Tag: University

  • With help of FIRE, University of Washington professor returns to classroom after bread knife incident

    With help of FIRE, University of Washington professor returns to classroom after bread knife incident

    In Soviet-era Romania, police falsely accused engineer Aurel Bulgac and his wife of espionage and imprisoned him for six months. Seeking refuge in America, Bulgac channeled his passion for physics into a professorship at the University of Washington in Seattle, where he taught without incident for more than 30 years. 

    That would change in the fall of 2023 when Bulgac used a hypothetical involving a small bread knife to encourage students to take the subject seriously. Through a surreal disciplinary process he describes as more nightmarish than Cold War repression, UW banned him from campus and hid evidence to get him to confess to a crime he didn’t commit. Fortunately, Bulgac reached out to FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund, which set him up with legal representation to vindicate his rights and restore him to the classroom.

    Teaching physics on the cutting edge

    In October 2023, during office hours with two students, Bulgac referred to a Japanese yakuza ritual where members cut off a portion of their little finger as an act of atonement or display of loyalty, called “yubitsume”. To drive home his point about taking physics more seriously, Bulgac took out a small bread knife, placed it on his desk, and asked students if they were confident enough in their answers to physics questions to voluntarily cut off their own pinky fingers if they were wrong.

    It was an intense hypothetical, to be sure, but the two students took it as nothing more than colorful hyperbole. They remained in Bulgac’s office, continued in class, and earned good grades.

    One student later told an advisor about the incident, making clear he never felt threatened. Even after the advisor encouraged the student to file a complaint with campus safety, the student declined. The story should have ended here. 

    But administrators were already demanding their pound of flesh. Instead of dismissing the situation as the student wished, UW banned Bulgac from campus, framing the decision as a “form of protection” for Bulgac. The university failed to provide a clear timeline or indication of when Bulgac could return to in-person teaching. And the university never actually told him whether a formal complaint about the situation existed, making it difficult to defend himself. 

    Though Bulgac certainly didn’t expect university administrators to behave like Soviet-era apparatchiks, he knew his rights and fought back with FIRE’s help.

    For nearly a year, Bulgac could not offer in-person office hours, attend scientific seminars, interact with his peers in the department, or work effectively on his Department of Energy research grants. With no end in sight to the university’s investigation, Bulgac was in procedural limbo. So he contacted FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund, which provides legal representation for public university faculty facing administrative discipline. FLDF immediately put him in touch with FLDF attorney Michael Brown of Seattle’s Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP. 

    With Brown on Bulgac’s side, the pair got to work.

    Bread knife of Damocles

    The university never actually told Bulgac whether a complaint about the incident even existed, making it difficult to defend himself. Brown had to file open records requests to get any information from the university about the specific allegations. Finally, in early 2024, UW offered to reinstate Bulgac, but only if he took multiple training courses on communication, attended at least 10 coaching sessions with a university-approved instructor, and apologized to the students. Cutting deeper, UW conceded there was no threat—yet still sought sanctions.

    Brown countered by explaining why Bulgac’s speech was protected by academic freedom. UW itself defines academic freedom as “the freedom to discuss all relevant matters in teaching, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression, and to speak or write without institutional discipline.” He also pointed out the university’s hypocrisy in violating its pledge that “faculty members are free to express ideas and teach as they see fit, based on their mastery of their subjects and their own scholarship.”

    Bulgac’s rhetorical question did not approach the line of being an unprotected, punishable true threat, or a “serious expression” of an intent to commit unlawful violence, and academic freedom gives faculty breathing room to determine how best to approach their own pedagogy.

    In September 2024, the university finally restored Bulgac to the classroom — no apologies or training required.

    “This disciplinary process should have ended with Bulgac’s explanation and the student’s confirmation that he did not feel threatened,” said Brown. “Bulgac’s hypothetical fell well within the zone of academic freedom afforded professors to teach as they see fit, without fear of reprisal from the university administration. As the courts have made clear, that freedom is critical to the proper functioning of universities as places for open and robust sharing of ideas. We were very pleased to work with FIRE to secure a resolution that brought this episode to a close without further damage to Bulgac’s ability to continue to do the important work he has been doing at UW since 1993.”

    Though Bulgac certainly didn’t expect university administrators to behave like Soviet-era apparatchiks, he knew his rights and fought back with FIRE’s help. If you are a faculty member facing punishment for your expression or teaching, contact FIRE

    Source link

  • Investing in Student Engagement: University of Georgia Equips Faculty and Students with Free Access to Top Hat

    Investing in Student Engagement: University of Georgia Equips Faculty and Students with Free Access to Top Hat

    New license agreement provides all students and faculty with free access to Top Hat, reinforcing UGA’s strategic focus on affordability, student success, and innovation in teaching.

    TORONTO – June 17, 2025 – Top Hat, the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, today announced that the University of Georgia has entered into a new enterprise agreement that will provide campus-wide access to the Top Hat platform at no cost to students or faculty. This initiative supports UGA’s continued efforts to promote high-impact teaching practices, student affordability, and innovation in the classroom.

    Top Hat’s interactive teaching platform as well as content authoring and customization tools will be available to UGA faculty to enhance in-person, online, and hybrid courses across disciplines. With this agreement, UGA joins a growing number of leading institutions investing in Top Hat to empower instructors to improve learning outcomes and student success at scale.

    “We are proud to support the University of Georgia in its efforts to deliver proven, student-centered teaching practices,” said Maggie Leen, CEO of Top Hat. “This partnership ensures every student and educator at UGA has access to the tools they need to drive learning and achievement, while reinforcing the university’s focus on affordability, innovation, and evidence-based instruction.”

    This initiative reflects UGA’s commitment to both student affordability and instructional excellence. With Top Hat, faculty can adopt and customize low- or no-cost course materials—including OpenStax and OER—helping to reduce costs for students while delivering engaging, evidence-based instruction. The platform enables instructors to easily integrate active learning strategies, such as frequent low-stakes assessments and reflection prompts, which are proven to enhance student engagement and academic outcomes. Top Hat’s AI-powered assistant, Ace, streamlines course prep by generating high-quality questions directly from lecture content, and supports students with on-demand study help and unlimited practice opportunities—reinforcing learning both in and out of the classroom. Real-time data from polls, quizzes, and assignments also empowers educators to continuously monitor progress and improve instructional impact.

    The University of Georgia is recognized nationally for excellence in teaching and learning, student completion, and affordability. The enterprise agreement with Top Hat is part of UGA’s broader commitment to building a world-class learning environment and increasing access to affordable, high impact teaching and  learning resources.

    About Top Hat

    As the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, Top Hat enables educators to employ proven student-centered teaching practices through interactive content and tools enhanced by AI, and activities in in-person, online and hybrid classroom environments. To accelerate student impact and return on investment, the company provides a range of change management services, including faculty training and instructional design support, integration and data management services, and digital content customization. Thousands of faculty at 900 leading North American colleges and universities use Top Hat to create meaningful, engaging and accessible learning experiences for students before, during, and after class.

    Contact [email protected] for media inquiries.

    Source link

  • Applying the Moral Intensity Framework: Ethical Decision-Making for University Reopening During COVID-19

    Applying the Moral Intensity Framework: Ethical Decision-Making for University Reopening During COVID-19

    by Scott McCoy, Jesse Pietz and Joseph H Wilck

    Overview

    In late 2020, universities faced a moral and operational crisis: Should they reopen for in-person learning amid a global pandemic? This decision held profound ethical implications, touching on public health, education, and institutional survival. Using the Moral Intensity Framework (MIF), a multidimensional ethical decision-making model, researchers analysed the reopening choices of 62 US universities to evaluate the ethical considerations and outcomes. Here’s how MIF provides critical insights into this complex scenario.

    Why the Moral Intensity Framework matters

    The Moral Intensity Framework helps assess ethical decisions based on six dimensions:

    1. Magnitude of Consequences: The severity of potential outcomes.
    2. Social Consensus: Agreement on the morality of the decision.
    3. Probability of Effect: Likelihood of outcomes occurring.
    4. Temporal Immediacy: Time between the decision and its consequences.
    5. Proximity: Emotional or social closeness to those affected.
    6. Concentration of Effect: Impact on specific groups versus broader populations.

    This framework offers a structured approach to evaluate ethical trade-offs, especially in high-stakes, uncertain scenarios like the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Universities’ dilemma: in-person -v- remote learning

    The reopening debate boiled down to two primary considerations:

    1. Educational and Financial Pressures: Universities needed to deliver on their educational mission while addressing steep revenue losses from tuition, housing, and auxiliary services. Remote learning threatened educational quality and the financial viability of institutions, especially those with limited endowments.
    2. Public Health Risks: Reopening campuses risked COVID-19 outbreaks, jeopardising the health of students, staff, and surrounding communities. Universities also faced backlash for potential spread to vulnerable populations.

    Critical Findings Through the Moral Intensity Lens

    Magnitude of Consequences

    Reopening for in-person learning presented stark risks: potential illness or death among students, staff, and the community. However, keeping campuses closed threatened jobs, reduced education quality, and caused financial strain. The scale of harm from reopening was considered higher, particularly in densely populated campus settings.

    Social Consensus

    Public opinion and government policies influence decisions. States with stringent public health mandates leaned toward remote learning, while those with lenient regulations often pursued in-person or hybrid models. Administrators balanced community sentiment with institutional needs, highlighting the importance of localized consensus.

    Temporal Immediacy

    Health risks from in-person learning manifested quickly, while financial and educational setbacks from remote learning had longer timelines. This immediacy added ethical weight to public health considerations in reopening decisions.

    Probability of Effect

    The uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 transmission and mitigation complicated ethical judgments. Universities needed more data on the effectiveness of safety protocols, making probability assessments challenging.

    Proximity and Concentration of Effect

    Campus communities are close-knit, amplifying the emotional weight of decisions. Both reopening and remaining remote affected broad populations similarly, lessening these dimensions’ influence.

    Ethical Outcomes and Practical Mitigation Strategies

    Many universities implemented extensive safety measures to align reopening decisions with ethical standards:

    • Testing and Tracing: Pre-arrival testing, on-campus surveillance, and contact tracing reduced outbreak risks.
    • Modified Learning Environments: Hybrid and remote options ensured flexibility, accommodating vulnerable populations.
    • Health Protocols: Social distancing, mask mandates, and enhanced cleaning protocols were widely adopted.

    Despite risks, universities that reopened often avoided large-scale outbreaks, demonstrating the effectiveness of these measures.

    Lessons for Crisis Management

    The COVID-19 reopening experience offers valuable lessons for future crises:

    1. Use Multidimensional Ethical Frameworks: Applying tools like MIF provides structure to navigate complex moral dilemmas.
    2. Prioritize Stakeholder Engagement: Balancing diverse perspectives helps bridge gaps between perceived and actual risks.
    3. Adapt Quickly: Flexibility in implementing mitigation strategies can mitigate harm while achieving core objectives.
    4. Build Resilience: Strengthening financial reserves and digital infrastructure can reduce future vulnerabilities.

    Global Implications

    While this analysis focused on U.S. universities, the findings have worldwide relevance. Institutions globally grappled with similar decisions, balancing public health and education amid diverse cultural and political contexts. The Moral Intensity Framework offers a universal lens to evaluate ethical challenges in higher education and beyond.

    Conclusion

    The reopening decisions of universities during COVID-19 exemplify the intricate balance of ethical, financial, and operational considerations in crisis management. The Moral Intensity Framework provided a robust tool for understanding these complexities, highlighting the need for structured ethical decision-making in future global challenges.

    This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 20 September 2024) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322969.2024.2404864.

    Scott McCoy is the Vice Dean for Faculty & Academic Affairs and the Richard S. Reynolds, Jr. Professor of Business at William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business.  His research interests include human computer interaction, social media, online advertising, and teaching assessment.

    Jesse Pietz is a faculty lead for the OMSBA program at William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business.  He has been teaching analytics, operations research, and management since 2013.  His most recent faculty position prior to William & Mary was at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

    Joseph Wilck is Associate Professor of the Practice and Business Analytics Capstone Director
    Kenneth W. Freeman College of Management, Bucknell University He has been teaching analytics, operations research, data science, and engineering since 2006. His research is in the area of applied optimization and analytics.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • In defence of university halls of residence

    In defence of university halls of residence

    During my five years living alongside 340 undergraduate students as a hall warden, I have become a firm believer that residential halls are powerful civic learning environments.

    This realisation did not come immediately; if anything, I saw my role as strictly pastoral rather than having any connections to learning and teaching.

    At first glance, the role of a warden has little to do with learning. The term, warden, is an outdated and often confusing title (we are in the process of changing it) to describe a staff member responsible for responding to high-level mental health and disciplinary matters and occasional residential life events.

    I initially approached my role with misplaced enthusiasm, intervening in all manner of student conflicts, leaving little room for their own responsibility. Finding a middle ground between complete non-intervention and excessive control proved a real challenge.

    Over time, I came to understand that effective support meant creating space for disagreement and face-to-face conflict resolution rather than solving problems on students’ behalf.

    Too shy shy

    When I first started, the complaints I received usually came because a student came to my front of house colleagues to alert them of their problem. Whereas now they arrive electronically through e-mail.

    It makes sense. It’s easier, quicker and also means students who may not be around during my formal working hours can make me aware of any issues.

    But sometimes the multiple reports I receive overnight detail seemingly minor problems like a roommate not turning off lights or leaving a window open.

    I think the ease with which students can complain, especially virtually, prevents students from developing crucial conflict resolution skills. Part of living amongst other people is learning to address disagreements. It’s not easy and it’s certainly not comfortable, but it does help you grow as a person.

    It forces you to connect with others you may not agree with – either because of various socio-economic backgrounds, religious views or with those who have different ideas of cleanliness from you.

    I have witnessed meaningful connections form across religious and gender identities, and social classes within student halls. For example, the son of a billionaire bonding with a flatmate who had spent summers as an agricultural labourer in fields in Lincolnshire. Two people who likely would not have crossed paths if they had not chosen to study at the same university.

    I’ve seen interfaith events attended by those with differing faiths or none at all leading to genuine friendships.

    These interactions lack formal learning objectives or assessment metrics, yet provide education that our lecture halls struggle to deliver. Providing the literal space for students to meet helps them develop social capital they cannot necessarily get in a classroom.

    Learning from home

    As a sector, we could do more to analyse and report on the civic benefits offered by halls of residence, and we are beginning to do this work at LSE.

    Most UK university halls operate under an outdated property management model, functioning more like luxury hotels than educational spaces. Some private accommodation companies have introduced luxury facilities where students from wealthy families isolate themselves in environments featuring swimming pools and designer furnishings. While aesthetically impressive, these spaces lack genuine community or learning opportunities.

    These approaches miss a crucial opportunity. Residence halls are sites of learning graduate skills, just as much as the formal classroom. Future employers want complex problem-solving and collaboration skill but the added value of being able to resolve conflict well lies beyond career preparation.

    Holding space

    In my view, modern universities have moved away from an integrated educational vision, focusing primarily on specialised knowledge instead. This fragmentation leaves students ill-equipped to interrogate complex questions and self-discovery.

    Part of this includes being able to navigate conflict constructively and understanding how to create community across differences.

    Residence halls provide spaces where intellectual, ethical, social, and practical dimensions of education can be reintegrated. Abstract concepts from seminars become concrete realities when negotiating shared living. Moral and civic education requires practical engagement with substantive questions about the common good.

    Living amongst peers is a way of acknowledging higher education as a collective endeavour rather than a timetable of classes and lectures.

    Is this overthinking spaces that should prioritise fun and exploration? I don’t think so. Our halls of residence aren’t peripheral to education. Properly reconceived, they could become central to what makes university education distinctive and valuable as higher education confronts an uncertain future.

    Source link

  • University governance needs more imagination

    University governance needs more imagination

    University governance is not broken – but it does need to change.

    There are places where governance is not working very well. There are places where it is working exceptionally well. And in most cases the governance system works in the same way it always has but with a different and deeper set of issues.

    It may be that the resilience of “business as usual” is not a sign of stability – but a sign of a wider dysfunction.

    University governance is built with committees, a senate (usually), and a council. Information can flow up and down the chain with no more urgency than a stream trickling down a hill. The idea of a university being a deliberate (or slow) decision maker is not a design fault – but the entire purpose of the system.

    The challenge is that the moment we are working in is highly unpredictable. This means that the slowness inherent in the governance of universities is a barrier to making timely decisions. In turn, the lack of speed kills. If universities cannot make decisions quickly then they will be forever fighting yesterday’s battles as even bigger challenges come over the horizon.

    It is true that university governance can be slow. It is also the case that governance is no more than the collective will of people, accepted practice, navigating within a system which is continually changing because of the people and practices within it.

    It is not that governance is fundamentally broken – but that in places, it has not caught up with the world we are in or the issues we are dealing with. The institutional governance memory has largely been about growth, and now it is about changing shape, and in some cases contraction.

    And it is struggling to catch up for three main reasons. Intra-organisational dynamics, regulatory pressure, and a lack of experience and guidance in responding to this particular crisis.

    People

    The relationship between the vice chancellor and the chair of council is a critical one and one that can make or break the quality of governance. Usually, not a policy is passed, a major programme commenced, or in the most detail orientated a contract signed, without the permission of one of these two people.

    That critical relationship cannot be to act, consciously or otherwise, as gatekeepers – and instead needs to work to sharpen the focus of the wider discussion and decision making on the art of the possible in responding to the greatest aspirations and the most sizable threats.

    Sometimes the funnel of chair and vice chancellor contracts the necessary information, context and ambition rather than flipping the funnel around to allow a wider and richer understanding of the specific problem and the potential answers to it.

    A trend across the sector is that the strain placed on organisations is placing significant pressure on this relationship. Sometimes this pressure is forcing the chair and vice chancellor ever closer together and making them engage like never before. On the other hand, this pressure can spill into real disagreements and arguments.

    Neither excessive closeness nor distance is helpful for good decision making. One allows governance by relationship above process which can lead to decisions being too narrow or having considered too few sides. The distance makes issues fraught and honest conversations difficult.

    The role of the registrar has never been more crucial in this dynamic. They are the third leg of the stool that can facilitate private conversation but crucially, particularly now, can turn debates into issues that can be fed into the university governance system with a structure and purpose that reaches beyond the vice chancellor and chair in isolation. The registrar, or equivalent, is too often perceived as clerking or secretariat – rather than a function and role that can influence culture.

    The idea isn’t that governance should be conflict free, but that systems are robust enough to turn conflict into decision. In times like these strongly held disagreement is inevitable, sometimes it is even good as it shows things are being deeply felt, but governance cannot function where personal relationships dominate a governance system. The future is one which – as you might expect us to say – ever more deeply engages the registrar as the translator of discussion into decision.

    Regulators and regulation

    Governments and regulators have not been helpful in enabling the evolution needed in university governance. On the one hand, there is a reflexive defence to non-intervention because universities are autonomous institutions. And to be fair, when regulators and governments do something universities do not like it is also a defence they reach for. Autonomy is true at an institutional level but regulators seek to impede institutional autonomy all of the time through sector wide regulation.

    Taking Covid as an example, the Office for Students introduced a range of temporary market stabilisation measures which covered, amongst a range of other matters, “matters that may affect or distort decision making by prospective or current students in respect of their choice of higher education provider or course.” It isn’t enormously helpful that the regulatory environment can sometimes feel like either no intervention or extreme intervention.

    The space that is interesting is what does regulatory stewardship look like – neither the laissez faire of institutional failure nor the clunking foot of, well, boots on the ground.

    The overriding temptation is to introduce more regulation in a period where the sector is struggling. The logic is that universities are exposed to greater risk and the way to protect students from risk is to build boundaries around what universities can and cannot do.

    The problem is that universities do not have the resources to cope with any more regulatory burden. In fact, owing to the financial pressures they are under, universities have less resources than ever to deal with new regulatory burdens. This isn’t about the bonfire of the redtape, or a chainsaw as some world leaders prefer, but it is about an informed debate about how to sharpen the focus of an enormous regulatory burden.

    Introducing new regulation increases the chances that universities will fall foul of new regulations but that hardly seems like the point. There should be as much energy in reducing red-tape as there is in creating it in order to give universities the space to breathe. The sector is having to reduce its size and it can’t function with a regulatory burden designed for a time when it was much bigger.

    The effect of this would also be to free up the regulators time to focus on a narrower range of issues. The obvious rebuke is which things should any regulator spend less time on. The question, though helpful, misses the wider point that regulatory burden is created as much by approach as by the areas regulators choose to spend their time on. OfS Chief Executive Susan Lapworth made the case back in 2022:

    Your autonomy shouldn’t be a theoretical idea that you mobilise defensively to ward off regulation. It should be a living, active practice that you use to make your own decisions with confidence. So I’m encouraging you to think about whether the idea of self-directed autonomy might be a useful way to think about how you respond to regulation.

    Three years on, it’s fair to say that governing bodies often do not feel like they have sufficient insight into what the regulator believes to be the appropriate exercise of that autonomy. For example, it would be enormously useful for the OfS to provide an annual summary of the key issues they are dealing with – a bit like the OIA’s annual report on trends and outcomes.

    Reducing regulation, revealing potholes, and more clearly differentiating between issues of governance and those of leadership will help. It is also important to be clear that at times the sector has been caught in a trap of doing the same activity and expecting different results.

    Partners

    Even in the most extreme circumstances the sector now finds itself in radical discussions couched in terms of partnerships with the people that the sector has always worked with. It might be that some of the answers to the current crisis are not within the sector.

    There is an opportunity to explore partnerships with different kinds of public and private organisations. Traditionally, in universities, these have grown up within schools and faculties as research or teaching partnerships. It’s less frequent that senior leaders and their governing bodies seek out partnerships of mutual convenience to address a challenge.

    Now would seem to be the time to look at whether there may be partnerships with private providers on pre-degree teaching, PBSAs on addressing housing shortages, local authorities on a place-based marketing campaign, the local chambers of commerce on brokering land assets, and so on.

    Again, the challenge in realising this work is a governing one. Universities just have less muscle memory of trying to building these kinds of strategic partnerships – more imaginative partnerships require a different set of approaches.

    The first is absolute clarity from governing bodies regarding the problems they are trying to solve – and the discipline to stay within those core priorities. It is not enough to say that the problem is cash shortage caused by recruitment challenges. The deeper question is which qualifications are recruited to, the types of programmes on offer, and how clearly the link between income and programmes can be defined. Only then is it possible to look at which partners might be worth working with.

    The other challenge is that the regulatory environment is not always amenable to partnership. There is the issue of CMA compliance, where providers are reluctant to enter sensible conversations for fear of falling foul of regulations. A simple guide on the framework for who universities can work with in what circumstances would go far. Clearly, the current situation where the CMA is obligated to maintain the rules of a market which isn’t functioning properly is far from ideal.

    Breaking not broken

    People, regulation, and new partners are the three ingredients to move the university governance cycle on. It is easy to say universities need outside direction and internal commitment to meet the moment we’re in – but harder to pull off in practice.

    What universities have in their favour is that they have structures and processes that have been tried and tested. Now is the moment to adapt them.

    Source link

  • University of Nebraska looks to cut another $20M from its budget

    University of Nebraska looks to cut another $20M from its budget

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

    Dive Brief:

    • University of Nebraska System leaders aim to raise tuition and cut millions of dollars from the institution’s budget after state allocations fell well short of inflation and their request. 
    • Its fiscal 2026 budget proposal calls for $20 million in spending cuts to the four-campus system’s core budget and a 5% average tuition increase. The state’s board of regents plans to vote on the budget at a meeting next Thursday. 
    • The reduced spending comes on top of $11.8 million in permanent cuts for the current fiscal year and $30 million the year before. The system joins other major state institutions making cuts amid state and federal funding shortfalls.

    Dive Insight:

    University of Nebraska System President Jeffrey Gold said in a statement this week that the public institution needs to “manage every dollar with discipline, care and transparency” while maintaining affordability and educational quality. 

    The system is feeling the squeeze from inflation in labor and operating costs while also contending with federal and state funding challenges, according to a presentation from Anne Barnes, the university’s finance chief. 

    “We will need to continue to reduce spending and make increasingly difficult choices to ensure fiscal discipline as we have done for the past decade evidenced by over $100 million in cuts and internal efficiencies,” Barnes said in the presentation.

    Fiscal challenges for the university include an increase in state funding of just over 0.6% — well short of the university’s requested appropriations based on a 3.5% inflation rate. However, the 0.6% uptick is still better than the 2% cut recommended by the Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen recommended earlier this year.

    The Trump administration’s policies are also weighing on the university’s budget, including interruptions and cuts to federal grants and contracts, as well as moves to limit reimbursement for research overhead costs, the university said. 

    The National Institutes of Health’s 15% cap on overhead funding blocked permanently by a federal court in April but appealed by the Trump administrationwould mean the University of Nebraska would need to cover an additional $27 million to sustain its research, Gold said earlier this year. 

    The university’s flagship Lincoln campus has coped with budget pressures by freezing hiring, a move that follows staff cuts in recent years. 

    Looking at the fiscal year ahead, the university plans to shrink spending on staff salaries by 4.2%, while it expects faculty salaries to grow 3.2% based on collective bargaining agreements and tenure promotions

    With the proposed tuition increases, the University of Nebraska anticipates overall tuition revenue will increase 4.6%, though it expects nonresident and international student revenue to fall 3.1%. 

    The proposal calls for increasing in-state undergraduate tuition at the UNL from $277 to $291 per credit hour and out-of-state tuition from $888 to $932. 

    The university said that even with the tuition hike, Nebraska “would remain one of the most affordable institutions of higher education among its peers” in the Big Ten Conference.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: University of Buckingham

    Higher education postcard: University of Buckingham

    It’s a commonplace that the University of Cambridge was founded by scholars fleeing Oxford. Today’s postcard comes from a university with a similar origin myth, albeit quite a lot less medieval.

    And a lot newer too. We need to start in 1967, in May to be precise, when Dr John Paulley, an inveterate writer of letters to the times, had one published on the subject of university education. This included a call to action:

    Is it not time to examine the possibility of creating at least one new university in this country on the pattern of those great private foundations in the USA, without whose stimulus and freedom of action the many excellent state universities in that country would be so much poorer?

    And the call got a response. Three private conferences were held, two in 1968 and the third in early 1969, with plenty of disaffected Oxford academics attending. Preceding this latter conference was a declaration signed by 46 academics across the UK and Ireland, raising concerns about the influence of the state on university education. To quote from the Belfast Telegraph of Friday 3 January 1969:

    Professor Gibson said today: ‘increasingly the universities are being told, usually very politely and often indirectly, at what rate they shall expand and in what directions, and most recently the relative emphasis that should be placed on teaching and research.’

    He believed that this influence would increase and the power to exercise it, ‘because of the almost total financial dependence of the universities on the state.’

    ‘Furthermore I am convinced that centralised control of university education will in time weaken and perhaps destroy the international reputation of British universities,’ he added.

    (Professor Gibson, by the way, was Norman J Gibson, financial economist and professor at the New University of Ulster – the local angle clearly caught the eye of the Belfast Telegraph.)

    The argument was basically this: if the state pays for higher education, they will call the tune. And this is a bad thing, with deleterious effects for academic autonomy, for research and for quality and standards.

    Now, to my mind this argument omits the social justice and economic benefits of expanding access to university education, but it is hard to deny the proposition that the current financially-dependent HE sector in the UK is not exactly brim-full with stable and autonomous universities.

    So what happened as a result of the conferences? University College Buckingham, that’s what. It gained corporate form (as a non-profit charity) in 1973, started building works in 1974, and admitted its first students in 1976. Its first vice chancellor was Max Beloff, an Oxford professor.

    Buckingham was different – its undergraduate degrees were offered over two years, not three, students started in January not September, and it sat outside the state’s funding apparatus, and outside the UCCA (the Universities’ Central Council on Admissions – along with its polytechnic counterpart, one of the precursors to UCAS). If my memory is correct, there was an external academic advisory committee, which mentored the new university college through its initial years. It gained university status in 1983, under Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. (Mrs Thatcher, as former education secretary in the 1970–74 government, and then leader of the Conservative Party, had also opened the university in 1976. It is safe to say that she was in favour of the project.)

    Buckingham continued its journey parallel to the mainstream university sector (albeit still with an element of state support – see the below snippet from the Lincolnshire Standard and Boston Guardian in 1976) until 2001, when it subscribed to the QAA and joined in with the sector’s quality assurance system. From 2004 its students were able to access loan funding via the Student Loans Company, which enabled more students to attend: between 2007 and 2012 the university roughly doubled in size, although it was (and is) still relatively small.

    With the coming of the Higher Education and Research Act and the establishment of the OfS in 2018, Buckingham opted to maintain a certain arm’s-length-ness from the state: it is an Approved provider, meaning that it does not get the full £9,250 fee, nor any form of grant support from the OfS; but nor are its fees capped at £9,250. Students can access fee support loans up to £6,000 (or thereabouts) but Buckingham can charge more. And it does, although total fees are comparable with a full-time fee at another English university. Overseas students pay more, but the premium looks to be less, to my eyes, than at other UK universities. So, the principal of autonomy from the state is protected, to some extent.

    But only to some extent: the university still has to comply with the OfS conditions, and it became one of the first cases of a fine being issued for non-compliance: in this case, over late publication of accounts. This caused a certain amount of interest at Wonkhe towers: here in relation to the accounts when published; it’s also worth reading the OfS note on why the fine was as it was.

    In 2015 the university opened the first private medical school in modern UK history, working with the Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust to provide clinical placements.

    Buckingham’s alumni include Brandon Lewis, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; Pravind Jugnauth, former Mauritian Prime Minister and leader of that country’s Militant Socialist Movement; and Marc Gené, racing driver and winner of the Le Mans 24 hour race.

    Before we finish, it is worth a pause for reflection on the Buckingham story. As an experiment in trying to create a university outside of the normal state apparatus it is, I would argue, an unequivocal success. It is coming up to 50 years since the first students were admitted; there must be at least 50,000 Buckingham graduates; the university has expanded into different subject areas. None of this will have been easy to achieve.

    But perhaps the wider quest – to help create a private university, whose freedom of action would stimulate the other universities to innovate and improve – is at the very best a work in progress. One could point to the two-year degrees now available at some universities, as being a consequence of Buckingham. And this probably has some merit. Equally, the experiment shows that the degrees work for some specific student groups – for example, some mature students on courses with a specific professional orientation – but they’re not a panacea to all cost evils.

    And maybe the quest is a chimera. The recent rows in the US about Harvard, the private university par excellence, show just how much state funding it receives. (The amount under threat is about $2 billion, which is about five per cent of the total turnover of all universities in the UK.) What I think, for what it is worth, is that the UK sector with a Buckingham is better that it would be without.

    The postcard itself is not only of the university, although one of its building is shown top left, by the Great Ouse. The others are Buckingham scenes: the old gaol, the High Street, and the golden swan atop the old Town Hall.

    Here’s a jigsaw of today’s card. Thanks to Harriet Dunbar-Morris, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost of the university, and an old pal from 1994 Group days – for suggesting Buckingham. As always, if you have a request, please let me know. If I don’t have a postcard, I might enjoy tracking one down!

    Source link

  • University of Michigan has ended private surveillance contracts but the chill on free speech remains

    University of Michigan has ended private surveillance contracts but the chill on free speech remains

    Clare Rigney is a rising second-year student at American University Washington College of Law and a FIRE summer intern.


    After a news story last week that the University of Michigan was paying private investigators to spy on pro-Palestinian student protesters, the school quickly ended its contracts with the surveillance firm.

    In case anyone is unaware, the year is 2025. Not 1984.

    Now the university says this Orwellian practice has ended, but the chill on student speech will likely remain for some time.

    On June 6, The Guardian reported on the story, citing multiple videos and student accounts of investigators cursing at students and threatening them. Between June 2023 and September 2024, U-M reportedly paid about $800,000 to the Detroit-based security company City Shield to carry out this surveillance instead of using the funds to increase the size of the campus police force. 

    Several of the targeted students were members of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, the local chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine, causing critics to accuse the school of targeting pro-Palestinian speech.

    One student, Josiah Walker, said he counted 30 people following him at different times on and off-campus. (As a precaution, he started parking his car off-campus.) On one occasion, Walker believed a man at a campus protest was following him. The man seemed to have a speech impairment, so Walker felt bad about that assumption. However, he later saw the same man speaking in a completely normal manner. When Walker confronted him, the man pretended Walker was trying to rob him.

    The whole incident was caught on camera.

    On the recording, Walker said, “The degree to which all these entities are willing to go to target me is amazing. Guys, this doesn’t make sense. What are you doing? Leave me alone.”

    To serve their proper function, universities must facilitate an open and collaborative learning environment as a marketplace of ideas. U-M ostensibly knows this, saying it values “an environment where all can participate, are invited to contribute, and have a sense of belonging.” 

    Surveillance and intimidation do not cultivate such an environment. U-M’s surveillance will make students want to look over their shoulders before seeking to use their right to free speech.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in Healy v. James requires universities to uphold their students’ First Amendment rights. This extends even to students whose speech the university deems offensive or “antithetical” to the school’s goals. 

    In Healy, the Court emphasized the danger of an institution targeting a group of students as particularly dangerous based on their viewpoint, noting, “the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.”

    Indeed, an important function of college is to allow students to broaden their horizons and meet different kinds of  people. And freedom of association allows them to seek out individuals whose beliefs align with theirs so that they can work toward a common goal. 

    Unfortunately, universities have used these chilling tactics against student political protestors for years. 

    Amid protests demanding sick pay for frontline workers, the University of Miami in 2020 used facial recognition technology to identify protestors. The university then hauled these students into meetings where they were forced to review Miami’s events policies.

    “The take-home message that we got was basically, We’re watching you,” Esteban Wood, one of the student protesters, later said. 

    When colleges and universities surveil students, they chill speech and promote distrust between student activists and the police meant to protect them.

    In 2018, Campus Safety Magazine revealed that the University of Virginia had contracted with a private service called Social Sentinel. This service used an algorithm to monitor students’ social media posts and, if it deemed it necessary, report them to the police.

    That same year, FIRE reported on a similar situation at the University of North Carolina. During protests over a confederate statue, a UNC campus police officer masqueraded as an approachable civilian named “Victor” in order to gain information from protesters and track their movements. Later, when students confronted “Victor” in a police uniform, he revealed himself as Officer Hector Bridges, explaining he had pretended to be sympathetic to their cause as a part of his “work.” 

    “I”m representing the university right now,” Bridges admitted on video.

    The UNC Police Department later released a statement saying the university had a practice of sending “plain clothes” officers to patrol the statue to purportedly “maintain student and public safety.”

    Chilling student speech in the name of undisclosed and unspecified safety is nothing new. But if it is serious about change, it couldn’t hurt for U-M to start with reviewing its own policies. According to its Division of Public Safety and Security, its role is to foster “a safe and secure environment” where students learn to “challenge the present.” Furthermore, U-M’s Standard Practice Guide section on freedom of speech states that when any non-university security forces are needed, they should know and follow these policies. 

    While it’s possible to imagine a circumstance where student surveillance might be necessary, colleges should keep in mind that courts have generally disfavored such efforts. For example, in White v. Davis, the Supreme Court of California rebuked the Los Angeles Police Department’s unconstitutional surveillance of UCLA students:

    The censorship of totalitarian regimes that so often condemns developments in art, science and politics is but a step removed from the inchoate surveillance of free discussion in the university; such intrusion stifles creativity and to a large degree shackles democracy.

    When colleges and universities surveil students, they chill speech and promote distrust between student activists and the police meant to protect them. That can be dangerous for both the students and the officers. Police investigations will be more difficult if the student body does not trust them enough to cooperate when needed. Students may be less likely to contact the police for legitimate violations. 

    Colleges and universities should empower their students to boldly state their beliefs. That’s simply not possible if they are also hiring outside agencies to spy on them. While we are glad the University of Michigan ended the practice, this case should serve as a reminder that such heavy-handed surveillance tactics have no place at American universities. 

    Source link

  • University spending and cost recovery, 2023-24

    University spending and cost recovery, 2023-24

    If you are the kind of person who sits down to read analysis of the latest available TRAC (officially, Transparent Approach to Costing) data the last thing you would expect would be cautious optimism.

    The sector, after all, is circling the financial drain – and when you can read press releases from unions and sector representative bodies that say fundamentally the same thing you could feel confident that this is the situation.

    Much of what we’ve recently read in the press is about the impacts of measures taken to address this financial peril – course closures, job cuts, changes in terms and conditions, and a retreat from spending plans on everything from maintenance to recruitment.

    And what the latest TRAC tells us is that these measures are working.

    Who turned on the light?

    To be clear, it’s not time to quit lobbying for a better funding settlement.

    Based on 2023-24 submissions from 128 institutions in England and Northern Ireland the sector has an aggregate deficit of £2,003m – down substantially from £2,854m in 2022-23. The sector has made savings of more than £800m between two years – no mean feat where costs are rising and the value of income is falling.

    What’s going on under the hood is that institutions are getting better at recovering the costs of things they are funded to do – 95.7 per cent of costs were recovered in 2023-24, up from 93.6 per cent in 2022-23. Costs still exceed income (they have done since the pandemic) but the direction of travel is promising – providers are generating more income (up 5.8 per cent to £44,508m) while limiting increases in costs (up 3.5 per cent to £46,511m).

    This is good news, but counterintuitive. We know that staff costs are rising (there was an annual pay uplift, and pensions spending has increased substantially for those providers involved in TPS), we know that the cost of doing business (everything from maintenance to logistics to consumables is rising). And TRAC confirms this – staff costs are up 6.4 per cent, other operating costs are up 4.7 per cent, on last year.

    There are savings in the costs of finance (such as interest payments) – these have fallen 13.3 per cent over last year, though this does not make a huge contribution to overall spending.

    MSI (coming on like a seventh sense)

    We do, however, need to talk about the margin for sustainability and investment (MSI). It’s the most controversial part of the TRAC specification, and when you tell people that universities need to have at least some money for non-income generating fripperies like student support and estates maintenance within any calculation of the cost of doing business they will lose their minds.

    The calculation is done by institution and is based on an average of three years of data and three years of projections (the nerd in me wants to be clear that these are based on Earnings Before Interest Taxation Depreciation and Amortisation – EBITDA) expressed as a proportion of full economic costs. In 2022-23 this was £3,770m (8.4 per cent of FEC), in 2023-24 this was £3,548 (7.6 per cent of FEC) for the sector as a whole.

    The effect here is that the total costs of running a university (FEC plus MSI) looks lower than it did last year. This is more evidence of savings over multiple years – cutting spending on maintenance, sustainability, and student services. This will make cost recovery and the deficit look better: it doesn’t explain all of the improvements this year but it explains some of them.

    The document provides a fuller list of institutional decisions that would have an impact on the MOS calculation – inflationary pressures, a (regulator advocated) caution in recruitment income growth and research activity growth, variability in forecasts as more institutions design in large changes of focus to plans for future spending, and the usual weirdnesses around pension provisions.

    Spend less, earn more

    So institutions are making cuts, and look financially healthier for it. But there is still an overall deficit, and if cuts and efficiencies are the only answer to financial constraints there is a long and painful road left to walk.

    Within the overall £2,003m deficit, the £1,693m deficit on publicly funded teaching is a major contributing factor: for every £100 a university spends on teaching home students, it receives £89.20 from the public purse. This varies, as we will see, by the type of institution in question and what else it gets up to. In real terms income is actually up slightly (a slight rise in the number of students), but it costs more to pay staff and to do all the other things that teaching requires.

    Conversely non-publicly funded teaching (all overseas students, and some self-funded home students) has a 143.1 per cent recovery rate, generating at a £3,232m surplus. The recovery rate is actually down marginally on last year, but the overall income from this source is up by 7.8 per cent (to £10,727m).

    Research has never had a good recovery rate – we’re now down to 66 per cent for 2023-24, from 68.5 per cent the previous year, and again there’s substantial differences by provider type. Again we can point to staff costs and operating costs rising as the reason, but we should also recall that most publicly funded research returns 80 per cent, and some research has no income attached at all.

    We should also note that other (income generating) activities like catering and accommodation run a small deficit, while other non-commercial activity (investments, donations, endowments) have an on-paper surplus.

    Peer pressure

    While the sector level figures are useful, they disguise a lot of diversity in the sector. We still – in 2025 – do not get institutional TRAC data, which would genuinely be useful for understanding where providers have costs that are substantially higher than comparators.

    Instead, we are back with groups A-F:

    • Group A: Institutions with a medical school that get 20 per cent or more of their total income from research (pretty much the Russell Group)
    • Group B: Other institutions with research income constituting 15 per cent or more of all income (largely the big, research intensive, traditional universities that sit outside of the Russell Group).
    • Group C: Research income between 5 and 15 per cent of all income (larger and research focused post-92 providers with some pre-92s mixed in)
    • Group D: Research income less than 5 per cent of a total income greater than £150m (Other big post-92 providers)
    • Group E: Research income less than 5 per cent of a total income less than £150m (the rest of the traditional universities, plus specialist providers)
    • Group F: Specialist music and arts institutions (as you might expect)

    Here’s what they all spend money on, as a proportion of total expenditure:

    [Full screen]

    And here’s the proportion of costs they recover on each kind of spending:

    [Full screen]

    And here’s what happens when you drill down into research:

    [Full screen]

    It’s not usually a good idea to make blanket statements about sector finances – what’s true for one university is generally not true for another. But in this case the generality is valuable – it highlights that the problems facing the sector are less to do with autonomous decisions and more to do with the overall financial settlement. Individual, provider action is clearly helping the situation. But it won’t be enough.

    Source link

  • University of Michigan paid firm to spy on activist students (News Nation)

    University of Michigan paid firm to spy on activist students (News Nation)

    Attorney Amir Makled joins “NewsNation Now” to discuss a report from The Guardian that the University of Michigan paid $800,000 to a private security firm to have undercover investigators surveil pro-Palestinian campus groups. Makled called the alleged conduct “really disturbing.”

    Source link