Tag: Universitys

  • English language requirements under the microscope: Do you have what it takes to meet your university’s English language entry requirements for international students?

    English language requirements under the microscope: Do you have what it takes to meet your university’s English language entry requirements for international students?

    • By Tamsin Thomas, Senior Strategic Engagement Manager, Duolingo English Test.

    The English language proficiency of international students is once again under the microscope. Heightened scrutiny is being driven by media coverage of international admissions, including The Times and BBC Radio 4’s File on 4, as well as the new immigration white paper. The Home Office is currently tendering for an English test for immigration purposes and has also undertaken a review of university English testing arrangements.

    There are growing questions about how UK universities assess English proficiency, which tests are accepted, and what governance arrangements are in place to ensure that students have the level of English they need to succeed. These are valid and necessary discussions.

    But it’s also true that much of the debate is happening without lived experience. Most contributors to this conversation — from media commentators to admissions professionals and policymakers — have never sat a high-stakes English language test themselves, certainly not as an entry requirement for studying in another country. That gap matters.

    How Do International Students Currently Meet English Language Requirements?

    UK universities have built robust and nuanced systems for assessing English proficiency, shaped by decades of global engagement. These typically fall into three broad categories:

    • Secondary school qualifications: Many countries offer high school-level English that meets UK university entry standards. For example, iGCSEs, the IB, Hong Kong’s HKDSE, or Germany’s Abitur are often accepted without additional testing.
    • Standardised English proficiency tests: Many international students – especially those from countries where English is not the primary language of instruction – take tests like IELTS, TOEFL, or the Duolingo English Test (DET) in addition to their school diplomas.
    • Evidence of prior study in English: If a student has completed at least three years of education in English at the tertiary level, this can meet requirements under a “Medium of Instruction” policy.

    In countries like India and Nigeria, the situation is more complex. Both operate parallel education systems – some in English, others in regional languages. Students with strong English scores in the Indian Standard XII (CBSE, ISC) or the West African WAEC are often accepted without further testing. Graduates of other boards may need to take a test.

    These frameworks are diverse by design – reflecting the deep, often country-specific, relationships and expertise UK universities have developed over time.

    While the media sometimes focuses on the small minority of international students whose English may fall short, it’s worth remembering that perfection is not the benchmark. Most international students meet entry requirements – and universities have systems in place to support language development throughout the degree. After all, only a small percentage of UK students get a Grade 9 in GCSE English, and developing academic English skills is part of what universities train students to do. Language proficiency exists on a spectrum – the question isn’t whether students are fluent on entry, but whether they have the foundation to succeed.

    What Happens When a New Test Enters the Market?

    As a relatively new entrant to this space, the Duolingo English Test – now accepted by over 40 UK universities – has seen firsthand how institutions evaluate and onboard new tests.

    Typically, the process reflects a practical need to expand the range of tests, paired with a careful scrutiny process – usually via committee:

    • Recruitment teams identify a test that meets student demand or addresses market access barriers.
    • Admissions teams assess delivery method, validity, and the external evidence base.
    • English-language colleagues evaluate whether the test provides evidence that students can succeed academically on campus.
    • Compliance teams consider immigration implications and policy compatibility – is the test secure?

    Tests are often accepted provisionally, with performance tracked for one to two years, however long it takes to build up enough data to make an informed decision. Institutions benchmark outcomes against long-accepted credentials: Do the score thresholds align, and are there heightened compliance risks?

    The process is rarely quick, but it is thorough.

    What Does Good Governance Look Like?

    While most UK universities use similar criteria for test evaluation, governance structures vary. In some institutions, decisions sit with dedicated English policy working groups; in others, with international admissions committees. Sometimes responsibility is split between professional services and academics. In others, it’s entirely devolved to professional services.

    This variation isn’t necessarily a problem but it does mean there’s no single ‘sector-wide’ process for evaluating or monitoring English tests.

    As an online test provider, one gap that has always seemed under-discussed is the practical reality of actually taking a test. If you’re a student in Afghanistan, where crossing borders is difficult and test centres don’t operate, how are you supposed to prove your English proficiency? If you’re a mobility-impaired test taker in a country without inclusive building regulations, how do you sit a test at all? The global distribution of test centres is far from comprehensive.

    Join the Conversation — Enter the DET University Challenge

    Here’s the challenge: put yourself in an international student’s shoes. Could you meet your own university’s English language entry requirements?

    The DET University Challenge 2025 invites UK university staff – whether English is their first language or not – to sit an English proficiency test similar to those taken by millions of international students each year.

    The Challenge offers a practical, engaging way for staff to experience a process usually reserved for students. It’s a prompt for reflection – and yes, maybe a little fun along the way.

    At a time when English requirements are under increasing public, political, and policy scrutiny, there’s real value in taking a closer look at the systems we rely on – and at how they feel from the other side.

    So: do you have what it takes to meet your university’s English language entry requirements?

    The DET University Challenge is open until 31 May 2025 with participants able to win up to £5,000 in prize money for their university or a designated Higher Education access charity. Terms and conditions apply.

    Source link

  • How I Lost Faith in My University’s Mission (opinion)

    How I Lost Faith in My University’s Mission (opinion)

    I am currently chair of the philosophy department at the University of Utah. I have taught at “the U” for 32 years. We are a flagship but not an elite university; we admit 89 percent of applicants. Our students range from quite unprepared to extremely capable. For the most part, I have loved my job and have put my heart and soul into it. I have always been proud to be on this faculty helping students at all levels of academic readiness acquire skills in reading, writing, speaking and reasoning that enhance their lives and prepare them for virtually any job. But recently, my pride has evaporated and been replaced with feelings of grief and shame.

    This year—my first as chair—has seen profound upheaval. In January 2024, shortly before my term began, the State Legislature passed an anti-DEI bill, prohibiting, among other things, offices and programs related to diversity, equity or inclusion. Administrators were required to purge these three words from university websites and other documents, such as RPT—retention, promotion and tenure review—guidelines, and the university administration interpreted the law as requiring that the Women’s Resource Center, the Black Cultural Center and the LGBT Resource Center be shuttered.

    The state has also imposed a “bathroom bill” requiring trans university students to use locker rooms aligning with their sex assigned at birth, has banned Pride flags in public spaces (and in faculty offices if they can be seen through a window), and now requires faculty to post their syllabi in a publicly searchable database. It also prohibits university presidents from taking a stand on any issue that does not bear upon the “mission, role or pedagogical objectives” of the institution. And finally, as the coup de grâce for academic freedom and faculty expertise, it has funded and established the Center for Civic Excellence at Utah State University, mandating that all students take general education courses on the topics of Western civilization and the rise of Christianity. The law establishing the center identifies it as a pilot program to be rolled out to other Utah universities in the future.

    Then there is the state of Utah’s version of the national campaign against alleged “waste, fraud and abuse.” Recently passed laws dictate the process by which all post-tenure reviews of faculty must be conducted, curtail shared governance and cut state funds to all Utah public institutions by 10 percent ($60.5 million). Universities can have the funds “reallocated” if they use them for high-demand, high-wage majors. As a result, we lost our History and Philosophy of Science major, which drew some of our best students, many of them double majoring in STEM subjects and working toward careers in medicine and public health. To be clear, eliminating this major will reduce opportunities for students while producing no savings whatsoever; offering it requires no additional staff, advisers or courses beyond what is already in place for our philosophy major. These funding cuts also mean that tenure-line faculty in my department will receive a zero percent raise this year.

    In addition to the state’s actions, the upper administration—in seeming alignment with Facebook’s motto of “move fast and break things”—has instituted so many changes in such a short time it is hard to keep track. It abruptly revamped the advising system, brought four colleges under the umbrella of a Colleges and Schools of Liberal Arts and Sciences in a “shared services” arrangement, and keeps rolling out new “student success initiatives.” Whether these changes are wise or not, the pace at which they were made imposed a crushing amount of (mostly stultifying) work on deans and department chairs. Aside from refereeing a few manuscripts for journals, I have not read a piece of philosophy since I became chair, much less written one. In the midst of this, the dean of my college, a strong supporter of philosophy, resigned in the middle of the fall semester and was replaced by someone from outside our college, essentially putting us in receivership.

    While all this is happening, my youngest child, who is queer, is deciding where to attend college. He applied to the University of Utah, where he was admitted to the Honors College and received a scholarship. But how can I send him here? I fear for his safety no matter where he lives in our current hate-filled political climate, but still I hesitate to subject him to the environment on my own campus. I will likely incur a hefty bill, then, so he can attend a university out of state.

    I had more or less come to terms with this constraint, and was also managing to persevere in my job, when something happened that finally took the wind out of my sails: The president of the university announced, to the surprise of faculty, that returned missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be eligible to receive up to 12 college credits for their service to the church.

    I am galled by what all this says about who matters at my university. While students like my child can’t even have a designated room on campus to hang out in with like-minded others—and while the main symbol reminding us of the existence and dignity of students like him is banned from public spaces—returned LDS missionaries, who have an entire institute across from campus dedicated to their spiritual support, can get a full semester of credit, at a greatly reduced cost, essentially for going door to door trying to persuade people to join their church. This set of priorities is so wrong-headed that it verges, for me, on surreal. And yet the administration sees no irony or hypocrisy in naming its Office of Student Experience “U Belong.”

    Soon I will be hosting a retirement party for a wonderful colleague who joined the faculty one year before I did. In another era, I would have been sad to see him go but glad to be continuing in what I regard as my vocation. Now I feel nothing but envy. It is time for me, too, to retire, but, alas, that is not an option, because I have four years of out-of-state tuition to pay.

    Cynthia Stark is a professor and chair of the philosophy department at the University of Utah.

    Source link

  • Trump administration suspends dozens of Princeton University’s research grants

    Trump administration suspends dozens of Princeton University’s research grants

    Federal agencies have suspended “several dozen” federal research grants to Princeton University, the Ivy League institution announced Tuesday. The move comes as the Trump administration attacks high-profile colleges over campus antisemitism allegations.

    Multiple agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA, notified the university of the freezes on Monday and Tuesday, Princeton President Chris Eisgruber said in a community message. 

    He noted that “the full rationale” for the agencies’ cancellation wasn’t clear yet but stated the university will comply with the law and is “committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and we will cooperate with the government in combating antisemitism.”

    He added that Princeton would at the same time “vigorously defend academic freedom and the due process rights.”

    A reporter for The Daily Caller, a conservative outlet, reported late Monday that the Trump administration was pausing $210 million in funding to Princeton amid an ongoing campus antisemitism investigation. 

    The Education Department on Tuesday did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation of the pause.

    Like many college campuses, Princeton saw significant protest activity last spring, including a hunger strike, an encampment lasting three weeks and over a dozen arrests. During that time, the Biden administration opened an investigation into the university after a complaint was filed by a conservative activist, who filed more than 30 similar complaints at U.S. educational institutions.

    In March, the U.S. Department of Education under President Donald Trump named Princeton as one of 60 institutions that could face enforcement action over unaddressed antisemitism, though the agency didn’t specify any specific civil rights law violations. 

    The suspension of Princeton’s research grants is just the most recent of the Trump administration’s escalating financial attacks on colleges and the higher education sector. 

    On Monday, the administration announced it was reviewing billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts at Harvard University, another well-known institution mentioned on the Education Department’s March list. 

    Those moves come less than a month after the Trump administration canceled $400 million in research funding to Columbia University. 

    The Ivy League institution ceded to many of the government’s demands — including by adding three dozen security officers and appointing a senior vice provost to review its regional studies program. Late last month, the Trump administration called it “a positive first step in the university maintaining a financial relationship with the United States government.”

    Following the weeks of turmoil at the university, Columbia Interim President Katrina Armstrong stepped down late last week after less than eight months.

    Source link

  • Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

    Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

    Columbia University’s interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, resigned on Friday, just days after the university made significant concessions to the Trump administration in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal research funding. Armstrong’s resignation follows a tumultuous period for the institution, already reeling from the departure of her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, in August 2024.

    Armstrong, who had stepped into the role of interim president during a time of political and social unrest, faced mounting pressure over the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian student activism, which sparked national controversy and calls for accountability from political leaders, including former President Donald Trump and his administration. Armstrong’s resignation marks the latest chapter in a series of leadership shifts at Columbia as it navigates the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding campus protests.

     

    Effective immediately, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, has been appointed acting president. David J. Greenwald, chair of the Board of Trustees, praised Armstrong for her dedication to the university, acknowledging her hard work during a time of “great uncertainty.” Greenwald’s statement highlighted Armstrong’s contributions to the university, saying, “Katrina has always given her heart and soul to Columbia. We appreciate her service and look forward to her continued contributions to the University.” Armstrong, who will return to lead the Irving Medical Center, had taken on the interim presidency in a period marked by increasing tensions on campus over political activism and its fallout.

    Political Pressure and Concessions to the Trump Administration

    The resignation comes amid significant political pressure, as the Trump administration imposed a set of demands on Columbia in exchange for the release of crucial federal funding. Earlier this month, the administration presented the university with nine conditions to restore the $400 million in research grants that had been frozen over accusations of antisemitism linked to campus protests.

    In an effort to regain the funding, Columbia conceded to these demands, which included a ban on students wearing masks to conceal their identities during protests, except for religious or health reasons. Additionally, Columbia agreed to hire 36 new campus security officers with the authority to arrest students involved in protests. The university also committed to increasing institutional oversight by appointing a new senior vice provost to monitor the university’s Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.

    Perhaps most notably, Columbia pledged to adopt a stance of “greater institutional neutrality,” a policy that the university said would be implemented after working with a faculty committee. The decision was seen as an attempt to quell political tensions while navigating the contentious issues surrounding student activism.

    A Leadership Crisis at Columbia University

    Armstrong’s resignation follows the departure of Minouche Shafik, who faced widespread criticism for her handling of campus protests against the war in Gaza. Under Shafik’s leadership, Columbia became a focal point of national debates about free speech, activism, and the role of universities in responding to global conflicts. Shafik ultimately resigned after facing intense scrutiny for her handling of the protests and the occupation of an academic building by students, an incident that ended with NYPD officers forcibly removing the students.

    In Armstrong’s case, her tenure was similarly marred by controversies surrounding the university’s response to the growing political activism on campus. The university’s handling of pro-Palestinian protests, particularly those related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, led to calls for stronger action from political figures, especially within the Republican Party. Armstrong’s decision to oversee negotiations with the Trump administration over the university’s federal funding placed her at the center of a storm of political and social unrest, further intensifying the pressure on her leadership.

    Columbia’s Future Amidst Political Turmoil

    The resignation of Armstrong is a significant moment for Columbia, as the institution grapples with the broader implications of political activism within academia and the increasing role of government in shaping university policies. As the university enters another phase of leadership instability, the question remains: how will the next president balance the competing demands of activism, free speech, and political pressures from outside forces?

    Columbia’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and increase security measures reflects the complex and polarized environment that universities are navigating in today’s political climate. The growing influence of political figures like Trump and the scrutiny placed on universities over their responses to student protests signal a new era for higher education, one where the lines between campus activism and political power are increasingly blurred.

    As the search for a permanent president continues, Columbia University will need to chart a course that both addresses the concerns of its diverse student body and faculty while navigating the external pressures that have shaped the university’s recent trajectory. The role of universities in fostering open dialogue, supporting activism, and protecting the rights of students will likely continue to be a central issue in higher education for years to come.

    Conclusion

    The resignation of Katrina Armstrong adds to a growing list of university presidents who have faced intense political pressure and scrutiny over campus activism, particularly surrounding Middle Eastern and global conflicts. Columbia’s next steps will be crucial not only for the future of the institution but also as a bellwether for how universities across the country navigate the increasingly complex landscape of political activism, academic freedom, and government intervention. The institution’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the role of higher education in a polarized society.

    Source link

  • NC State Alumnus Kevin Howell Named University’s 15th Chancellor

    NC State Alumnus Kevin Howell Named University’s 15th Chancellor

    Kevin HowellThe University of North Carolina Board of Governors has elected Kevin Howell as North Carolina State University’s 15th chancellor, marking a historic appointment as the first chancellor to have also served as the university’s student body president.

    Howell, who will assume the role on May 5, will succeed Chancellor Randy Woodson, who is retiring in June after 15 years of leadership.

    UNC System President Peter Hans recommended Howell following a national search that attracted more than 75 candidates.

    “Kevin Howell is a born leader with a long record of service to North Carolina, the UNC System and NC State University,” Hans said. “His deep relationships across the state have helped drive investment and growth. I am confident that he will strengthen NC State’s role as a frontier research university, keeping North Carolina competitive in the most important fields of our future.”

    Howell currently serves as chief external affairs officer at UNC Health. His previous experience includes various leadership positions at NC State, including vice chancellor for external affairs, partnerships and economic development from 2018 to 2023. He also worked as assistant to the chancellor for external affairs from 2006 to 2016 and has held interim roles in university advancement and alumni affairs.

    From 2016 to 2018, Howell served as senior vice president for external affairs at the UNC System Office. His government experience includes working as a legislative liaison to two former governors, along with roles at the NC Bar Association and Jefferson-Pilot Financial Insurance Company. He began his career as a legal clerk at the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

    “This university shaped my life in profound and generous ways, and I am honored for the chance to lead my alma mater,” Howell said. “NC State is a brilliant and inspiring place, just like the state we serve. There are exciting days ahead for the Pack, and I’m ready to make a difference.”

    A native of Cleveland County, Howell earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from NC State, where he represented students on the university’s Board of Trustees as student body president. He later received his law degree from the University of North Carolina School of Law.

    Ed Stack, vice chair of the NC State Board of Trustees and chair of the chancellor search advisory committee, praised the selection. “Among an impressive group of candidates, he stood out as the strongest choice. Kevin truly exemplifies the university’s ‘think and do’ spirit – especially in driving economic development and improving the lives of North Carolinians,” said Stack.

    Ed Weisiger, chair of the NC State Board of Trustees and a member of the search committee, highlighted Howell’s relationship-building skills, calling him “a trusted partner to those he leads and those with whom he interacts and works.”

    UNC Board of Governors Chair Wendy Murphy said that she is confident that Howell “will steward university resources, build industry relationships and lead the institution to even greater success.”

    Source link

  • Central European University’s Complicated Legal Geographies – GlobalHigherEd

    Central European University’s Complicated Legal Geographies – GlobalHigherEd

    Please note that an edited version of this is available on Inside Higher Ed – this version is more easily shared and printed, if so desired.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    As has been reported widely, including in Inside Higher Ed, Central European University (CEU) (registered officially under the names Central European University and Közép-európai Egyetem, KEE) is facing some major challenges regarding its future existence. The 4 April 2017 legislative move by the government led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was widely condemned by CEU, as well as by numerous parties across Europe and North America. As the European University Association, with 850 members across 47 countries (serving 17 million students), put it in a press release:

    EUA is extremely shocked and deeply concerned by the decision taken on 4 April 2017 by the Hungarian Parliament to adopt the recently proposed amendments to the Hungarian Education Law, targeting the Central European University.

    The bill was passed apparently without taking into consideration the many statements of support from politicians and academics underlining the important achievements of the Central European University in the past 25 years.

    Should this amendment be signed off in law, it will make further operations of the CEU in Hungary almost impossible. CEU is a long-standing EUA member and the Association stands by its colleagues and friends, willing to help them in any way as this process moves forward.

    In Budapest, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of the Embassy of the United States to Budapest, David Kostelancik, issued the following statement:

    The United States is disappointed by the accelerated passage of legislation targeting Central European University, despite the serious concerns raised by the United States, by hundreds of local and international organizations and institutions, and by thousands of Hungarians who value academic freedom and the many important contributions by Central European University to Hungary.

    The Central European University is a successful and prestigious American-Hungarian institution and has been an important component of the U.S.-Hungarian relationship for 26 years.  The United States will continue to advocate for its independence and unhindered operation in Hungary.

    In the United States, Leon Botstein (President, Bard College), Carol Christ (Provost and Chancellor-designate, University of California at Berkeley) & Jonathan Cole, Professor and former Provost, Columbia University) had this to say in the Washington Post:

    If we allow CEU to be controlled exclusively by the Hungarian government and lose its international status and autonomy, all universities in Hungary will suffer. For this to take place within the European Union is unthinkable. It will set a precedent that will prevent higher education from flourishing. Take away a university’s right to select its students and the most qualified faculty, contest the received wisdom of our time, be a critical voice against existing social and economic arrangements, and you no longer have a free university in a democratic society. The purging of the basic features of academic freedom at CEU would create a wasteland out of a fertile intellectual soil. Hungary would no longer attract great faculty minds, nor would exceptional students from around the world want to come to Hungary to learn. There is therefore much to be lost if CEU is forced to defend academic principles of freedom by becoming a university in exile.

    The legislation proposed by the Orban government has implications far beyond Hungary. Governments with authoritarian tendencies that stoke intolerant nationalist sentiments tighten their grip by repressing the freedom of universities, suppressing a press committed to free expression and violating the autonomy of its legal systems. Many of us have been there before — Europe under fascism, the United States during the McCarthy period.

    It’s worth noting that Cole is author of The Great American University: Its Rise To Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected (Public Affairs, 2009), one of the seminal texts about state-society-economy conditions and associated policies and programs that enabled U.S. universities to become world-class producers of scaleable high-impact knowledge.
    CEU itself released a series of detailed responses in rapid fashion, while doing an exemplary job of disseminating their views in two languages (Hungarian and English) in a highly sophisticated, professional, and honest way. [as a close observer of how universities communicate amidst crises, I think CEU has now set the crisis ‘comms’ standard universities worldwide should strive to match – it will be difficult, I assure you!]
    Reactions to the legislative news are still rippling across Hungary, Europe, the United States (including because the CEU is accredited by Middle States Commission on Higher Education and holds an “absolute charter” from the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, “for and on behalf of the New York State Education Department)”, and North America more broadly (given that the CEU president equivalent is Michael Ignatieff, a well know Canadian public intellectual and former candidate for prime minister in 2011).

    The ‘what’s next’ stage for CEU is filled with considerable uncertainty. Will this legislation be vetoed like those who filled the streets late on 4 April hope?

    Or will CEU be forced to close given that operating conditions under this new legislation generate some very challenging demands and discriminatory provisions, as designed by a government antagonistic to all things associated with George Soros (CEU’s founder). These demands and discriminatory provisions include:
    1. Violation of the rules on the legislative process
    2. Violation of the freedom of academic research, studies and education
    3. New requirement to conclude a binding international agreement
    4. New requirement for foreign higher education institutions to provide higher education programs in their country of origin
    5. New provision terminating the current structure of cooperation between the US (CEU) and the Hungarian university (Közép-európai Egyetem)
    6. New provision requiring CEU to change its name
    7. Insufficient time ensured by the law to prepare for compliance with its new provisions

    Central European University’s Complicated Legal Geographies

    Several of the above demands and provisions unsettle, deeply, CEU’s place in the national, regional (European) and global higher education landscapes. Items 3-7, for example, will require engagement between the national governments in Hungary and the USA via a formal “binding international agreement,” which will defacto provide the Hungarian Government the right to approve or rescind the agreement with little to no justification. The Hungarian Government will also require international universities (in this case the CEU) to open a branch campus in “their country of origin” (the United States in the CEU case). Finally, the new legislation creates conditions where the Hungarian Government will force the termination of “license-programs” for higher education institutions having their seat in OECD vs member states (i.e. the United States). As CEU put it to Hungary’s Members of Parliament on 3 April:

    KEE, the Hungarian university, could no longer deliver the programs of the American university as it is allowed to do under Section 77 (4) of the HEA, as Hungarian universities could only deliver programs of European universities and not of countries from the OECD. Based on this current Section 77 (4) of the HEA, CEU operates in Hungary through the Hungarian University and the Hungarian University issues the CEU’s (U.S.) diplomas on behalf of CEU. The proposed new Section 77 (4) does not include the OECD countries (such as the United States of America) anymore. Consequently CEU would not be able to offer U.S. academic programs through KEE.

    If these harsh new conditions are not met, “CEU would be banned from enrolling new students after Jan. 1, 2018, and would have to conclude its educational activities by 2021.”
    Given the above, it’s no surprise the #IstandwithCEU Twitter hashtag has gone global apart from in Murdoch papers: an innovative and highly ranked university’s future is at serious risk. And why? Because PM Orbán’s government has successfully reworked and made far harsher the legal geographies that CEU needs to navigate to exist, let alone thrive. The Government has upgraded it’s governing power over CEU’s operating conditions, thereby reducing the university’s autonomy, as well as making its capacity to succeed subject to many more factors, decision-makers, and structural contexts (including demand for educational services in the deeply saturated NY/US higher education market).
    The power-politics dimension of these reworked legal geographies is worth considering. As Renáta Uitz, Chair of the Comparative Constitutional Law Program,of CEU put it in Verfassungsblog (5 April):

    As for the conditions themselves, the idea that foreign universities can only operate in Hungary based on an international agreement deserves special attention. This condition in and of itself introduces the sovereign to the picture with its might and doubles its weight. It is not only that the sovereign sets a condition, but it also takes the sovereign’s benevolence for a foreign university to be able to meet this condition. If the Hungarian government were not in the mood to compromise with a foreign government on the principles of establishing a university, this statutory condition cannot be met by the organization to which it applies.

    Furthermore, a last minute rider to the bill further specified this requirement: for federal entities the Hungarian government is expected to conclude an international agreement with the federal unit in which the university had been accredited, based on the prior approval of the respective federal government. Now, in case such a legal construct (i.e. a state-level treaty with prior federal consent) does not exist in the foreign jurisdiction in question, the condition for the operation of a foreign university set by Hungarian law simply cannot be met. [my emphasis]

    The challenges CEU faces have multiplied in two weeks to include those of political, fiscal, regulatory, organizational, and mission-related natures. And while CEU has been, as noted above, very assertive in analyzing and communicating about these challenges, I’d like to leave readers of this blog entry with several questions to ponder.

    First, what are European universities, funding councils, organizations (incl the EU), and national political leaders, really doing to help resolve this matter. I’ve been following this debate since it erupted in late March, and have been struck by the relatively more assertive (and immediate) public representations made by the US and Canadian governments, including Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of the Embassy of the United States to Budapest David Kostelancik.

    There are clear signs that EU representatives and key national political leaders (esp Chancellor Angela Merkel) are finally speaking up. But given that the Hungarian Ambassador to Washington is being recalled over her handling of the communications side of this higher education bill, that, according to the Hungarian Government:

    “The election of the Trump administration means that Hungarian diplomats must pursue new political and economic duties,” Tamás Menczer, the foreign ministry’s press officer, told Magyar Hírlap.

    and that David Kostelancik is an Obama-era appointment, time is tight to put pressure on and shape the bilateral Hungary-US government relationship about this issue (recognizing, though, that US states vs the federal government have authority over higher education institutions). In short, what European-scale solutions exist to resolve this crisis? Enacting Article 7 of the European Union Treaty, perhaps given the attack on CEU but also in association with other human rights related transgressions?

    Second, what will supportive people, programs, departments, universities, organizations do to help support CEU once the flurry of news about this crisis recedes from view, as it will. As we’ve learned here in Wisconsin, higher education-related crises generate plenty of good will at first (people associated with universities are easily stirred, after all), though months and years later the petitions and letters are but distant memories; mere data for someone’s PhD dissertation, a New York Times Magazine article (with spectacular photos of Budapest slipped in), etc.

    Third, and on a related note, while the hope is that this harsh legislation will be revoked, what will happen if it is not? Plenty of people on social media platforms have flagged attempts to welcome CEU to other cities in Eastern Europe (e.g., Prague). But, instead, are any universities in the US thinking about how they might be able to help CEU establish, quickly, a US-based branch campus? Bridging typically takes 1-2 years and it takes a full 4-5 years to establish a purpose-built campus. For example, are relevant National Resource Centers (NRCs) based at US universities discussing this issue? While NRC staff and faculty are, no doubt, consumed with the Trump budget proposal, including developing provisional lay-off plans if things fall apart this year, there may be a creative way to host a CEU campus if the future of Central European University (and Közép-európai Egyetem) depends upon it. Indeed, it might be a vehicle to develop a win-win solution in the era of aggressive nationalism, Orbán/Trump style.

    Kris Olds



    Source link