi-billion dollar endowments truly need to “trade admissions advantages for money.”

    The analysis also addresses claims that ending legacy admissions could hurt diversity, particularly following the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling. The report argues that legacy preferences disproportionately benefit white and wealthy applicants, citing research showing that Asian American applicants face significantly lower odds of admission compared to white applicants with similar qualifications at selective institutions. According to one study, Asian American applicants had 28% lower odds of attending elite schools than white applicants with similar academic and extracurricular qualifications.

    The report suggests that Congress could potentially impose additional endowment taxes on universities that maintain legacy preferences while offering reduced penalties to institutions that increase enrollment of Pell Grant recipients, community college transfers, and veterans. This approach would create financial incentives for institutions to abandon the practice.

    “The shame of belonging to this group of colleges that think children of alumni have somehow earned an extra advantage in admissions is likely to push more colleges to drop the practice,” Murphy writes. “This is not a club that most colleges belong to or will want to belong to.”

    The report also criticizes the Common Application for potentially enabling legacy admissions by requiring all applicants to identify where their parents earned bachelor’s degrees, even though this information is irrelevant for more than three-quarters of colleges. The report suggests that removing this question would be a significant step toward making college admissions more equitable.

    “Ultimately, the reason to eliminate legacy preferences is not to achieve some other goal,” the report concludes. “The reason to get rid of them is that they are profoundly unfair and make a mockery of merit. Legacy preferences award some of the most advantaged students an additional advantage in the college admissions process on the basis of ancestry alone.”

    Source link

  • U.S. Department of Education’s Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

    U.S. Department of Education’s Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

    Rachel
    Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute’s Chief
    State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In
    this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom,
    create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide
    workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as
    well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy
    work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff
    for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation
    of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state
    government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy
    from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in
    philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

    Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

    Jonathan
    Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education
    Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that,
    he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of
    Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and
    general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education
    teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an
    associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from
    2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a
    bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

    Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

    Virginia
    “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at
    America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and
    execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy
    centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished
    speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the
    Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign    , where she spearheaded all event
    operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second
    Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee
    during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for
    Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a
    bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and
    legal studies.

    Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

    Steve
    Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently
    serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT,
    he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee
    and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation
    Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican
    Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous
    local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of
    educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public
    Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

    Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

    Tom
    Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant
    Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a
    Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety,
    and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education    . He has
    also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as
    Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime
    Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory
    Reform Task Force    , and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus
    Task Force    , where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines
    for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and
    jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom
    was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal,
    state, and local public entities including educational institutions and
    law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and
    appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent
    author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and
    Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

    Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

    Craig
    Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S.
    House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim
    Jordan (R-OH)    , where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of
    the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division,
    the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community
    for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel
    on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
    Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and
    antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses    , resulting in
    the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he
    served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy
    Institute     under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel
    with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal
    defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating
    from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he
    clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court
    for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to
    practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the
    Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

    Madi
    Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications
    professional with experience spanning both federal and state government
    and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief
    Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an
    Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked
    as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office
    of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration.     Madi
    received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from
    the University of Southern California. 

    Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

    Candice
    Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy
    General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel,
    from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in
    Washington State and California and consulted with groups and
    individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of “gender
    identity” in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public
    accommodations.     Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary,
    age 11. 

    Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

    Joshua
    Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and
    Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative
    State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and
    teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory
    interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are
    realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual,
    he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of
    Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has
    clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of
    Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar
    wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of
    homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at
    Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds
    a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
    Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale
    College. 

    Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

    Hannah
    Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where
    she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and
    local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as
    director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture
    Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion
    from Yale Divinity School.

    AFPI Reform Priorities

    AFPI’s higher education priorities are to:

     Related links:

    America First Policy Institute Team

    America First Policy Initiatives

    Source link

  • Prof. says he was fired for email calling U.S. racist, fascist

    Prof. says he was fired for email calling U.S. racist, fascist

    After Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, some faculty canceled classes to allow themselves and students time to process a result that shocked the media and academe.

    Campus responses to Trump’s re-election in November seemed more muted. But at Millsaps College, a private Mississippi institution of roughly 600 students, James Bowley said he canceled his Abortion and Religions class meeting the day after the election.

    Bowley, a tenured religious studies professor, told Inside Higher Ed the class had only three students, and he knew they were upset about Trump’s re-election. He said he sent them an email with the subject line “no class today” and one line of text: “need time to mourn and process this racist fascist country.”

    For what he wrote in that email, Bowley said, the college swiftly barred him from campus and, on Tuesday, fired him—ending his more than 22 years of employment. He’s now fighting to get his job back and said he remains on the payroll while he appeals to the institution’s Board of Trustees.

    “This seems to me like the very definition of censorship, and of course it will make every single faculty member fearful of the administration, fearful of sharing their own opinions,” Bowley said. “There are hundreds of historians who would say that the election was a victory for fascism and racism,” he added.

    The college didn’t provide interviews Thursday and didn’t answer written questions. The situation appears to be another example of faculty members being punished for commenting on current events—but this time involving communication to a small group of students, according to Bowley. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech and academic freedom advocacy group, is pushing for Bowley’s reinstatement.

    “This is absolutely absurd,” said Haley Gluhanich, a senior program officer in FIRE’s campus rights department. She said that when Bowley was initially suspended, “he was charged with an offense that does not exist in any of the handbooks, so they completely just made up a violation of policy.”

    The Email Gets Out

    Bowley said one of the students who received the email shared it on Instagram, approvingly, but another student whom he doesn’t know reported it to administrators. Bowley said he got a call from interim provost Stephanie Rolph on Nov. 7, the day after he sent the email, saying he was being placed on leave for it and banned from campus.

    “I was shocked, I was dumbfounded, I just could not believe it,” Bowley said.

    A copy of a letter from Rolph to Bowley, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, says this leave was “pending a review of the use of your Millsaps email account to share personal opinions with your students.” In the letter, Rolph told Bowley his email account access was cut off and further told him not to “engage with students.”

    The suspension dragged on, Bowley said, and three weeks in he filed a grievance against Rolph—which led to a hearing. Then, on Dec. 27, a grievance panel composed of three faculty members ruled that Bowley should be reinstated, according to a copy of the ruling that FIRE provided.

    “We recognize that Dr. Bowley has, on multiple occasions, shown poor judgment in his use of campus email,” the committee wrote. But during the hearing, Rolph couldn’t “identify a specific policy that Dr. Bowley violated,” they said. “No policy prohibiting the use of campus email to share personal opinions with students exists in either the Faculty Handbook or the Staff Handbook.”

    The panel further recommended that “Rolph issue a formal apology to Dr. Bowley” and that Bowley “be compensated for the loss of income resulting from his removal from the winter study abroad course he had been scheduled to teach.” Bowley told Inside Higher Ed that was a course in Mexico for which he would’ve been paid more than $6,000 and would have had his travel expenses covered. 

    The panel also concluded that Bowley wasn’t “afforded due process.” It said Rolph had argued that the both the staff handbook and the faculty handbook applied to faculty. It also mentioned unresolved tension between the interim provost’s confidentiality claims and Bowley’s right to the hearing, saying the “interim provost can refuse to answer substantive questions pertaining to the grievance.” (Michael Pickard, chair of the grievance panel and vice president of the college’s Faculty Council, said he couldn’t comment Thursday. Rolph didn’t respond to requests for comment.)

    Millsaps president Frank Neville rejected the grievance panel’s report and then fired Bowley on Tuesday, according to Bowley.

    Bowley and FIRE said there was an extra twist at the end: FIRE wrote on its website that Bowley was told in a meeting Tuesday that he was also fired for “not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s. To be clear: The college fired Bowley for an offense … of which he wasn’t accused.”

    “The FIRE article is riddled with inaccuracies,” wrote college spokesperson Joey Lee in an email to Inside Higher Ed. He did not specify what those inaccuracies were.

    “Because Millsaps does not disclose information about individual employment matters for privacy and confidentiality reasons, the article is based on incomplete information,” he wrote.

    ‘A Bit Reckless’

    Was Bowley fired for more than the email? The college won’t specify, and Bowley didn’t provide a copy of his termination letter.

    David Wood, the Faculty Council president, told Inside Higher Ed he doesn’t exactly know why Bowley was fired, but he doesn’t think he should have been. Wood said he’s disappointed in the college administration and “the extreme nature of the punishment.” But he also said he’s disappointed in Bowley.

    “This is partly on him as well,” Wood said.

    Wood doesn’t believe academic freedom is under threat at Millsaps and thinks “everything was done legally and by our own rules at the college,” he said.

    (After this article was initially published Friday, Wood added in an email that he believes the “initial suspension was unfair and unsubstantiated” and that Rolph “exercised very poor judgment in banning James without a hearing.” Wood wrote that he believes “the review continued and shifted because” Rolph “realized she was wrong and had to go fishing for other reasons to fire James. The rest of her investigation I believe was done according to the rules of the Faculty Handbook.”)

    Asked whether college leaders were upset with Bowley for previous alleged transgressions, Wood said, “There’s a history there, I’ll just put it that way.”

    “James has been a bit reckless in the past, but I do not believe that being terminated was the appropriate punishment,” Wood said. “James likes to push the envelope, let me just put it that way … he’s not going to steer away from controversial issues.”

    Bowley, for his part, said that Rolph had verbally reprimanded him before for sharing with students and employees—through email—a brochure for a prayer vigil for Palestinians killed in Gaza that used the term “genocide.”

    But Bowley said the postelection email was the primary reason for his firing. Regarding any other accusations, he said, “The administration spent two months trying to find other things, and they allege that there were problems in my other class.”

    One accusation leveled at him was “lack of awareness of the status of assignments and grades for a course,” he said. But he wasn’t allowed to appear before a committee to answer such charges, he said, or access his emails and other documents to defend himself.

    He also said he’s protested the death penalty and celebrated the legalization of gay marriage and has ended up on the news for such demonstrations.

    “The idea of me pushing the envelope is me being an activist,” Bowley said. “I am an activist and people know that.”

    Source link

  • Colleges advise some international students to return to U.S. before Trump takes office (PBS News Hour)

    Colleges advise some international students to return to U.S. before Trump takes office (PBS News Hour)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Colleges advise some international students to return to U.S. before Trump takes office (PBS News Hour)




    Source link

  • Top 10 U.S. Higher Ed Stories of 2024 with Robert Kelchen

    Top 10 U.S. Higher Ed Stories of 2024 with Robert Kelchen

    Robert Kelchen is a prolific higher education researcher and also the head of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville’s Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. He is also a pretty steady blogger on higher education, but he doesn’t have the time to post quite as much as he did before he took on all those extra admin duties. One of the casualties of his reduced blogging schedule is that he no longer posts his regular “top ten” stories of the year in US higher education, which I, as an outsider, always used to find a handy way to keep track of what mattered over the long term in the US.

    But last year, Robert agreed to reprise his role of summarizer-in chief for us on the year’s final pod, and reaction was so positive, we thought we would have him on again for our final podcast of 2024. As always, Robert is sharp, succinct, and not one to shy away from unconventional calls. And so, without further ado, let’s hear Robert’s Top Ten.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.14 | Top 10 U.S. Higher Ed Stories of 2024 with Robert Kelchen

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Robert, let’s start things off. What’s your number 10 story this year?

    Robert Kelchen (RK): Number 10 out of the U.S. is more changes to big-time college athletics. It seems like things cannot stay stable, and that’s in part because there is so much money involved. So, the big changes this year are more teams changing athletic conferences. Everyone is trying to jockey for position in big-time college athletics to be on the right side of TV contracts. Never mind that the next round of TV contracts may look very different with people cutting the cord from cable. The other big piece is a landmark settlement with former athletes. That requires a financial settlement and then also athletes going forward are going to get about 20 percent or so of all revenue.

    AU: Gross revenue?

    RK: Yeah. So, this also affects the number of scholarships that programs can offer. Previously for big-time athletics, that number was limited. Now, it’s not limited. They focus more on roster sizes instead. This means colleges have some really tough financial choices to make. Because they have to pay athletes, and if they want programs to be competitive, they need to offer more scholarships. That means what will probably happen is some colleges are going to look at dropping sports to club status so they don’t have to pay for scholarships. While also keeping in mind they can’t just drop the women’s sports, at least under Title IX regulations. Although, who knows what’s going to happen for regulations.

    AU: We’ll get to that. We’ll get to that. Let’s move along to number nine.

    RK: Number nine is college closures. It always seems to hang on the list because we continue to see closures. We had a really chaotic closure in early June with the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. I don’t think they were on anyone’s radar for closing.

    Their public financials at the time looked decent, but then their accreditor stepped in, saying, “We’re going to shut you down,” and it happened within a week.

    It was apparently for financial reasons. And it wasn’t immediately obvious from the financial statements from, say, a year and a half ago, what was going on. But it seems like they just ran out of cash very quickly. And it got to the point where, with a week’s notice, students couldn’t finish, faculty couldn’t find jobs, and staff couldn’t find jobs. It was just the absolute worst way to do things.

    AU: Has the number of closures actually ticked up—I mean, you’ve made the point on many occasions that there are always program closures.

    RK: Yeah, you know, there are always program closures. They really did try to push a lot of the low-performing for-profits out, and there just aren’t as many now.

    But I think the big piece that’s coming now is not college closures as much as program closures and academic restructuring. It’s a great time to be a consultant in this industry. Because consultants are the ones brought in to help do the studies on this, identify programs that may need to be closed, and institutional leaders like it because someone else is making the tough calls.

    AU: What about number eight?

    RK: Does anyone want international student? They’ve been a cash cow for many institutions for a while now but that’s beginning to change. Australia’s gotten the majority of the global news coverage on this, with their efforts to try to cap enrollment, which is really divisive there, especially among the more rural institutions that would like more international students. You’re seeing it in Canada, the UK, and the US looking to move in that direction. That potentially creates opportunities in Southeast Asia or in Europe.

    Another wildcard in international students is what’s going to happen with both China and India? Where China is always at risk of having a major policy change, and there seems to be a fair amount of instability in India right now.

    AU: Number seven?

    RK: Number seven is state funding for higher education. There’s been a lot made in the U.S. about disinvestment in public higher education, but over the last decade or so, state funding for higher education in most states has been pretty strong. The states where it’s been the weakest are often the more politically liberal states, and that’s basically because they’ve had more longstanding budget issues. But a number of the more conservative states have funded pretty well, and state funding is at a two-decade high right now.

    I have a hard time seeing that continuing because state budgets have largely flatlined for the upcoming fiscal year. There have been some states that have gone down the route of tax cuts from post-pandemic money that’s starting to come due. But also, there’s just more skepticism about the value of public higher education. And there are states like Utah where enrollment is up substantially. But they’re looking at cutting funding and telling universities and colleges to expect less in the way of enrollment. This really creates the haves and have-nots in public higher education. The big-name public universities are growing like crazy. The regionally focused colleges are struggling mightily.

    AU: You’ve talked about a flight to quality among students. Is it likely that state funding starts to follow into the flagships more than it used to?

    RK: It depends in part on the funding model. If it’s an enrollment or performance funding type model, then that will happen. But also, states don’t want to see regional institutions fail. So they need to have some kind of capacity there.

    The big question that states have to wrestle with is how big they want their flagship institution to be. Do they want to push students to regional institutions? In some states, they have the governance structure in place to do that, even though it’s extremely politically painful. And in other states, there’s no centralization whatsoever, so there’s really nothing they can do about it.

    AU: What about number six?

    RK: Number six is the protests about the war in Gaza and the fall of several Ivy League presidents. I did some analysis back in the spring, and it was really only at a fairly small number of colleges, these protests. But they happened at the institutions that policymakers care about — the super-elite private colleges and some of the big public flagships. Congressional Republicans found that hauling in college presidents — especially women of color — plays really well to their base. And I think that was one of the reasons behind republican elector success.

    AU: That appearance in front of Congress by the presidents of Penn, MIT, and Harvard really was kind of the flashpoint of the year, wasn’t it? I mean, two of them were out within a month of that appearance. It’s another example of Americans assuming that what happens at a very small handful of prominent private institutions is actually reflective of something bigger, isn’t it?

    RK: That’s exactly it. And one of the big reasons is that so many of the policymakers and so many of the journalists — that is their sphere, that’s what they know. We’re also seeing a really interesting dichotomy as President-elect Trump announces his key political appointments. He’s abolishing the Department of Education, reforming higher education, but at the same time, all his press releases highlight the colleges these people went to. So, he’s saying, “They went to NYU, they went to Penn,” while simultaneously dumping on them.

    AU: Robert, what about number five?

    RK: Number five is the increased political realignment by educational attainment. It used to be that if people had a bachelor’s degree, there was a pretty good chance they were pro-business Republicans. That was a substantial part of the base — part of what really kept the party going post-Reagan through the George W. Bush years.

    Then, I think we saw a bit of this starting with Obama, and then it really moved forward. The Democrats made substantial gains among college-educated individuals, especially those with postgraduate degrees. Then Trump came in 2016 and really accelerated the realignment, where college-educated individuals shifted to the Democratic Party, while non-college-educated individuals moved toward the Republican Party.

    That is a sea change to where pollsters now are focusing on weighting polls based on education instead of race or gender. There are still divides in those areas, of course. But what this means for higher ed is that higher education has long been relatively apolitical in the U.S. — probably had a 50-year run that way. But that has started to change dramatically, and that change threatens higher education enrollment as well as public support for the sector.

    AU: It’s tough for a public university. I mean, it’s like saying hospitals are Democrats, right? Or K-12 schools are Republican. It’s weird for a public institution to be identified as partisan. It can’t be easy for public university presidents to be in that position. What can they do? What are they doing to try to reverse that trend?

    RK: One piece of it is who becomes a president of a university or system. We’re seeing more politicians take on those roles. Some of them are unsuccessful, but some of them are very successful as they try to be the bridge between academics and the legislature.

    The other big piece is focusing on outreach and the public mission. Public higher education has two main advantages: one is community outreach, which includes things like agricultural extension classes and community programming. The other is athletics like football, it’s a big driver of public support.

    AU: Okay, what about number four?

    RK: Number four is accreditation. It’s a topic that’s deep in the weeds for a lot of people, but it’s in the political spotlight right now.

    Two big examples stand out. One is the toughest accreditation job in the U.S., which is at the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). We no longer have truly regional accreditation in the U.S. — that went away under the first Trump administration. But SACS is still largely focused on conservative southern states, and those states are not happy with accreditation. In Florida, for instance, they decided you have to switch accreditors every cycle. SACS President Belle Whelan is retiring, and I have no idea who in the world would want that job. That is probably the most difficult job in American higher education.

    AU: What’s the potential impact of accreditation becoming more politicized?

    RK: Some of it is just administrative burden for higher ed. If institutions are expected to switch accreditors or if accreditation standards change constantly, that’s a lot of administrative cost.

    But the bigger issue is, will accreditors uphold basic standards? They’ve largely punted on academic standards because every time they try, they get sued. They often win those cases, but it’s expensive. So, accreditors have largely focused on finance. But, the perception is that they’re focused too much on diversity, equity, and inclusion. SACS is actually the only major accreditor that does not require that.

    Another big pressure on accreditation is that several accreditors are now trying to push for shorter bachelor’s degrees. The U.S. traditionally has 120-credit bachelor’s degrees, but there’s a push for 90-credit degrees — shorter, faster, cheaper, better. There’s a strong rationale for it, but also concerns about educational quality. This could completely upend the higher ed finance system. If you get less revenue per student and you eliminate some of the upper-level courses, that might work. But it seems like they’re taking away more of the lower-level general education courses, and those courses subsidize other parts of the system.

    AU: Interesting. Okay, I think DEI has something to do with number three as well.

    RK: Yes. State governments are pushing higher education hard on more of these social issues. Texas and Florida have taken the lead on trying to ban any mention of diversity, equity, and inclusion. In a lot of conservative states — including mine — DEI is now known as “access and engagement” or “access and belonging” or something else. They don’t want to use those words because people expect emails and course syllabi to be searched for those terms.

    At the University of North Texas, for example, the new leader, who came from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, required that all mentions of DEI be eliminated. They focused on the education school, which is also searching for a new dean.

    AU: But it’s gone beyond just excising words or renaming units. If I recall correctly, at North Texas, they were even getting rid of words like “racism” from course syllabi, which makes it hard to teach U.S. history, doesn’t it?

    RK: It does. There was a round of this about a half dozen years ago where the response was to get rid of the words and do the same thing, the legislatures did not like that so now they’re trying to go back and root all of these out.

    AU: Alright, let’s move on. What’s number two? We’ve got to be coming pretty soon to the election, right?

    RK: We are. But I actually don’t think the election is number one this year. The election of Trump is a big deal, and it will have large effects on American higher education. Will the U.S. Department of Education go away? I’m still extremely skeptical of that. Every Republican since 1979 has said they want to abolish it, but it’s difficult to get rid of an agency. And also, Republicans may have unified control in Washington, D.C., but it’s by the skin of their teeth. They can afford to lose, I think, only two votes in the House of Representatives, and it’s a fractured caucus. They’ve got a lot of other priorities, too.

    Plus, you have members looking ahead to 2026 and wondering if they can get re-elected when the majority party typically loses seats in a midterm election. So, it’s going to be a very unsettled, interesting time. But I don’t see the Department of Education going away.

    The bigger question is, what can sneak its way onto that one bill each year that can be passed completely on a partisan basis? The U.S. has a mechanism called reconciliation, where anything with a budgetary impact can go through the Senate with just 50 votes instead of 60. So, that’s where the action will be.

    If they wanted to make changes to student loans, for example, that would have a direct budgetary impact, so it could be part of a reconciliation bill. The challenge is then uniting the Republican caucus. They’re not always well-aligned. And they’ll have to figure out their priorities. Is it immigration? Is it tax cuts, since the Trump tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2025?

    And even within education, how big is their focus going to be on K-12 education versus higher education? If history is any guide, K-12 will get most of the attention.

    AU: We also have a new Secretary of Education. She seems quite different from Betsy DeVos. What do you expect from her?

    RK: Yeah, she’s definitely different. Her name’s Jovita Carranza. She ran the Small Business Administration, and by all accounts, she got fairly good marks from employees over there. She’s actually one of the few high-level Trump appointees who did not go to an elite institution. She got a teaching certificate and a French degree from East Carolina University. I just found that fascinating. But I think it’s part of the strategy — put the person with a teaching credential in charge of the Department of Education. From a management perspective, she seems competent. From a policy perspective, it’s a little less clear.

    The stated goal is still to get rid of the Department of Education. But even if that’s their goal, actually pulling it off is another story. There’s legislation to basically break apart the department and shuffle its components into other federal agencies. But that’s a long, complicated process. I’d probably say the chances of it happening are maybe 5 to 10 percent at best.

    AU: Yeah, that sounds about right. Okay, bring us to number one.

    RK: Number one doesn’t come from the White House this year — it comes from the U.S. Supreme Court. And it’s a big one. The Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright overturned a 40-year-old precedent called Chevron. The Chevron doctrine gave federal agencies broad discretion to interpret laws where the statute was vague, and courts would generally defer to the agency’s interpretation. It was seen as a major source of power for the so-called “administrative state.”

    But conservatives have wanted to get rid of Chevron for years. They saw it as giving too much power to unelected bureaucrats. Well, they finally got what they wanted. The Supreme Court’s ruling says, “No more deference to agencies. If the statute isn’t clear, it’s Congress’s job to fix it.”

    AU: So why is that such a big deal for higher ed?

    RK: It’s a big deal because so much of higher education policy in the U.S. happens through administrative rulemaking. Look, the Higher Education Act hasn’t been reauthorized since 2008. Congress hasn’t done anything. So everything that’s happened since then — like changes to student loans, Title IX rules, and accreditation requirements — has been done through executive action or rulemaking by the Department of Education.

    With Loper Bright, that power is now significantly reduced. Agencies can no longer just “interpret” laws as they see fit. They need clear statutory authority from Congress.

    So, here’s the twist. Loper Bright was something conservatives pushed for because they didn’t like how Democratic administrations used Chevron to expand regulations on, say, environmental protection or labor standards. But now, with a Republican administration on the way, they’ve tied their own hands.

    If Trump wants to make big changes to higher education — like dismantling the Department of Education, reforming student loans, or changing Title IX — he’s going to have a harder time doing it through executive action. He’s going to need Congress, and Congress isn’t exactly known for its efficiency.

    AU: So, to summarize, when Democrats were in power, Chevron was seen as a bad thing because it gave them more power. But now, with a Republican in power, they’ve realized that Chevron would’ve been useful for them, too.

    RK: That’s it. It’s ironic, right? They dismantled their own ability to govern. And I think the Trump administration learned a lot the first time about how to effectively use executive authority. They were pretty bad at it in the early years, but they figured it out by the end. Well, now their hands are tied in some crucial areas.

    AU: So, in the end, the impact of the Trump presidency might be a lot less than people think because he won’t be able to wield executive power in the same way.

    RK: That’s quite possible.

    AU: Fascinating. Well, Robert, thank you so much for being with us today. It’s been a great ride, as always. We’ll see you back here in 12 months, and we’ll see how much has changed by the end of 2025.

    RK: Probably quite a bit.

    AU: Yeah, no doubt. Thanks, Robert. And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and of course, you — our listeners — for tuning in. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, feel free to reach out to us at [email protected]. And don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    We’ll be back on January 9th with our first episode of the new year. Our guest is a mystery for now — you’ll just have to wait and see. Stay well, have a good holiday season, and 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

  • U.S. Appeals Court Overturns $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors

    U.S. Appeals Court Overturns $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors

    by CUPA-HR | November 12, 2024

    On November 5, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower district court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s executive order and the Department of Labor (DOL)’s final rule to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. The ruling orders the legal challenge to proceed, which could ultimately strike down the executive order and final rule.

    In April 2021, the Biden administration published executive order 14026, which directed DOL to issue regulations to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour beginning on January 30, 2022. Subsequently, in November 2021, DOL issued its final rule to implement the executive order, setting the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour on January 30, 2022, and requiring the secretary of Labor to annually review and determine the minimum wage amount beginning in January 2023.

    The executive order and final rule were challenged by five states: Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska and South Carolina. In their suit, the states claimed that the Biden administration violated the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and exceeded its authority granted under the law by imposing a wage mandate through an executive order. They also argued that DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies proceed through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, when implementing the final rule. The lawsuit was originally dismissed by a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, leading the states to appeal to the 9th Circuit.

    In the 9th Circuit’s ruling, two of the three judges on the panel sided with the states’ arguments, reversing the dismissal of the case from the lower district court. The majority opinion held that the minimum wage mandate exceeded the president’s authority under FPASA and that DOL’s final rule was subject to arbitrary-or-capricious review under the APA. As such, the circuit court sends the case back to the district court, where the federal judge will proceed with the case and issue a further ruling to uphold or strike down the executive order and final rule. For now, the order and final rule are still in place, but the future of both is uncertain. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates related to this lawsuit and further laws and regulations impacting federal contractors.

     

     



    Source link

  • 5 Ways to Advocate for Your Students During The U.S. Election

    5 Ways to Advocate for Your Students During The U.S. Election

    Election Day in the U.S. is just around the corner. On top of carrying multiple academic and employment responsibilities, some students will also be voting for the first time. Others, such as those from marginalized or historically underrepresented populations, may be overwhelmed with what the election results could mean for them. In the lead up to Election Day, a healthy dose of empathy will be essential in ensuring students have a chance to fulfill their civic duty—and the opportunity to consider its consequences.

    Being flexible with due dates, considering students’ wellbeing and ensuring learners are armed with the resources needed to vote are the most important things you can do as Election Day nears. Read on to learn how professors advocated for their students during the 2020 election—and how you can do the same.

    Consider making November 4 and 5 free of assignments (or even classes)

    Exams can cause some students a great deal of stress and anxiety. Lillian Horin, Biological and Biomedical Sciences PhD student at Harvard University, urges educators to keep BIPOC students in mind when scheduling high-stakes tests.

    Consider swapping your exams or problem sets (Psets) with a trip to the ballot box. Jacob Light, Economics PhD student at Stanford University, writes that this simple gesture may allow students to exercise their civic duty.

    Other students like Anna-Sophia Boguraev, Bioengineering PhD student at Harvard Medical School and MIT, say that TAs have the power to amplify student concerns and requests—none of which should be ignored.

    If your assignments can’t wait, build in flexibility and timeliness

    Self-paced learning can allow students to visit the polls and complete coursework at a time that works for them—so says Jesse Fox, Associate Professor of Communication at Ohio State University.

    Election Day can also be a good opportunity to let students catch their breath in your course. Give students a chance to study and review material that they haven’t had a chance to look over, suggests Scott Grunow, Instructor in English and Religious Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    Should your institutions provide little leeway in your assessment choices, at least incorporate real-time events into your discussions. Derek Bruff, Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Virginia, notes that relating course content to the election can help students see the value of what they’re learning.

    Real-time political events and policy proposals can make for discipline-specific conversations. This also allows students to apply what they’ve learned in your class to the real world, as Andrea Gomez Cervantes, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Wake Forest University, proposes.

    Mobilize your students to show up at the polls

    Gen Z students are motivated to vote. In the 2018 midterm elections, the student turnout rate increased by 20 percent compared to the 2014 midterms.1 Ensure students are equipped with the resources to vote as soon as possible, writes Wendy Christensen, Sociology Professor at William Paterson University.

    Similarly, ask students about their voting plans. Consider working with your class to ensure they know where to go on November 5, suggests Margaret Boyle, Associate Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures at Bowdoin College.

    Ensure your voter registration information and resources appeal to all students, regardless of what political party they support. Meghan Novisky, Assistant Professor of Criminology at Cleveland State University, emphasizes the importance of using non-partisan guidelines.

    Some scholars like Sara Wheeler-Smith, Associate Professor of Management at Manhattan College, even plan to offer a grading incentive for visiting the polls.

    Incorporate guest lectures and learn from your colleagues

    Navigating election week with students in mind might be an unfamiliar undertaking. Consider leaning on faculty at your institution for support, writes Heather Mayer, Director of Educational Technology at Everett Community College.

    Some students may be undecided voters, while others may have missed the presidential debates. Incorporate forms of debate in your classroom—with the support of scholars from other institutions, as Yujin Jung, Political Sciences PhD student at the University of Missouri, plans to do.

    Keep in mind the importance of mental and physical health

    Check-ins with students have gained new meaning in the midst of an election. Andrea Kelley, Sociology Professor at the University of Michigan, tends to her students’ socioemotional needs before assigning readings and lectures.

    Election Day can come with a range of emotions for many students. Cate Denial, Distinguished Professor of American History, Chair of the History department, and Director of the Bright Institute at Knox College, removes the expectation for students to pay attention and participate in class.

    References

    1. Thomas, N. et al. (2018). Democracy Counts 2018: Increased Student and Institutional Engagement. Tufts University. https://idhe.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/DemocracyCounts2018.pdf

    Tagged as:



    Source link