Tag: University

  • Life at a modern university in 2025: the changing nature of study

    Life at a modern university in 2025: the changing nature of study

    This blog was kindly authored by Rachel Hewitt, Chief Executive, MillionPlus, the Association of Modern Universities

    Every year, surveys like HEPI’s Student Academic Experience Survey offer a snapshot of university life. But behind the charts and statistics is a changing story about what higher education looks like, especially at modern universities. These institutions are showing that studying in 2025 rarely follows a single, conventional route.

    Modern universities have long been known for their openness and ties to local communities. Now, they are also shaping a very different kind of student journey—one that does not always follow the traditional three-year residential degree. Instead, it reflects the realities of a diverse student body: people working while studying, commuting from home, caring for family, or building new careers later in life.

    Beyond the “traditional” student

    For many students at modern universities, higher education is less about stepping away from life for three years and more about weaving learning into a busy, complicated existence. As the Student Academic Experience Survey shows, almost half (45%) of modern university students are in paid employment—often out of necessity, not choice. Many are parents, carers, or career-changers. For these students, study isn’t a bubble; it’s one delicate strand in a web of responsibilities.

    For some, this results in a very different kind of campus life: less time spent living in halls, more commuting (40% travel over 10 miles) and a stronger pull between work, family and academic priorities.

    New models of participation

    While financial pressures for students and wider society remain acute—38% of students who need work can’t find it, and 30% say cost-of-living concerns affect their ability to focus—modern universities are adapting their teaching and support models. Many now offer blended delivery, intensive block teaching, alongside established flexible provision such as degree apprenticeships and part-time study. These approaches allow students to earn, care, and live at home while progressing towards qualifications.

    Supporting non-traditional students

    This is a student population that remains deeply committed to learning. Despite all the pressures, modern university students show up, participate, and persist. Approaching a fifth of students has caring responsibilities, comfortably higher than their peers at older institutions. Some 40% report that their tutors actively encourage class discussion and help them explore personal areas of interest. They value that their feedback is accessible and constructive, helping them improve and stay on track.

    While their circumstances may be more complex, their commitment to learning is strong. These students also place a high value on being heard and report a sense of belonging, often shaped by feeling that their opinions matter and that support services are there when needed. These aren’t just “nice to haves”—they’re essential in a system where so many are juggling competing demands.

    Their experience may look different from the “classic” university model, but it is no less valid.

    For institutions, the challenge is that this is all happening against a backdrop of unsustainable finances, with their resources being stretched increasingly thinly.

    The financial strain on universities

    While much of the conversation around student experience rightly focuses on individuals, universities across the sector are also under growing pressure, the reasons for which are by now well established. Modern universities typically receive less research funding and fewer philanthropic donations than many of their older counterparts, with their international student income potentially next on the chopping block if the government follows through on its proposed levy.

    They also face higher staff costs, with significant increases in pensions cost (recent changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme which modern universities are bound to offer are estimated to cost the sector £125 million per year) and this year are facing an 11% fall in Office for Students recurrent grants, compared to 5% at pre-92s. This is coupled with recent defunding of Level 7 apprenticeships, provision into which many modern universities had put significant investment to support the skills system. Yet they educate a high proportion of students from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds, often with greater support needs.

    Balancing quality education with constrained budgets is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The financial model that underpins higher education in the UK is coming apart at the seams. These universities are doing vital work—widening participation, supporting local economies, and offering first and second chances—but they’re being asked to do more with less.

    The case for a new funding model

    The current system is simply not fit for purpose. If modern universities are to continue serving their students effectively—and if those students are to thrive—there needs to be a shift in how higher education is funded. This could mean more targeted government support, reforms to tuition fee and maintenance structures, or increased investment in student support services. In order to maintain a world-leading higher education sector, vital to help meet the government’s stated goals, there must be a clear strategy for higher education from Westminster and Holyrood. The sector waits in hope for the government’s promised HE reform package.

    Without change, inequality will be further entrenched and institutions that play a crucial role in social mobility will be immeasurably lessened. In 2025, with the support of their institutions, modern university students are doing everything they can to succeed. It’s time the system worked just as hard for them.

    Source link

  • University of Chicago braces for job cuts amid effort to shed $100M in costs

    University of Chicago braces for job cuts amid effort to shed $100M in costs

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The University of Chicago is looking to cut $100 million in expenses after two years of deficits and “profound federal policy changes” under the Trump administration, according to university President Paul Alivisatos. 
    • In community messages Thursday, Alivisatos said that goal requires staff reductions. This year, the university plans to eliminate 100 to 150 staff jobs, including through layoffs, mostly tied to discontinuing university programs and activities. 
    • The institution also plans to reduce senior leadership roles, pause admissions for over a dozen Ph.D. and master’s programs, decrease the number of spots for doctoral students, scale back capital projects, and review its research spending with an eye toward potentially cutting some academic centers.

    Dive Insight:

    Like many university presidents in recent months, Alivisatos pointed to the past eight months of policy disruption under the Trump administration as having “created multiple and significant new uncertainties and strong downward pressure on our finances.”

    In that environment, “steps ahead have become much steeper in the face of proximate challenges,” Alivisatos said in a message to staff.

    University of Chicago already faced financial pressure from rising expenses before the year began. In fiscal 2024, the institution reported a $193.7 million operating deficit — even as its revenue grew. That shortfall represented an improvement from the year before, when it posted a $201.7 million deficit.

    “Despite important progress that all of you worked so hard to contribute to over the last two years, our annual income still falls short of our expenses,” Alivisatos said in a message to faculty. “That is not something that we can allow to persist.”

    The university is taking a kitchen sink approach to its budget, reducing spending in multiple areas while also trying to ensure its core operations and services remain strong. But employee compensation remains the university’s largest expense and a major area for cutting. 

    University of Chicago Provost Katherine Baicker noted Thursday that the latest round of budget cuts will build on previous institutional efforts to reduce costs, which included voluntary retirements, layoffs and hiring freezes.

    The staffing cuts will be tied to specific activities and programs that the institution plans to end, rather than an across-the-board cut, the university said in a FAQ on the operational restructuring. 

    “The aim is to do fewer things well, rather than doing the same things with fewer people,” it said.

    The university is not planning any faculty cuts, instead opting to maintain the current number after past years of growth. 

    However, the University of Chicago will pause Ph.D. enrollment of 19 programs for the 2026-27 academic year — nearly all of them in the liberal arts and humanities, including anthropology, political economics, English, theater, art history and public policy. The move has garnered national attention amid concerns the reduction could harm the academic landscape at the university and beyond.

    The University of Chicago is also rethinking its approach to campus construction. The institution can no longer afford to build primarily via debt financing, and newly established rules require philanthropic or other external support for building projects before starting them, according to Alivisatos. The university has “substantially” scaled down plans for a new engineering and science building, Alivisatos said.

    Source link

  • Apollo Wants Investors to Buy Back the University of Phoenix. They Shouldn’t. (David Halperin)

    Apollo Wants Investors to Buy Back the University of Phoenix. They Shouldn’t. (David Halperin)

    Having failed to complete deals to sell the troubled giant for-profit University of Phoenix to major state universities in Arkansas and Idaho — after people in those states got cold feet — the school’s owner, private equity behemoth Apollo Global Management, just before the holiday weekend announced an initial public offering for the school. 

    Phoenix’s parent company had been publicly traded until AGM and two other firms took the company private in 2017. Now they have gone back to Wall Street to re-sell the school to investors. 

    But should investors want to buy this operation? The presence of the heavily-advertised University of Phoenix in the college market has been bad for U.S. students, taxpayers, and the economy, because it has led many students to enroll in a school that often deceives people, and often leaves students with heavy debts and without the careers they sought — when they could be using taxpayer support and their own money to enroll in better value programs. 

    Moral and macro-economic concerns aside, it’s not even clear that buying Phoenix will be good for investor bottom lines. 

    The University of Phoenix, which has received tens of billions from federal taxpayers for student grants and loans — at times more than $2 billion in a single year — has faced numerous law enforcement investigations and actions for its deceptive recruiting of veterans, military service members, and other students across the country.

    Most notably, in 2019, Phoenix reached a record $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which claimed the school had lured students with false claims about partnerships with major employers. Phoenix ran ads falsely indicating that the school had deals with companies including AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and the American Red Cross to create job opportunities for its students and tailor school programs for such jobs, when that was not the case. The deceptive claim went to the heart of prospective students’ motivations for enrolling. Andrew Smith, then the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at the time of the agreement, “Students making important decisions about their education need the facts, not fantasy job opportunities that do not exist.”

    And last year California’s attorney general reached a settlement with Phoenix to resolve allegations that the school’s aggressive recruitment tactics directed at military students violated consumer protection laws. 

    The now almost entirely online school did a two-year dance with the University of Idaho that drew immense criticism from lawmakers, executive branch officials, newspaper editorial boards, and others in that state before the deal was finally called off in June.

    Bloomberg reported earlier this year that an IPO might value the University of Phoenix operation, which had $810 million in revenue for 2023-24 (81 percent of that from federal taxpayer dollars), at $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion. And the new Trump administration has signaled in multiple ways that it is reducing protections for students against predatory college abuses, a development that may make investors more willing to buy a piece of a school like Phoenix.

    But new federal legislation requires schools to provide some financial value for students. Also, state attorneys general, who have curbed and even slayed a number of for-profit giants over a decade, are watching; the media understands this issue, as it did not in the last wild west era fifteen years ago; and more potential students are wary after a generation of abuses.

    So it may end up being much tougher to thrive in the predatory college business than some might think. 

    Source link

  • The University of Phoenix IPO

    The University of Phoenix IPO

    Apollo Global Management and Vistria have an offer only a pig would consider: the Phoenix Education Partners IPO.

    Touted by Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bank of Montreal, Jefferies, and Apollo Global Securities, the offering of Phoenix Education Partners brings the University of Phoenix (UoPX) back to public markets—but few fans remain in the audience.

    A Decade of Decline: From Expansion to Erosion

    In the early 2000s, UoPX was hailed as a pioneering force in adult education—cozy campuses near freeway exits and an advanced online infrastructure for working learners earned praise. Its founder John Sperling was seen as visionary.

    But by 2010 enrollment had already begun plummeting after reaching nearly 470,000 students, and the school’s academic quality and recruiting ethics were under the microscope. Critics decried “The Matrix,” a perverse scheme where recruiters were aggressively incentivized to push enrollments—no matter the cost.

    By 2018, more than 450 locations had shuttered, enrollment was down by approximately 80%, and half the remaining sites were no longer accepting new students. Even Hawaii, Jersey City, Detroit, and other major cities were on the closure list.

    Regulatory Fallout: Lawsuits, Settlements, and Borrower Defenses

    From the early 2010s onward, UoPX saw an avalanche of legal scrutiny. In 2019, the FTC leveled a $191 million settlement against it for misleading advertising, including deceptive claims about job placement and corporate partnerships.

    By late 2023, 73,740 borrower-defense claims had been filed by former students under federal programs. Many of these were settled under the Sweet v. Cardona class action, with estimates of the university’s potential liability ranging from $200 million to over $1 billion. Meanwhile, nearly one million debtors owed a combined $21.6 billion in student loans—about $22,000 per borrower on average.

    Another flashpoint: UoPX agreed to pay $4.5 million in 2024 to settle investigations by California’s Attorney General over military-targeted recruiting tactics.

    The Ownership Unicorn: Apollo, Vistria, and Political Backing

    After Apollo Global Management and the Vistria Group acquired UoPX in 2016, the school became a commodified unit in a larger private equity portfolio. The deal brought in figures like Marty Nesbitt, a political insider, as chairman—signaling strategic power play as much as financial management.

    Vistria’s broader stable included Risepoint (previously Academic Partnerships), meaning both UoPX and OPM entities were controlled by one private-equity firm—drawing criticism for creating a “for-profit, online-education industrial complex.”

    The IPO Circus: “Pigs on Parade”

    Enter the Phoenix Education Partners IPO, steered onto the market with all the pomp of a carnival but none of the substance. The front-line banks—Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, BMO, Jefferies, Apollo Global Securities—are being paid handsomely to dress up this distressed asset as a growth opportunity.

    But here’s what those colorful floats hide:

    • Collapse, not comeback. Enrollment and campus infrastructure have withered.

    • Debt, not opportunity. Nearly a million debt-laden alumni owe $21.6 billion.

    • Liability, not credibility. Borrower defense claims and state investigations continue to mount.

    • Profit, not public good. Ownership is consolidated in private equity with political access, not academic mission.

    This is a pig in parade attire. Investors are being asked to cheer for ribbon-cutting and banners, while the mud-stained hooves of exploitative business models trudge behind.

    The HEI Verdict

    This IPO isn’t a pivot toward better education—it’s a rebrand of an exploitative legacy. From aggressive recruitment of vulnerable populations (“sandwich moms,” military servicemembers) to mounting legal liabilities, the University of Phoenix remains the same broken system.

    Investors, regulators, and the public must not be dazzled by slick packaging. The real story is one of failed promises, students carrying lifelong debt, and private equity cashing out. In education, as in livestock, parades are meant to show off—just make sure you’re not cheering at the wrong spectacle.

    Sources

    • Higher Education Inquirer. Search: University of Phoenix

    • Higher Education Inquirer. “The Slow-Motion Collapse of America’s Largest University” (2018)

    • Higher Education Inquirer. “University of Phoenix Collapse Kept Quiet” (2019)

    • Higher Education Inquirer. “Fraud Claims Against University of Phoenix” (2023)

    • Higher Education Inquirer. “University of Phoenix Uses ‘Sandwich Moms’ in Recruiting” (2025)

    • Higher Education Inquirer. “What Do the University of Phoenix and Risepoint Have in Common?” (2025)

    • Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Obtains $191 Million Settlement from University of Phoenix” (2019)

    • Sweet v. Cardona Settlement Documents (2022–2023)

    • California Attorney General. “University of Phoenix to Pay $4.5 Million Over Deceptive Military Recruiting” (2024)

    Source link

  • VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

    VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

    DENTON, Texas, Aug. 28, 2025 — The University of North Texas system confirmed that it has lifted its “pause” on drag performances across its campuses, in response to a demand letter from civil liberties organizations informing the school that it was violating its students’ First Amendment rights.

    On March 28, UNT System Chancellor Michael Williams issued a system-wide directive announcing an immediate “pause” on drag performances on campus. Williams’ directive came days after a similar drag ban from the Texas A&M University System was blocked by a federal judge following a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

    On Aug. 14, FIRE and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas sent a letter informing Williams that his “pause” violated the Constitution for the same reasons.

    “UNT cannot justify banning an entire class of protected expression from campus performance venues on the basis that such expression might cause offense,” the letter read. “In the same way that some people may not appreciate UNT allowing students, staff, or visitors to engage in prayer on campus or wear t-shirts supporting rival universities, the fear that such speech may be ‘offensive’ to some is not a constitutionally permissible reason to ban it.”

    Yesterday, the UNT Office of General Counsel responded to the FIRE/ACLU-TX letter and announced that in light of a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocking yet another drag ban in Texas — this time at West Texas A&M University — “the UNT System’s temporary pause on drag performances has ended.”

    “If campus officials can silence expression simply because some find it ‘offensive,’ no one’s speech will be safe,” said FIRE Strategic Campaigns Counsel Amanda Nordstrom “Today it’s drag shows, but tomorrow it could be political rallies, art exhibits, or even bake sales. From West Texas to North Texas and any direction you look, the message is clear: drag is protected expression, and the show must go on.”

    “UNT repealed its drag ban following public backlash and legal pressure,” said ACLU of Texas Attorney Chloe Kempf. “As we and the courts have repeatedly made clear, banning drag is plainly unconstitutional. Drag is a cherished source of joy and liberation for the LGBTQIA+ community — and this reversal ensures students can once again freely express and celebrate their identities on campus.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas: [email protected]

    Source link

  • Ohio University to cut 11 academic programs to comply with new law

    Ohio University to cut 11 academic programs to comply with new law

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Ohio University plans to wind down 11 undergraduate programs and merge another 18 to comply with a new state law that sets minimum graduation thresholds. The university said Tuesday it would suspend admission to the programs upon receiving approval from the state higher education department. 
    • Signed in March, Ohio’s sweeping Advance Ohio Higher Education Act gave state colleges just months to determine which programs to cut. The law requires public institutions to eliminate any undergraduate program that issues fewer than five degrees annually over a three-year period.
    • At Ohio University, 36 programs fell below the allowed threshold. Along with the programs it plans to cut and merge, the university said it will request waivers to keep operating another seven.

    Dive Insight:

    With the passage of the new legislation, also known as SB 1, Ohio lawmakers made deep inroads into the academic operations of public colleges, asserting new state controls over decisions historically left to faculty and administrators. 

    The law bans diversity, equity and inclusion training, requires post-tenure review, prohibits full-time faculty from striking and even requires certain questions in student evaluations of professors. 

    SB 1 also created a policy that could wipe out dozens or even hundreds of academic programs if the experience of Ohio’s neighboring state is any gauge. 

    In Indiana, a similar policy with programmatic graduation thresholds — inserted into the most recent state budget bill — has already put 75 degree programs on the chopping block. The state’s public colleges also moved to suspend another 101 programs and consolidate 232.

    As in Ohio, Indiana state colleges only had months to review their portfolios for cuts. That created uncertainty for many. 

    “Even tenured faculty are wondering, am I going to have a job in two months?” one faculty governance leader in Indiana told local media, describing “chaos and confusion” on campus. 

    At Ohio University, many programs slated to end have parallel programs that will continue. For example, the university is on track to suspend bachelor’s of arts degrees in chemistry, geological sciences, mathematics and physics, but it will continue offering bachelor’s of science degrees in those topics.

    Students currently enrolled in affected programs will be able to complete their degrees, the university said.

    Meanwhile, the institution is planning curricular changes to merge 18 programs with similar or overlapping degrees, most of them in the visual and performing and liberal arts such as instrumental music and several geography majors. 

    Ohio University requested waivers to keep open seven other programs, even though they fell below the thresholds. The institution said the degrees are unique, have undergone curriculum changes or meet workforce needs, the institution said.

    Earlier this year, the University of Toledo also announced it was suspending admissions to nine programs to comply with SB 1. 

    Some students in Ohio are protesting SB 1’s overall and widespread impacts on campuses in the state. A petition launched by the Ohio Student Association asserts that “students have lost not only programs, centers, and scholarships — but also the sense of community and support that made higher education in Ohio accessible, inclusive, and excellent.”

    The petition urged administrators at state colleges “not to overcomply with SB 1 — to act in the interest of students rather than in fear of the legislature,” adding that “institutional overcompliance furthers a broader political movement that seeks to erase the progress made toward justice in higher education.”

    The group called on campus stakeholders to wear black in protest of the bill and its impacts.

    Source link

  • George Mason University leader rebukes Trump administration’s apology demand

    George Mason University leader rebukes Trump administration’s apology demand

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

    George Mason University President Gregory Washington’s lawyer on Monday firmly repudiated the Trump administration’s allegations that the public Virginia institution had violated civil rights law.

    Last week, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleged that George Mason’s hiring and promotion practices violated Title VI, which bans federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. An agency official singled out Washington as the leader of a “university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race,” and the department demanded that he apologize.

    In an 11-page letter to the college’s governing board sent on Washington’s behalf, his attorney Douglas Gansler called OCR’s allegations “a legal fiction,” and stressed that George Mason’s leadership has kept the university in compliance with federal law. “Far from needing to apologize, you all have a shared record to be proud of,” he wrote.

    Since July, the Trump administration has opened at least four investigations into George Mason, targeting the large research institution over universitywide diversity initiatives, of which Washington has been a champion.

    The Education Department’s findings came just six weeks after the agency opened the investigation, citing a complaint from “multiple professors at GMU” alleging that the university’s leaders had approved policies illegally giving certain underrepresented groups preferential treatment since 2020.

    Gansler called out the brief length of the agency’s investigation and said OCR’s letter shows that federal officials “have not spent sufficient time finding critical and materials facts.”

    “It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and ‘findings’ have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process, including only two interviews with university academic deans,” Gansler wrote.

    Since January, George Mason has renamed its diversity, equity and inclusion center and cut or restructured DEI-related positions to comply with federal directives, he also noted.

    The Education Department’s announcement last week focused much of its ire on Washington, alleging the university president’s prior statements were proof of “support for racial preferencing.”

    But some of the department’s evidence was out-of-context or “gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington” that didn’t lead to policy changes, Gansler wrote. And one contested policy would have predated Washington’s tenure, he argued.

    In one example, the Education Department quoted a 2021 statement from Washington on adopting an inclusive hiring framework.

    “If you have two candidates who are both ‘above the bar’ in terms of requirements for a position, but one adds to your diversity and the other does not, then why couldn’t that candidate be better, even if that candidate may not have better credentials than the other candidate?” Washington said at the time.

    Gansler said the quote was pulled out of context and never resulted in a policy being enacted.

    “His question was just that: a question, offered to provoke dialogue within the university community, as should be expected of a faculty member and academic leader of a university,” the attorney wrote. “The question does not suggest hiring minority candidates of lesser credentials, but rather considering how two equally qualified candidates may contribute differently to the campus.”

    He added that Washington is not directly involved in evaluating candidates for faculty positions and that OCR would be unable to cite “any discriminatory hiring decision made based on it.”

    It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and “findings” have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process.

    Douglas Gansler

    Attorney for George Mason University President Gregory Washington

    The Education Department gave George Mason 10 days to voluntarily agree to a proposal it said would resolve the alleged violations. Part of that proposal would require Washington to publicly apologize to the university community “for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes.”

    In response, Gansler advised George Mason’s trustees against agreeing to the Education Department’s demand for an apology.

    Source link

  • University of Florida Hires Interim President

    University of Florida Hires Interim President

    After months of uncertainty over who will lead the University of Florida, the Board of Trustees tapped Donald Landry as interim president in a unanimous vote at a meeting Monday morning.

    Landry, chair emeritus of the Department of Medicine at Columbia University, will replace outgoing interim president Kent Fuchs, whose contract ends on Sept. 1. The appointment comes after the Florida Board of Governors rejected Santa Ono as UF’s next leader in June over his past support of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, despite the university’s trustees approving the hire.

    Landry, who is currently president of the American Academy of Sciences and Letters, will officially step into the job on Sept. 1, pending successful contract negotiations. Details of Landry’s contract have not been released, but Ono was set to make about $3 million annually.

    The interim hire will still need to be approved by the state’s Board of Governors.

    UF’s New Leader

    In a public hourlong interview during Monday’s board meeting, Landry promised that UF would be “neutral” under his leadership. However, he added a caveat.

    “A neutral university, paradoxically, in this nation at the moment would be a conservative university. Not espousing conservative values, certainly not indoctrinating in conservatism,” Landry said. “We’d be neutral. We wouldn’t choose sides.”

    Landry also criticized Columbia faculty and administrators for failing to respond to concerns about antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian student protests last year. Last month the university reached a settlement with the federal government that included sweeping reforms to academic programs, speech and disciplinary policies, as well as a $221 million payout.

    “I saw things at Columbia that suggested an alignment between some faculty and students that I think encouraged the students to do things that were more reckless,” Landry told UF’s board.

    At another point, when asked about DEI, he said when it “first emerged it was a bit vague what it actually meant” but “by the time it crystallized it was clear [DEI] had gone too far.” Landry added that he was thankful the “government has intervened and returned us to a rational meritocracy.”

    Landry also cast himself as someone who resisted DEI at Columbia when it was “being implemented widely at every level, from the very top down to the smallest unit,” adding that “the Department of Medicine never wavered in its commitment to excellence” in his time there. Landry vowed to uphold state laws barring spending on DEI at Florida’s public institutions.

    A physician by training, Landry has degrees from Lafayette College, Harvard University and Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Landry the Presidential Citizens Medal for his work on stem cell research, which used embryos that did not survive in vitro fertilization. Bush lauded Landry as a man of science and faith, crediting his approach to stem cell research. Landry was also on the President’s Council on Bioethics during the Bush administration.

    Landry has also brought his scientific training to bear on other political debates. In early 2024, he filed a brief in a Supreme Court case in support of former Florida attorney general Ashley Moody and Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, who were sued by a technology trade group over laws passed in both states seeking to limit content moderation on social media platforms. Landry expressed concerns about censoring alternative perspectives, arguing that “the danger of censoring scientific dissent is painfully apparent from the conduct of social media platforms during the COVID-19 crisis,” which “reinforced prevailing opinion and allied government policy by suppressing dissent on a host of scientific questions.”

    SCOTUS ultimately remanded the case to the lower courts.

    Landry has also praised Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health and an epidemiologist who was skeptical of the dangers of COVID-19 and prevention measures such as stay-at-home orders. Last year Landry said that Bhattacharya refused “to compromise his scientific findings,” thus risking “his own personal and professional self-interest, repeatedly, without hesitation, to take a stand for the public’s right to unrestricted scientific discussion and debate.”

    ‘A Great Selection’

    UF Board of Trustees chair Mori Hosseini emphasized Landry’s scientific background in a news release announcing the hire, stating the new interim president “has shown exceptional leadership in academia and beyond, building programs with innovation, energy and integrity.”

    Chris Rufo, the conservative anti-DEI activist who helped tank Ono’s chances at the UF presidency through an online campaign highlighting his past statements, praised the hire.

    “Dr. Landry is a principled leader who will reverse ideological capture and restore truth-seeking within the institution. Kudos to the UF board of trustees on a great selection,” Rufo wrote on social media.

    Alan Levine, a member of the Florida Board of Governors who voted against hiring Ono, also praised the selection in a post on X, calling Landry “an excellent choice” for the UF interim presidency.

    Landry is expected to serve as interim president while UF begins a national search for its next leader. The university has been without a permanent president since former Republican senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska abruptly resigned from the job shortly before a spending scandal emerged.

    Source link

  • Cornell University plans to restructure later this year amid federal funding declines

    Cornell University plans to restructure later this year amid federal funding declines

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Cornell University leaders expect to begin restructuring the institution’s operations and workforce in phases beginning late this year and continuing into 2026.
    • In a community update Friday, senior leaders echoed a June message warning of job cuts. “Reducing costs will mean reconsidering how we handle all of our processes, from procurement to technology, and rethinking, in fundamental ways, how we allocate our resources,” they said Friday. “It will also, inevitably, mean reducing our workforce.”
    • The officials cited inflation, historical staff growth, contractions in federal funding, “significant legal and regulatory expenses,” and “an uncertain and unprecedented federal landscape.”

    Dive Insight:

    In June, the same group of Cornell leaders — President Michael Kotlikoff, Provost Kavita Bala, Chief Financial Officer Chris Cowen and Provost for Medical Affairs Robert Harrington — told the university community that disruption in the higher education world would “require financial austerity.”

    “The spring semester was unlike anything ever seen in higher education, with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research contracts at Cornell terminated or frozen, and serious threats to future research funding, federal financial aid, medical reimbursement, and research cost recovery, along with an anticipated tax on our endowment income, and rapidly escalating legal expenses,” they wrote at the time. 

    The June message also brought news of a hiring freeze. On Friday, the leaders said hiring restrictions would continue “indefinitely” with “rare exceptions” determined by campus committees. 

    Cornell was among the 60 institutions that the Trump administration warned in March could face potential sanctions over allegations related to antisemitism. 

    In April, the administration reportedly froze $1 billion in federal research funding for the university. Administrators said then that they hadn’t received official word from the government about the frozen funds but were hit with dozens of stop-work orders on grant projects. This summer, Bloomberg reported that Cornell was nearing a deal with the Trump administration to restore grant funding that could involve a $100 million payment. 

    Even before the Trump administration’s actions, Cornell faced budget pressure from rising expenses. For fiscal 2024, the Ivy League institution posted a $175.5 million operating deficit, compared to $23 million surplus the year before. 

    Cornell’s senior leaders said that to save costs, the university is looking to consolidate operations where it can, seeking “new efficiencies and reducing duplication of work.” And while part of the university’s tradition, its decentralized structure is also a source of significant administrative inefficiencies, they added.

    “Part of our task is identifying opportunities to scale and regularize our academic support systems across units with unique characteristics and needs without compromising our institutional excellence,” they said. 

    That means centralizing operations that are duplicated across colleges and units, which will ultimately lead to a smaller workforce, leaders said. They didn’t note whether those losses would be primarily through layoffs, buyouts, attrition or other means. 

    Cornell didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. 

    The leaders said they expect to complete an analysis and planning process around the university’s operations this fall. 

    “These changes will be difficult for our community but are vital for our future,” they added, describing the steps they are taking as “necessary to ensure that Cornell pursues its academic mission sustainably for generations to come.”

    Source link

  • Sharpton Calls for March on Wall Street, Warns of ‘Giants’ in Fiery Howard University Sermon

    Sharpton Calls for March on Wall Street, Warns of ‘Giants’ in Fiery Howard University Sermon

    The gospel choir’s voices echoed through Cramton Auditorium, their blue and white robes swaying as they filled Howard University’s historic venue with spiritual melodies. Just a week after classes resumed at the prestigious HBCU, Rev. Al Sharpton took the stage to deliver a sermon that was equal parts spiritual guidance and a political rallying cry.

    Reverend Al Sharpton meets with Howard University students ahead of Thursday’s March on Wall Street. Speaking to a packed auditorium days before the August 28th anniversary of the historic 1963 March on Washington, the National Action Network founder urged the Howard community to “stand up to the giants” of inequality and injustice while announcing a bold strategic shift for this year’s commemoration.

    Rather than gathering in the nation’s capital this year, Sharpton announced that thousands of demonstrators—including college students from across the country—will converge on New York’s financial district this Thursday for a March on Wall Street, starting at 10 a.m. at the African Burial Ground and marching directly to Wall Street.

    “The real people that are deferring the dream are on Wall Street,” Sharpton told the audience. “They’re the ones that are financing the moves for redistricting and robbing us of our right to vote and representation. So rather than come to Washington, we said, ‘We going to Wall Street this year, where they do business.’”

    Using the biblical story of David facing Goliath as his central theme, Sharpton challenged the congregation to confront contemporary challenges with biblical courage.

    The prominent civil rights leader was particularly pointed in his political criticism of President Donald J. Trump and his attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion and U.S. cities led by Black mayors.

    Sharpton delivered some of his harshest criticism when addressing attempts to sanitize American history, particularly regarding slavery. He expressed outrage at what he described as efforts to downplay historical injustices.

    “The fact that they are threatening institutions,” Sharpton said, his voice rising. “Can you imagine? It’s almost unthinkable to me that they’re saying that we are going through the Smithsonian Museum to make sure that they are in line with the feelings of one man at history.”

    Sharpton said that he was incensed by suggestions that historical narratives should be altered and he chided the president who claimed that the museums focus too much on “how bad slavery was.”  

    In one of the sermon’s most powerful moments, Sharpton shared his family’s connection to slavery, describing how genealogical research in 2007 revealed that his great-grandfather had been enslaved on a South Carolina plantation owned by the late Senator Strom Thurmond’s ancestors.

    “My great grandfather was a slave,” he told the audience. “And it occurred to me for the first time that my name Sharpton is really the owner’s name of my great grandfather. I don’t know my name, and you don’t know your name.”

    Now, Sharpton added, is the time for Americans—particularly students—to fight back against the assault on history. 

    “If we are afraid to stand up, then we are not deserving of those that stood up and gave their lives so we could have a life worth living,” he said.

    Howard University students, led by senior Tabia J. Lee, president of the school’s National Action Network chapter, will bring a delegation to participate in Thursday’s march. The student involvement, she said, represents Sharpton’s challenge that young people take a broader leadership role in today’s social justice movements.

    Howard students noted that Sharpton’s visit to campus came as Howard University faces its own transition, with Dr. Ben Vinson announcing his resignation last week as president and former president Dr. Wayne A.I. Frederick returning to lead the storied institution on an interim basis.

    Throughout the nearly hour-long address, Sharpton wove together themes of personal faith, historical memory, and political action. He reminded the audience of their ancestors’ resilience.

    “Do you know when they walked off that plantation in 1863? After being in slavery 246 years, they had no money because they worked for no wages. They had no education; it was against the law for them to read or write… All you had is God.”

    The March on Wall Street, he said, represents more than just a protest location change—it’s a strategic pivot toward confronting economic inequality at its source. And he challenged the college students to take their stand.  

    “Do you know in ’63 when they marched here in Washington? They were still segregated. They didn’t have the Civil Rights Act until ’64. People rode the bus all night, had chicken sandwiches in a paper bag, because there wasn’t a restaurant that would serve them on the way. Had to go in the woods to use the bathroom because they couldn’t use a rest stop, but they came anyhow,” he said. “And here you are, 60 years later, eating at any restaurant you want, checking into any hotel you want, living in any community you want, and somebody got to beg you to stand up? How broke down have we got?”

     

    Source link