Higher Education News

Analysis finds increase in white supremacist propaganda on college campuses

Inside HigherEd - Wed, 03/06/2019 - 08:00

Even as college administrators denounce (and in some cases ban) white supremacists who come to campus to anonymously distribute their literature, these outsiders are still doing it with greater frequency, a new analysis shows.

The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism tracked and verified 319 incidents of white nationalist propaganda at more than 200 college and university campuses in 2018.

This was about a 9 percent increase from 2017, when ADL recorded 292 on-campus incidents.

Generally, the postings are being done by white nationalists who are unaffiliated with the university in any way. While the ADL said that the campus trend is concerning and white supremacist activities are not likely to slow any time soon, the more significant increase in their efforts is away from colleges. White nationalist literature was documented 868 times off campuses in 2018 versus 129 incidents recorded in 2017.

The ADL attributes the only modest rise on campus compared to off campus to the attempts by college police forces to stop white nationalists from trespassing.

“That’s the key to campus safety for any measure,” said Carla Hill, a senior investigative researcher with the Center on Extremism. “I think warning these people -- don’t come back on campus -- who want to put their hate on the campus is the key.”

Hill, who helped create the new report, said that neo-Nazi group Identity Evropa was responsible for the bulk of the incidents.

Founded in 2016 and deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Identity Evropa spreads its white nationalist message by sneaking literature onto college campuses with its logo -- a triangle with three triangles in the middle -- and slogans such as “you will not replace us,” coined by its founder, Nathan Damigo.

Its members will typically take a picture of where they hung an Identity Evropa poster and then post the photo online. When students find these posters on campus, many fear that Nazi sympathizers are at their college, and many report feeling hurt or scared by materials, even if they later learn the hate wasn't posted by someone on campus.

“They are trying to change the conversation on campus,” Hill said. “They view campuses as liberal bastions, and they want to change that and put in their perspective on these campuses and what they think will influence the campus.”

Identity Evropa's presence has grown significantly -- its mission, according to executive director Patrick Casey, is to "take over the GOP as much as possible," he told NBC News last year.

Hill said that she estimates the group has ballooned to about 500 members nationwide, with about a third of them being “active” -- going onto campuses to flier. Other times, usually off campus, Identity Evropa supporters will gather for a “flash demonstration,” a brief, unannounced rally around white supremacist causes that quickly disbands.

Ever since the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, the white supremacist protest that resulted in the death of a woman and that Identity Evropa helped orchestrate, many of its members operate in secret, Hill said.

Following the Charlottesville riots, where white supremacists were openly photographed, many of them were “doxed” -- the practice of leaking personal and identifying information online, Hill said. Some of the white nationalist protesters were fired from their jobs or ostracized by their families, Hill said, leading many to take their activities underground.

If white nationalists such as members of Identity Evropa appear publicly, they often conceal themselves -- wearing masks or making sure they’re not spotted if they tread onto campuses, Hill said. Online, they’ll take up pseudonyms or -- if they’re broadcasting -- use a podcast and not a video, she said. The group offers “behind-the-scenes” roles for those who might be at risk for being fired, Hill said.

Hill emphasized how police can curb their activities -- and administrators can take steps, too.

Last year, the University of Virginia barred Jason Kessler, a white nationalist who led the Unite the Right rally, from the grounds, citing the fact that he “threatened the health and safety of the community.” This was done only after pressure from the campus, however -- students complained that he was allowed to walk the property and use the facilities.

The group Patriot Front also contributed to incidents on college campuses last year, though their efforts have largely moved away from colleges, Hill said. She said that as of Sunday, she has documented 66 incidents on campuses this year.

Editorial Tags: DiscriminationRacial groupsIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 

Colleges award tenure

Inside HigherEd - Wed, 03/06/2019 - 08:00

Colorado College

  • Krista D. Fish, anthropology
  • Santiago Ivan Guerra, Southwest studies
  • Dennis McEnnerney, philosophy
  • Dylan Sutton Nelson, film and media studies
  • Manya Whitaker, education

Denison University

  • Isabelle Choquet, modern languages
  • Xiao Jiang, economics
  • May Mei, mathematics and computer science
  • Yvonne-Marie Mokam, modern languages
  • Heather Pool, political science
  • Charles St-Georges, modern languages
  • Joanna Tague, history

Oakton Community College

  • Stephanie Levi-Blumer, biology
  • Anika Jones, anthropology and sociology
  • Toni Maglione-Solans, nursing
  • Pamela Pedersen, nursing
  • Clarence Sistrunk, computer networking and systems/computer information systems

St. Norbert College

  • Raquel Cowell, psychology
  • Kathleen Gallagher Elkins, theology and religious studies
  • Ryan King, biology
  • Katie Ries, art

Trinity Christian College

  • Bethany Keeley-Jonker, communication arts
  • Jeffrey Nyhoff, computer science
  • Abbie Schrotenboer, biology

University of St. Thomas, in Minnesota

  • Ryan Bremner, psychology
  • Erica Diehn, management
  • Yu Gao, accounting
  • Karen Howard, music
  • Erika Kidd, Catholic studies
  • Michael Klein, justice and peace studies
  • Jeni McDermott, geology
  • Salvatore Pane, English
  • Thomas Shepard, engineering
  • Jessica Siegel, psychology
  • Donny Vigil, modern and classical languages
  • Susanne Wagner, modern and classical languages
  • Robin Whitebird, social work
  • Jeong Ho You, engineering
  • Laura Zebuhr, English
  • Kari Zimmerman, history

Willamette University

  • Romana Autrey, management
  • Stephanie DeGooyer, English
  • Andrew Kach, management
  • Vincent Pham, civic communication and media
  • Qiming Wang, management
Editorial Tags: Tenure listIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: College: Colorado CollegeDenison UniversityOakton Community CollegeSt. Norbert CollegeTrinity Christian CollegeUniversity of St. ThomasWillamette University

Major survey shows professors worry about discrimination but aren't prepared to deal with classroom conflicts over diversity

Inside HigherEd - Tue, 03/05/2019 - 08:00

Discrimination is a source of stress for many faculty members, especially women and ethnic minorities. And most professors say they’re not prepared to deal with diversity-related conflict in their own classrooms. So finds a new report from the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The institute publishes its survey of undergraduate teaching every three years, with this report covering 2016-17. The publication is a data trove on the faculty experience and includes additional information on professors' satisfaction with salary and benefits and mentoring students and other professors.

Teaching issues ground the survey. In response to a new set of questions this year, for example, most professors across disciplines said it is their responsibility to promote students’ ability to write effectively and to prepare them for future jobs and advanced education. But just about one-quarter of respondents said they strongly believe they should provide for students’ emotional development.

There’s additional information on faculty politics. And contrary to how they’re often portrayed in popular culture, professors aren’t all liberal. In fact, relatively fewer professors self-identified that way in this survey than in years past.

The institute weights professors' responses to most questions to get a nationally representative sample. Most results are based on responses from 20,771 full-time faculty members who teach undergraduates at 143 four-year colleges and universities. This includes tenured, tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty members.

Discrimination Concerns

Women were more likely than men to feel that workplace discrimination is at least somewhat a source of stress (36 percent versus 18 percent), with the largest gender gaps seen at public universities. At those institutions, 19 percent of men and 43 percent of women said they’re stressed about bias.

Also unsurprisingly, white faculty members were less likely to report this kind of stress -- some 22 percent of these respondents versus about half of black and Latino professors and 31 percent of Asians. Non-Asian and nonwhite men reported higher rates of bias-related stress than do white women. More than half of female professors of color considered discrimination a somewhat or extensive source of stress.

Source: Higher Education Research Institute

By field and institution type, women in the sciences, technology, engineering and math were most stressed over discrimination.

Asked about their perception of institutional priorities, including commitments to fostering positive climates, 65 percent of professors said their institutions valued development of community. Those at private institutions were most likely to believe that their campuses valued community engagement between students and faculty members.

Regarding recruitment and treatment of women and professors of color, half of respondents said that their institutions placed a high value on promoting gender diversity in the faculty and administration. Some 56 percent of respondents said their institutions prioritized promoting racial and ethnic diversity within the faculty and administration. Whites and Asians were more likely than their colleagues of different ethnicities to say this, however. Just 35 percent of Native Americans and 43 percent of black professors said this, for example.

Over all, some 77 percent of respondents said that women were treated fairly at their institutions. Men (84 percent) were much more likely than women (69 percent) to hold that view.

While 79 percent of respondents believed that faculty members of color were treated fairly at their institutions, just 59 percent of Latino and 61 percent of black professors thought so.

What about the playing field for scholarship? “The peer-review culture and pressure to achieve excellence in the areas of teaching, research and service can foster feelings of uncertainty and doubt among some faculty regarding the adequacy of their productivity,” reads the report. Those “who feel such uneasiness may feel as though they need to work even harder to keep up with their seemingly highly productive colleagues.”

And these feelings “are often exacerbated among faculty from historically marginalized or vulnerable groups, including faculty of color, women and those without the protections of tenure,” according to the institute.

While some 51 percent of respondents said they needed to work harder than their colleagues to be perceived as a “legitimate” scholar, this varied considerably by demographic.

Among women, 61 percent believed they needed to work harder than their colleagues, compared to 44 percent of men. By ethnicity, some 72 percent of black, 71 percent of Asian and Latino, and 67 percent of Native American professors said they needed to work harder than their peers to gain this legitimacy. Just 47 percent of white professors said this.

“Almost without exception, rates of agreement among faculty of color, regardless of race, exceed the proportion of white male and female faculty who felt they needed to work harder than their colleagues to gain legitimacy,” the study says, addressing the importance of intersectional analysis.

Job security also played a role here, as did lack of clarity regarding the tenure and promotion process. Faculty members who experienced uncertainty at work were much more likely than the overall sample to think they need to work harder than their colleagues to be perceived as a legitimate scholar: three out of four faculty members reporting “extensive” stress associated with job security also indicated having a sense they needed to work harder than their colleagues. Compared to peers who reported having a clear understanding of the criteria used in promotion and tenure decisions, faculty members who lacked clarity there were 1.5 times as likely to feel compelled to work harder than their colleagues.

“The discrepancies suggest that clearly communicated signals from the campus concerning expectations about faculty productivity could go a long way in alleviating anxiety and helping faculty better calibrate self-assessments of their contributions to the department, discipline and institution,” reads the report.

This matters, in part, because believing it is necessary to work harder than peers can also contribute to higher stress levels, according to the institute. Professors who agreed either “somewhat” or “strongly” that they needed to work harder than their colleagues to be perceived as a legitimate scholar also reported experiencing “extensive” stress at higher rates than their colleagues who did not feel this pressure.

Over all, about one-quarter of respondents reported “extensive” stress due to increased responsibilities at work. One-third of professors who believed they needed to work harder than their colleagues reported having fewer than five hours on average each week of “personal time,” compared to 23 percent of respondents who didn’t.

“Although colleges and universities have made progress toward greater gender and racial diversity among their faculty, these findings make clear that the academy has significant work to do regarding equity and inclusion,” Kevin Eagan, director of the institute and assistant professor in the university's Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, said in a statement. “Any progress institutions have made with respect to enhancing the diversity of their faculty through hiring will be short-lived if women and faculty of color endure discriminatory departmental and institutional climates that serve as a major source of stress and potentially erode their ability to achieve work-life balance.”

As for pay, just 48 percent of faculty members in the survey were satisfied or very satisfied with the relative equity of their salary and job benefits. One-quarter were not satisfied. Professors at private institutions were most likely to be satisfied (60 percent). And faculty members whose principal activity is teaching were less likely to be satisfied than those whose principal activity is service to clients or patients, administration or research.

Satisfaction with relative equity of pay varied by demographics, as well. Some 44 percent of female professors were satisfied, compared to 52 percent of men. Multiracial (39 percent), Latino (40 percent), black and Asian (both 47 percent) professors were all less satisfied than their white peers (50 percent).

Looking at satisfaction by STEM affiliation, STEM faculty were more satisfied (53 percent) than their non-STEM peers (47 percent).

The survey includes questions about hours spent per week on different activities. Linking this to relative satisfaction with pay and benefits, researchers found that the level of satisfaction increased as the mean hours per week spent on teaching and preparing for teaching decreased. By contrast, as time spent on scholarly writing increased, so did the level of satisfaction with equity of pay and benefits.

Teaching, Mentoring and Conflicts in the Classroom

If discrimination and bias are major points of concern for many faculty members, most professors say they’re not prepared to deal with these kinds of conflicts in their classrooms.

In general, 27 percent of professors felt there was racial conflict at their institution, with women being more likely than men to agree. Some 43 percent of Latino and 39 percent of black professors agreed there was a lot of racial conflict on their campuses, however.

While 84 percent of professors said it was their role to enhance students’ knowledge of and appreciation for other racial and ethnic groups, less than half of professors felt they were prepared to deal with conflict over diversity issues in the classroom. More than two-thirds of Latino and 61 percent of black professors said that faculty members are unprepared for this kind of work.

Even so, 22 percent of professors reported using resources to integrate culturally competent practices in their teaching. Faculty members in engineering, math and agriculture were the least likely to consult these resources.

A survey module on mentoring was completed by 7,255 full-time professors at 56 institutions. In general, slightly more women and non-STEM professors scored higher on self-efficacy in mentoring, a composite measure of skills. Skills include providing mentees with constructive feedback, taking into account the biases and prejudices they bring to the mentor-mentee relationship, working effectively with mentees whose personal backgrounds differ from their own, and being an advocate for their mentees.

More than half of respondents said they’d participated in some type of training to be mentor, with STEM faculty (64 percent) being more likely to be trained than peers in other fields (55 percent). And training appeared to be effective, in that skills scores for those with training were significantly higher than for those without it.

Of the faculty who were currently mentoring undergraduate students, about one-fifth each mentor one or two students, three or four students, five to eight students, nine to 15 students, or 16 or more students. Professors in non-STEM fields reported mentoring more undergraduates, with 44 percent mentoring nine or more students, compared to 40 percent of STEM instructors.

Male and female faculty members reported mentoring about the same number of students. But women were more likely to rate the overall quality of their mentoring relationship with undergraduates as excellent (55 percent) compared to 50 percent of their male peers. At the same time, men were more likely to report that they engaged with their mentees weekly than were women. Beyond communication frequency, women were more likely than men to work on educational choices and strategies, explore career options, serve as role models, and convey empathy to their mentees.

Among graduate mentors, professors in non-STEM fields reported having more graduate student mentees than STEM professors did. Female faculty members in both STEM and non-STEM fields were slightly more likely to have more students than their male peers.

Some 33 percent of STEM women had at least five graduate student mentees, compared to 30 percent of STEM men. Some 44 percent of non-STEM women had at least five graduate mentees, compared to 38 percent of men.

In non-STEM fields, about 11 percent of men and 9 percent of women communicated with their graduate mentees daily. In STEM fields, about 20 of female professors and one-third of men communicated daily with their graduate mentees.

Male professors in STEM fields (67 percent) worked with their graduate mentees on their research projects and interests at higher rates than do female professors in STEM fields (50 percent).

Of the professors who completed the mentoring module, about one-third reported currently mentoring other faculty members. Some 46 percent reported having one faculty mentee, while 30 percent had two faculty mentees, 18 percent had three or four, and 6 percent had five or more.

Female professors were more likely than male faculty to have more than one faculty mentee (56 percent compared to 52 percent, respectively).

This year’s general survey asked some more specific questions than years past about faculty members’ ideas about their role in undergraduate learning. Some 73 percent of faculty strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to promote students’ ability to write effectively, but only about a quarter (27 percent) strongly believed they should provide for students’ emotional development.

Faculty members were also more likely to strongly agree that they should prepare students for employment after college (70 percent) and for graduate or advanced education (61 percent) than to encourage students to become agents of social change (37 percent) or develop students’ personal values (also 37 percent) and moral character (40 percent).

On diversity, 58 percent of faculty members strongly agree that it is their role to teach students tolerance and respect for different beliefs. Some 44 percent strongly agree that they should enhance students’ knowledge of and appreciation for other racial or ethnic groups.

Assistant professors tended to agree more with these diversity- and character-related goals than their tenured colleagues. Non-STEM faculty members were more likely to agree than their STEM peers that that they play a role in all these goals, except for preparing students for employment and advanced education.

Interestingly, and perhaps significant in an era of “fake news,” larger proportions of faculty reported increases in frequency on three items relating to habits of mind than in past iterations of the institute’s survey.

Seventy percent of faculty over all reported frequently encouraging students to evaluate the quality or reliability of information that they receive. Three years earlier, this was 59 percent.

About 73 percent of professors now frequently encourage students to seek solutions to problems and explain them to others, up five percentage points from the previous survey. And 56 percent of professors reported frequently encouraging students to recognize biases that affect their thinking, an increase of three percentage points from 2013-14.

What about underprepared students? Seventy-one percent of faculty members over all agreed somewhat or strongly that their institution takes responsibility for educating underprepared students. But faculty members at private universities and nonsectarian four-year colleges were slightly less likely to agree with this idea. Faculty members at public four-year colleges and Roman Catholic and other religious institutions were the most likely to agree.

Faculty members who were teaching remedial or developmental courses at survey time were more likely to agree that their institution takes responsibility for educating underprepared students. About 5 percent of professors over all were teaching remedial work, and they were more likely to say that students in theses classes lacked the basic skills for college-level work. Lecturers or instructors, not tenure-track respondents, were mostly likely to teach these classes. Math and other “technical” professors were more likely than their peers in other fields to be teaching these courses.

Outside the Classroom

On professional development, 69 percent of respondents said that there was adequate professional development for them. And, surprisingly, instructors were most likely to say this -- not their tenure-line peers. But just about half of professors participated in professional development within the previous year. Of those, 50 percent participated in teaching development. And one-quarter of those said they received incentives to develop new courses. Others received incentives for integrating technology into the classroom.

Other faculty members participated in professional development for research funding, including research skills development, grant-writing activities and writing internal grants.

Regarding their political views, less than 1 percent of faculty members identified as far right, 12 percent as conservative, 28 percent as “middle of the road” and 12 percent as far left. The biggest share -- 48 percent -- identified as liberal. That’s just about the share (49 percent) of faculty members who said this in 2013-14. And it’s actually less than the peak share -- 50 percent -- of faculty members who said they were liberal, in the 2010-11 administration of the survey.

Kiernan Mathews, executive director of the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, said the institute’s triennial monograph is always a “welcome arrival,” since its one of the few large-scale data sets about faculty available to researchers. The collaborative surveys faculty members, too, but the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty hasn’t been funded by Congress since 2004, he noted.

To that point, Mathews said that survey research projects like the institute’s collect “so much data, it becomes an important editorial choice to decide what to highlight.” The choices this time have several effects, he added. Some bring “long-hidden issues into the sunlight, like the potential effects of training mentors, and some raise critical questions about faculty blind spots, like the low proportions of white faculty who are aware of racial conflict on campus.”

"I hope that white faculty, in particular, take a hard look at these results and ask why their perceptions and experiences as faculty differ so much from those of their racially minoritized peers," Mathews said.

DiversityFacultyTeaching and LearningEditorial Tags: FacultyTeachingIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 1Diversity Newsletter publication date: Tuesday, March 5, 2019Advice Newsletter publication date: Thursday, March 7, 2019Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Email Teaser: Faculty Views on Diversity, Bias, MoreMagazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Faculty ViewsTrending order: 2

Southern Vermont College says it will shut its doors

Inside HigherEd - Tue, 03/05/2019 - 08:00

Southern Vermont College on Monday became the latest small New England college to announce that it is closing its doors.

President David Rees Evans said the decision came after the New England Commission of Higher Education in January caught college officials off guard with the news that it was considering withdrawing accreditation based on the college's finances. The college has spent years bouncing back from a pair of financial setbacks and has worked to trim a deficit that recently totaled $2 million.

The accreditation announcement prompted college officials to halt the search for new students “in the heart of recruitment season,” Evans said. While putting the brakes on recruitment was “the right thing to do,” he said, “What that did was effectively doom us.”

At its Jan. 25 meeting, NECHE voted to ask Southern Vermont to show cause why it shouldn’t be placed on probation or have its accreditation withdrawn. NECHE also said it would take up the matter at its Feb. 28 meeting, noting that the college risked not meeting its standard for institutional resources.

Evans said NECHE’s announcement forced the college to lower enrollment projections by 90 students, from 365 to 275. Southern Vermont currently enrolls 332 students, down from a peak of about 500 in 2012.

He said trustees, faculty members and other advisers, meeting on Feb. 22, decided that without a larger freshman class, they didn’t see “a financial way forward with the college,” the Bennington Banner reported. In a letter to campus, Evans said the board on Friday voted “with sincere regret” to close the college at the end of the spring semester. On Saturday, he said, the college received word that NECHE had indeed voted to withdraw its accreditation effective Aug. 31.

In an interview, Evans said the move to halt recruiting came out of fear that if Southern Vermont closed, it risked lawsuits from stranded and prospective students, much like Mount Ida College in Massachusetts, which closed suddenly last April and is the subject of a lawsuit, filed in November, by former students who alleged that college officials misrepresented how dire the college's finances were.

While NECHE officials had visited in October, Evans said, they postponed action on accreditation. Then, in January, officials said NECHE was considering action on Southern Vermont’s accreditation. “That was the first time they said anything about the possibility of withdrawing accreditation, which is to say the leadership team were pretty surprised by that, frankly,” he said.

Barbara Brittingham, NECHE’s president, said that while “individual actions” in the case may have caught Southern Vermont officials off guard, “the fact that the commission would be very concerned would not necessarily be a surprise.”

Evans said that in the wake of the Mount Ida closure, “I do think that the standard of scrutiny is changed.” Accreditors like NECHE are feeling pressure from states to raise an alarm before colleges’ finances reach a critical stage. “I think NECHE is frankly squeezed between [states] and the schools that they’re accrediting.”

For her part, Brittingham agreed. “I think there are higher expectations than in the past, and I think the commission feels that,” she said.

Susan Stitely, president of the Association of Vermont Independent Colleges, said accreditors like NECHE “do seem to be looking more closely at institutions, and it is kind of a catch-22 -- it raises alarm bells about the institution,” which can hasten its demise. Accreditors “have to do their job, but it creates problems for the institutions.”

She noted that another small Vermont college, the College of St. Joseph, faces a tight NECHE deadline to improve its finances or risk losing accreditation. Such arrangements may hold colleges accountable, but they can also hasten their closure.

“I understand they have to protect the students,” Stitely said of NECHE, “but it also causes some harm in advance, because people are more skeptical” of colleges once they're on call. “It’s a double-edged sword.”

‘New England Is in a Bad Way’

Evans on Monday said the feeling on the Southern Vermont campus was “a combination of anger and grief” over the closure news. “There was a lot of sorrow in the faculty and staff meeting,” he said. “Of the places where I’ve worked, this is by far the most mission-driven institution I’ve been part of.”

He said a 2012 accreditation dispute in the college’s nursing program saw enrollment decline by about 80 full-time students. Two years later, the program earned a new accreditation from the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, the Banner reported.

“I would stand by the quality of our nursing program now, which I think is exceptionally good,” Evans said. “That has all been fixed in the last six or seven years.”

But enrollment has taken longer to recover. “Because of the reputational issues, that sticks around,” he said.

Perhaps worse was the 2013 death by suicide of James Beckwith, the college's chief financial officer, who ended his life after federal authorities accused him of embezzling $850,000. He had served as interim president while then president Karen Gross was on leave. Evans has said the college ultimately lost as much as $1 million in the episode, despite an insurance settlement and restitution from Beckwith's estate.

But more broadly, the college, like most in New England, is suffering from a demographic dip that is seeing fewer students graduate from high school. “New England is in a bad way -- especially the rural parts of New England,” Evans said. Vermont’s high school population, which typically supplies about one-third of Southern Vermont's students, is “plummeting -- and we haven’t even hit the 2026 'baby bust' from the recession.”

While Southern Vermont has made efforts to broaden its recruitment area, bringing in athletes from California and Texas, for instance, “It hasn’t been enough to kind of fill in the gap.”

Those students are also harder to retain, for several reasons -- one of which is cold weather. “They come here and they encounter the New England winter, which lasts and lasts and lasts,” he said.

In addition to Mount Ida, several other regional colleges have announced that they’ll close or are facing financial crises.

Green Mountain College in nearby Poultney, Vt., announced in January that it will close at the end of the spring semester. Goddard College, also in Vermont, is in the process of shoring up its finances as part of a probation arrangement with NECHE.

Newbury College in Brookline, Mass., announced in December that it would close at the end of this academic year, after 56 years in the Boston area. Atlantic Union College, northwest of Boston, announced that it would close later this year. The college, affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, lost accreditation in 2011 and stopped operations for a time but reopened in 2015.

Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., said last month that it won’t admit a freshman class this fall -- it’s looking for a strategic partner to continue operating but has also announced layoffs.

Evans said Southern Vermont will work with students who need only a few classes or other requirements to graduate. He said the college has created a teach-out agreement with the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts and is working with other transfer partners, including Norwich University and Castleton University.

But Gross, who served as the college’s president from 2006 to 2014, said flatly, “I think it’s too early to have a funeral for Southern Vermont College. As Yogi Berra said, ‘It ain’t over till it’s over.’ And I think there are options and opportunities out there to save the college. And I appreciate that that sentiment may run counter to what’s being shared on campus -- and in fact I do not know what’s being shared on campus -- but from my perspective, it is too early to close the curtain, and I would encourage a swift effort to explore a myriad of opportunities that may exist.”

Gross, now a Washington-based author and educator, said episodes like the nursing accreditation and the 2013 embezzlement took their toll but should not have brought the college down. “They have long tails, but I am surprised, stunned and saddened by the quick demise of the college,” she said.

The sudden closure, she said, “is very sad for faculty and staff -- this is very sad for alums. This is very sad for donors. But the people that I care about most are the college’s students, many of whom are first-generation, Pell-eligible students who truly found an academic home -- those are the students I care about. Those are the students we need to protect, and those are the ones that are hurt when colleges like this close.”

She urged Southern Vermont “not to give up hope.”

NECHE’s Brittingham isn’t so sure. “Is there something that could come along and keep Southern Vermont College going?” she said. “It’s hard to think that’s a realistic possibility at this point.”

Enrollment Trends and Student LifeEditorial Tags: EnrollmentMergersMassachusettsVermontImage Caption: Southern Vermont CollegeIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Another ClosureTrending order: 1

University private jets may be practical, but are they worth the optics?

Inside HigherEd - Tue, 03/05/2019 - 08:00

As public university budgets come under increasing scrutiny, a handful of institutions are giving new meaning to the term "flying coach."

They're actually flying coaches, coaching staffs and sometimes coaches' families around the nation in taxpayer-subsidized airplanes. In other cases, the luxury seats are filled by top university officials on fund-raising trips that, universities say, more than pay for the flights.

Facing the need to cut $20 million from its budget, the University of Kansas is considering a plan to end direct public funding for its jet.

KU’s faculty has long sought the sale of the private Cessna Citation CJ4, a gift to the university and its athletic department.

The university calls the jet “an efficiency tool with a clear return on investment,” but from Kansas to South Carolina to Florida, Indiana and Ohio, the use of university-owned jets and other private aircraft -- often bestowed by wealthy donors -- proves a sore spot between university officials and budget-trimming lawmakers.

The plan to transfer KU’s jet to a “private entity,” first reported by the Lawrence Journal-World, would make it usable only on a fee-for-use basis, without a university subsidy -- much like a privately operated restaurant, university parking garage or apartment building. If KU officials want to use it, they’d need to pay via department funds.

But KU's proposed move could actually make the university's travel arrangements less transparent: when the Associated Press in 2017 asked the University of South Florida to release flight logs, spokeswoman Lara Wade declined, saying the logs didn't have to be released because USF's plane is owned by an outside company.

In an interview, KU Faculty Senate president Kirk McClure said the jet, which was donated to the university and Kansas Athletics Inc., “has been a matter of some difficulty for quite a while,” with taxpayers underwriting flights for university officials, most of them athletic coaches and their families on recruiting “junkets.”

The optics look bad, he said, with legislators publicly asking, “If you’re so damned poor, why do you have this luxurious jet?”

McClure noted that the athletic department, which enjoys gross revenues of $100 million per year, is one of the biggest users of the taxpayer-supported flights. “I don’t think it’s wise for us to be seen in that light,” he said.

Faculty have pushed the university to sell the jet “and get out of the aviation business,” he said, but since KU owns only part of it -- the athletic department owns the rest -- the university can’t sell it outright.

In a statement, KU said staff “make every effort to fly commercial -- and do most of the time. But as a research university with national interests, a Division I athletics program and a mission to serve all corners of Kansas, commercial flight is often inefficient or impossible. In these cases, private aviation is necessary. We monitor this resource closely, and we use it because it is an efficiency tool with a clear return on investment.”

KU said the plane is actually a moneymaker, with its $1.4 million annual public outlay “more than offset” by donations it facilitates. Last year, KU said, donors -- 40 percent of whom live outside Kansas -- gave $155 million. It didn't specify which donations were the result of flights in the Cessna.

The jet also "enhances our ability to partner with federal lawmakers, funding agency administrators and national groups like the Association of American Universities," KU said. "These partnerships are crucial to KU’s efforts to elevate our status as a research university and win research grants," totaling $230 million last year. It also supports KU’s Big 12 Conference membership, which is worth “millions of dollars.”

The university noted that all Big 12 universities -- and many public flagship universities in rural states -- have similar arrangements, either owning planes or chartering flights.

‘Drive -- Like the Rest of Us’

Efficiency tool or not, a private jet provides troublesome optics as universities like KU face tight budgets and are forced to shift a larger burden of costs onto families.

The Lawrence Journal-World, using open-records requests, reported that from 2010 to 2014, taxpayers spent $3.5 million flying coaches, administrators and others on some 641 trips, mostly on university-owned aircraft. The trips’ purpose: to recruit “top-notch professors, athletes, students and researchers,” as well to attend sports and academic meetings, funerals and donor events, both “in Kansas and nationwide.” Flights by KU coaches and athletic administrators accounted for $2.4 million, or about two-thirds of the total sum subsidized by taxpayers, the newspaper reported. The flights were largely for recruitment.

The flights typically cost significantly more than similar flights on commercial aircraft, but KU officials defended them as a smart use of public funds, since they allow more flexibility and efficiency. For example, then KU chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little flew on the KU jet from Lawrence, Kans., to Salina, Kans., in April 2014 for a speaking engagement. The cost: $3,714. The 138-mile drive would have taken just over two hours each way, but then spokesman Tim Caboni told the newspaper it didn’t make sense for the chancellor to be “driving down the turnpike for hours at a time.” He added, “I would imagine some folks would see that as wasteful. Anything that we can do to deploy her time effectively is a good thing.”

Similar questions have played out elsewhere. The AP in 2017 found that at least 20 public universities own or share ownership of planes for official business. Flight logs showed that the aircraft are also used for unrelated and sometimes personal business. AP found, for instance, that Ohio State University football coach Urban Meyer took 11 personal trips with his family in one academic year, including a vacation in Florida, a weekend getaway to Cape Cod and a spring break trip to South Carolina. The university picked up the total $120,000 tab.

AP also noted that Purdue University in 2016 sent a plane from Indianapolis to Providence, R.I., to fetch former NFL lineman Matt Light, an alumnus, for an athletics meeting. It flew him back as well, at a total cost of $15,000. A round-trip commercial flight would have cost less than $400.

At Iowa State University in 2016, then president Steven Leath, a pilot who finished his training while at the university, acknowledged that he used a small university-owned Cirrus SR22 for trips that mixed personal and university business. The arrangement came under public scrutiny after he damaged the plane during a hard landing. Leath later repaid Iowa State more than $36,000 for the damage and for the cost of the trips, The (Cedar Rapids) Gazette reported. The university, which bought the plane for $470,000 in 2014, sold it in 2017 for a $20,000 loss.

The Greenville News last June found that the University of South Carolina often counts on a prop-driven Beechcraft to ferry top officials around the region, a practice that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, more than the university would spend on commercial travel or other means for similar trips. The flights are paid for by student tuition and fees.

In one instance, the newspaper found, five university officials took a trip from Columbia, S.C., to Aiken, S.C., that lasted just 12 minutes -- 30 minutes shorter than driving -- but cost taxpayers $400, 11 times the cost of driving. The university said the plane costs $2,033.38 per hour to operate, including the costs of hangar rentals, parking fees, insurance, two pilots' combined $146,720 annual salaries, pilot training and maintenance.

In another instance, President Harris Pastides flew from Columbia to Kingstree, S.C., in February 2018. The 18-minute flight saved Pastides about an hour compared to driving the 80 mile one-way trip, but it cost $610. Driving would have cost just $51, the newspaper estimated.

An Inside Higher Ed analysis of USC flight logs found that university officials relied upon private flights 57 times during a three-month period last summer -- in August alone, the university logged 25 flights.

A USC spokesman has called the Beechcraft “the most efficient use of staff time,” but State Representative Kirkman Finlay, who sits on the panel that funds higher education, told the Greenville News that relying on a private airplane makes it hard for the university to make the case that students should take on debt to attend. Finlay suggested that university leaders “Drive -- like the rest of us.”

A university spokesman didn't respond to requests for comment but has said publicly that the plane pays for itself, since it allows officials to efficiently secure millions in funding.

Larry Evans, who pilots the university's second plane, dedicated solely to athletics-related travel, told the Greenville News, "It's a huge time-saver." Invoking the Columbia-to-Aiken interstate highway, he added, “Look at I-20. It's a mess.”

The second plane is paid for through the athletics budget, not from student tuition or fees.

University guidelines suggest that the student-funded plane is first and foremost a fund-raising tool. South Carolina’s faculty website encourages departments to use the plane “when traveling on official University of South Carolina business.” Their department won’t be charged for flights if they’re in search of research funding, development or other “fund-raising sources.”

Employees conducting university business that isn’t fund-raising, such as research or conference attendance, can also ride along at no cost -- but only if at least three of the eight seats are occupied by those chasing donations. “Additional representatives are strongly preferred,” the guidelines state, “each with a separate major gift or grant-related appointment.”

Image Caption: University of Kansas' Cessna Citation CJ4 jetIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: College: University of KansasUniversity of South Carolina

Author explores the history of dormitories in forthcoming book

Inside HigherEd - Tue, 03/05/2019 - 08:00

Beyond classrooms and laboratories, dormitories are where college students spend most of their time, and not just when they're sleeping. These spaces have a history that many overlook. Enter Carla Yanni, a professor of art history at Rutgers University, and her upcoming book Living on Campus: An Architectural History of the American Dormitory (University of Minnesota Press), in which she explores these dwellings as places crucial to the student experience and the development of campus architecture.

Yanni answered some questions about her book by email.

Q: You cite many examples of how dormitories were intentionally planned to exclude certain students. Can you give examples of when that occurred, and does this practice translate today? What lingering effects of that exclusion are present in contemporary designs?

A: One of the main questions for Living on Campus is a simple one: Why do American educators construct purpose-built structures that we call dormitories? Why have we believed for so long that housing students is essential to educating them? It is worth pointing out that the ancient universities of Europe did not house their students. (Oxford and Cambridge were the exception, not the rule.) Americans, on the other hand, think of college as a time to socialize -- to make friends and create a network that will reach long into the students’ futures.

Creating a network means including some people at the expense of others. Today we tend to think of the residence hall is a laboratory for diversity. We often imagine the dormitory is the place where students learn how to get along with all different kinds of people. A student’s college network can lead to jobs after college; that network can offer leverage for social mobility; it can affect who gets to participate in the American dream. In the past, sadly, diversity was the furthest thing from the minds of college officials. In fact, dorms introduced young men to other men like themselves. In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, housing policies openly enabled discrimination according to class and race.

Historians have learned so much about the troubled racial history of colonial colleges from Craig Steven Wilder’s Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery and the Troubled History of America's Universities (2013). At Rutgers, the book Scarlet and Black: Slavery and Dispossession in Rutgers History (edited by Marisa Fuentes and Deborah Gray White, with contributions from a team of history graduate students and others) reveals the extent to which Rutgers could only come into existence because of the work of enslaved and disenfranchised persons. Many colleges have done soul-searching work in this arena. What I’ve done in Living on Campus is add a spatial dimension to those new and important histories.

The dormitory is an intimate space, and so it is no surprise that residence halls were segregated by gender, but that intimacy is also why dorms were segregated by race. For example, although the classrooms at the University of Chicago were integrated from the college’s founding, in 1907, the university president forced a black Ph.D. student to move out of a women’s dorm. The deans of women defended her right to stay, but the president insisted she move off campus.

Another example of exclusivity is the all-female Martha Cook Building at the University of Michigan, a stunning English medieval revival building with a copy of the Venus de Milo gracing the hallway and a sculpture of the Shakespearean heroine Portia in the niche above the door. It was without a doubt the nicest dormitory at the University of Michigan, and one writer in Australia said it was the best example of a women’s dormitory in the world. However, it was not commissioned in order to further the educational advancement of the women who lived there. The donor stated that he did not want too many “A” students (he called them “bluestockings”) and he specifically objected to “the Orientals.” As he said, “It’s not the League of Nations.” His vision was to house only the “choicest American girls,” even if they were weak students. The Martha Cooke Building offered refinement for the already well-heeled. The donor even said it would civilize brutish young men with its architectural amenities.

On the other hand, there were radical attempts to be inclusive, such as the Adams and Tripp Halls at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. The deans who promoted them argued that dorms should be direct alternatives to the fraternities that dominated the social scene at UW. These quadrangles tried to bridge class differences. The completely enclosed square courtyard created an outdoor room. The quads were divided into small houses so that the boys would form family-like bonds. The publicity surrounding the opening of the halls suggested, “The son of the banker and the son of the farmer will find mutual understanding” in the warm glow of the lounge’s fireplace.

Q: Has the purpose of dormitories fundamentally changed since they were first introduced? How so and how many of these shifts have we seen?

A: Students have changed a lot, but residence halls not so much. In the 17th and 18th centuries, students were boys who needed moral guidance. For Victorian college presidents, architects and deans, the purpose of college was to impose morality on young people. Character counted as much as mathematics or classical literature. So the defining purpose of the American college was a moral one. In the late 19th century, women began attending college in large numbers. They were seen as vulnerable and in need of protection. As the psychological concept of the adolescent emerged around 1900, male college kids were encouraged to delay adulthood. In the 1950s, a lot of students were GIs eager to re-enter society. In the 1960s, students were members of a youth culture that administrators almost feared. Obviously, this mad dash through the centuries is overly simplified, but, to me, it is remarkable that although today’s students bear little resemblance to previous generations, the residence hall still thrives.

Q: What are a couple examples of dormitory experiment gone awry?

A: Personally, I like modernist architecture and I like skyscrapers, but even I think the Morrill and Lincoln Towers at the Ohio State University are confusing and disorienting. The architects and student deans were outspoken in their opposition to the long corridor, which was seen as institutional and dehumanizing. Together with the architects, they came up with a plan based on the hexagons of a honeycomb. They turned to a beehive for something more human.

Q: In your opinion, has the design of dormitories become more or less important when wooing students? Dormitories were designed with socialization in mind, as you show, but with curbside appeal being so important to students and their families, how much of a factor is this?

A: Residence halls are definitely more important today. Many prospective students have no idea what they want to major in, or they have only a generic idea about majoring in business or pre-med. For them, the comfort and convenience of their daily lives will guide their choice of college. I suppose if a young person wants to major in something very specific, like bowling industry management or nautical archaeology, he or she won’t be put off by masonry block dormitories, but most students care more about where they will live than what they will study. I was teaching a seminar on the history of higher education when the subject of recruitment came up. I asked my students, “How did you make sense of the recruitment materials from various colleges?” And a very bright honors student, a business major, answered, “You choose based on football and team spirit and the dorms, because, you know, the academics are all pretty much all the same.” At first, that was discouraging to hear, but at the same time his comment went right to heart of what Living on Campus is all about.

Q: What are some of your favorite examples of dormitories you unearthed in your research, both past and present?

A: I would not say it was my favorite, but a fraternity (now demolished) at Cornell from around 1900 was the most unexpected. Its plan closely resembled the phallic “House of Sexual Instruction,” an unbuilt project drawn by the French Revolution-era architect Claude-Nicolas Ledoux.

As for real favorites, the Harriet Tubman Quadrangle, a women’s dormitory, at Howard University, designed by leading African American architect Albert Cassell, is a gem. The dean of women, Lucy Diggs Slowe, carefully considered every aspect of the place and published essays on her theories. It is an excellent example of the 1920s quadrangle form. The ground floor included rooms for gracious entertaining -- a music room, a dining hall, comfortable lounges. Although it was a women’s dormitory, the downstairs was the social hub for the entire university. The upper floors included hallways with double rooms -- doubles not only saved money compared to singles, but also increased each individual student’s potential for making friends. You don’t have to take my word for it -- this was such a strong interpretation of the type that the national organization of deans of women (almost all of them white) visited the building shortly after it opened.

I know that many Yalies will disagree, but I think the massive and monumental Morse and Stiles College at Yale University by Eero Saarinen is a fantastically original take on the residential college. Instead of the traditional square quadrangle, Saarinen used an irregular street plan based on medieval towns, with richly textured concrete surfaces and a jagged silhouette. The interiors were originally too dark, but after a recent renovation by Philadelphia firm KieranTimberlake, it maintains its raw power.

I recently consulted with Princeton University about two new residential colleges, and their goals are much the same as the visionaries who put in place the colleges at Yale (and houses at Harvard) back in the 1920s. The residential college provides a sense of community within the larger university, it offers casual spaces (lounges and recreation rooms) for relaxation, it gives students a place to eat together, it makes it possible for a student to encounter faculty in an informal setting. As is typically the case in architectural history, a design does not cause any particular outcome; design only makes certain outcomes more or less likely. I can’t wait to see how these projects turn out. It’s always gratifying when my research (although deeply historical) is useful for practitioners today.

Editorial Tags: FacilitiesStudent lifeIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 

Colleges announce commencement speakers

Inside HigherEd - Tue, 03/05/2019 - 08:00
Editorial Tags: Commencement speakersIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 

New video shows exactly what was said during heated discussion at the annual gathering of classicists in January. Does it change anything?

Inside HigherEd - Mon, 03/04/2019 - 08:00

A video recording of a widely talked-about incident at the annual meeting of the Society for Classical Studies differs somewhat from firsthand accounts that prompted the organization to ban a member from the January gathering in San Diego.

But the classics society is standing by its initial response to Mary Frances Williams, an independent scholar who was accused of making a racist statement to Dan-el Padilla Peralta, an assistant professor of classics at Princeton University.

Numerous society members present at a January session on the future of classics reported at the time that Williams, an audience member, told Peralta, a panelist, that he got his faculty job because he is black. In response to these reports, Mary T. Boatwright, society president, announced that Williams was told she should no longer participate in the meeting. The society’s Board of Directors also released a statement decrying racist acts and speech, which was prompted in part by a separate incident of alleged racial profiling of scholars at the conference hotel.

Recently released video of the exchange between Williams and Peralta shows that Williams didn’t say Peralta got his job because he is black, however. Rather, she said, “You may have got your job because you’re black, but I would prefer to think you got your job because of merit.”

Still, the society said in a new statement that despite the “factual correction,” its leaders stand by their initial response, which was reviewed by its Professional Ethics Committee.

“We repeat here that the future of classical studies depends on expansion, inclusion and focused attention on and action to remedy the underrepresentation of people of color in classics,” it said.

Williams referred a request for comment about the video to a piece she published on Quillette called, “How I Was Kicked Out of the Society for Classical Studies Annual Meeting.”

Williams wrote that she’d attended the panel because it seemed like an “opportunity to raise some questions and obtain some answers about what was happening in the field.”

Saying that she disagreed with speakers' ideas about how to diversify the field, Williams wrote that she was “under stress and did not express myself as clearly as I might have done.” What she’d hoped to convey, in response to Peralta’s idea that white male authors should take a “back seat” in terms of publishing to allow for more diverse voices, was that “the principle he was advocating clearly didn’t apply to hiring decisions -- and nor should it -- because he had got his job on merit, not because he’s black,” she said.

Williams also said that she was banned from the rest of the meeting without being given an opportunity to defend herself. She sees her transgression as merely disagreeing with Peralta and other panelists.

In many ways, the debate echoes others that have roiled classics and other humanities fields in recent years. Williams represents the classical approach to classics -- teach it the way it's long been taught, inspired by Western ideals. Others, including Peralta, want to radically change the field to encourage new voices and, arguably, save it from extinction. This debate represents a real philosophical divide. But sometimes those on either side of it talk past each other, falsely assuming that to teach classics in new ways means not teaching the canon, or vice versa.

Peralta has previously written about the incident, arguing that he indeed should have been hired because he is black, as his personal experiences lend particular insights and value to his historically white field. He said via email over the weekend that the video “doesn't change anything: racist insinuation is still (you guessed it) racist insinuation.”

He called William’s “apologia” on Quillette “unimaginative” and said that he’d received messages from Williams’s supporters that are “textbook demonstrations of white supremacy's capacity to turn people into ghouls.” He also said that Williams continued to wrongly assume that panelists didn't teach some of the classic texts she was interested in preserving.

The apparent “desire to cling anxiously to classics as a staging ground for their whiteness is not one that I have any interest in accommodating,” Peralta added. “I want classics to become a renewable resource for the cultivation and furtherance of a radically inclusive and equitable future, not a sclerotic exercise in the dysfunctional erotics of a ‘white’ past.”

DiversityFacultyEditorial Tags: FacultyImage Source: YouTubeImage Caption: Mary Frances Williams, left, speaking at the annual meeting of the Society for Classical StudiesIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 4Diversity Newsletter publication date: Tuesday, March 5, 2019Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Email Teaser: Classics and RaceMagazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Video of Classics IncidentTrending order: 2College: Princeton University

Purdue University extends streaming website ban

Inside HigherEd - Mon, 03/04/2019 - 08:00

Purdue University students planning to use university Wi-Fi to watch videos, play games or listen to music will soon have to find a new way to stay awake during class.

When students return from spring break on March 18, they will find access to Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Steam, iTunes and Pandora blocked in all academic spaces on campus. System updates to Apple devices will also be barred.

Purdue tested blocking access to five streaming sites in four lecture halls at the beginning of fall semester 2018. The pilot program has run continuously since then and has been extended to more spaces on campus. The list of streaming sites that are banned has also grown.

Access to streaming sites over Wi-Fi in lecture halls, classrooms and labs across campus will now be restricted from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mondays through Fridays. Residence halls, hallways and other areas where students congregate will not be affected. Access to streaming services via computers with wired internet access also will not be affected. Students will continue to be able to access the streaming sites in lecture halls or anywhere on campus using their cellular data.

Mark Sonstein, executive director of IT infrastructure at Purdue, said the ban was not driven by a desire to get students to pay more attention in class, although some professors said they hoped this would be an added benefit. Rather, the move was taken to prevent students from hogging bandwidth that others need to do their work.

In some lecture halls, professors were finding that it was not possible for students to participate in online class activities because a few people were streaming videos, music or games in class, Sonstein said.

In an analysis conducted in 2016, the IT department determined that just 4 percent of internet traffic over the Wi-Fi network in the university's life science building was from academic sites such as Blackboard, the learning management system. Sonstein said before the streaming site ban was applied, Blackboard was 79th on the list of websites being most used over the lecture hall's Wi-Fi -- now it's in the top 10.

“We expected that we were going to get a massive amount of pushback, but that never came to fruition,” he said. “Students really didn’t seem to care. They know that they’re in a classroom to learn.”

Faculty feedback to the pilot has been positive, said Sonstein. “The only complaint we had was, ‘Why isn’t it in my classroom yet?’”

The limited bandwidth in lecture halls is not a symptom of budget issues; Sonstein said the university is currently undergoing a major refresh of its wireless network. There are 55,000 devices using the university’s wireless network at any one time, but only so many access points can be put in one location.

Putting an access point for every student in a lecture hall wouldn’t work, as the signals would start to cancel each other out, said Sonstein. Updating the Wi-Fi network from its current 2.4 Ghz frequency band to a faster 5 Ghz band would help to alleviate this issue, but around 20 percent of devices used on campus are not 5 Ghz band compatible. So the campus is sticking with the 2.4 Ghz band for now.

Steven Beaudoin, professor of chemical engineering and academic director of teaching and learning technology, said he was pleased to see the ban being extended across campus.

“Wi-Fi access hasn’t been a problem in any of my classes, but I know there are professors who’ve felt very frustrated when they’ve tried to pull up a resource and can’t access it.”

Beaudoin said he hasn’t noticed a significant change in his classes since the ban was introduced in his building last November. “I do a lot of active learning, so it’s hard to be in my class and not be involved in what’s happening,” he said.

He also hasn’t heard any complaints from students. He says they probably know it would be “difficult to win” an argument for having Netflix in class.

Sonstein knows there are many “smart students” at Purdue who may find workarounds to the ban, but he says there shouldn't be any problems as long as the majority of students stay off streaming sites. He noted there are legitimate academic reasons why students might need access to streaming services in class and the ban can be temporarily lifted on request by professors.

Kelly Blanchard, an economics lecturer at Purdue, said the ban has helped some students focus and pay more attention in class because they're no longer being distracted by classmates watching movies or playing games.

Such distractions are a key reason why some professors have decided to ban laptops in their classrooms altogether -- a subject of heated debate among academics.

Trevon Logan, a professor of economics at Ohio State University, decided to ban all electronics from his classroom last year and saw students' midterm grades improve significantly as a result. He said the ban also helped students focus and take better notes.

Logan was inspired to implement the ban after reading a New York Times op-ed by Susan Dynarski, professor of public policy, education and economics at the University of Michigan. Dynarski, who banned laptops from her classes, wrote that a "growing body of evidence shows that overall, college students learn less when they use computers or tablets during lectures."

Blanchard said she would not support banning laptops in her classroom altogether. Laptops enable her students to take "excellent notes," she said, and Purdue's streaming ban means students pay attention without losing their devices.

From the front of a large lecture hall, it's difficult to tell whether students are focused on what she's saying or teaching, said Blanchard. Students who are determined to watch movies in class could still do so -- just not over the lecture room Wi-Fi, she said.

Some of Blanchard's students have grumbled that it would be "nice to have the option" to access streaming services in class, she said. But no one has been particularly upset.

Blanchard did initially worry that the ban might have some effect on class attendance, but that has not been the case so far.

“I was somewhat concerned that if students couldn’t watch videos in class, they might just stay home and watch them there instead," she said.

TechnologyIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: College: Purdue University-Main Campus

Missouri professor who's accused of forcing graduate students to work at his home now accused of stealing a grad student's work

Inside HigherEd - Mon, 03/04/2019 - 08:00

The University of Missouri System’s Board of Curators is suing a former professor of pharmacy at the Kansas City campus and his wife for allegedly stealing intellectual property and making $1.5 million off of it to date through therapeutics companies.

The former professor, Ashim Mitra, is further accused of concealing his work with industry from the university and then lying about it during recent internal investigation.

Mitra already tendered his resignation, effective later this month, amid a university investigation into separate claims that he coerced foreign graduate students from India into doing yard work, taking care of his dog and other tasks.

Mitra has denied the claims against him. One of the companies named alongside him as a defendant in the IP case said the university’s complaint has “no merit” regarding its interests -- specifically a dry-eye drug.

As is increasingly common among universities, Missouri says that it owns the inventions of faculty and staff members made within the general scope of their employment (but not necessarily all profits). That’s despite the American Association of University Professors’ and other faculty advocates’ insistence that inventions are owned initially by their inventors.

These faculty advocates say that the ownership principle is clearly established in the Constitution and federal patent law, including a major 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a researcher at Stanford University working on HIV diagnostic tests.

Still, ownership of patent rights is a separate issue: those may be transferred in writing to another party. The AAUP does not oppose cost-sharing agreements when patents are commercialized. Missouri, like many institutions, offers such agreements.

There’s another issue in the Mitra suit besides employee versus university IP ownership: research theft. According to the new federal lawsuit, Mitra oversaw the work of a graduate student who formulated a new, highly effective way of delivering drugs to the eye, around 2011.

Mitra allegedly sold the graduate student’s research and related inventions to the pharmaceutical company Auven Therapeutics. Mitra and the company are then said to have patented the delivery formulation without crediting the graduate student and without notifying or involving the university.

Auven then allegedly sold the research rights for $40 million to the international conglomerate Sun Pharma. Based on “the groundbreaking nature” of the work, Sun Pharma used the inventions described in the related patents to successfully obtain federal approval to sell the formulation in a dry-eye drug, Cequa, with a promising and potentially lucrative corner on the dry-eye market.

Missouri is seeking to restore its “rightful ownership interest in” and “fair share of the proceeds” from this work. It wants the graduate student’s -- not Mitra’s -- name on all the IP paperwork, and a clear declaration that it is the de facto owner of it all as the student’s employer.

It also wants damages from Mitra and his wife, Ranjana Mitra, who also worked at the university, and their outside consulting service.

Auven, too, owes Missouri compensation for the "improper theft, use and commercialization of its valuable intellectual property, without its authorization," according to the lawsuit.

The university and its lawyers declined to comment.

The graduate student, Kishore Cholkar, previously told The Kansas City Star that Mitra refused to put his name on the patent, even though Mitra delayed Cholkar’s graduation so that he could finish the work.

“He says, ‘Do you want to graduate or do you want a patent?’” Cholkar said of Mitra, describing the statement as a threat to stop complaining.

Mitra did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But he told the Star that Cholkar wrote a paper on “other aspects” of the relevant formulation after his patent was submitted.

“It is clear to see that both him and [Missouri] are now trying to reap the benefits of the tireless work myself and others have put in to make this a success,” he said.

Auven knew that Mitra was a professor using university resources for his work and proceeded with their agreement anyway, according to the lawsuit. Its general counsel allegedly contacted Mitra in late 2011 seeking assurances that the “university permits this outside work and has no rights in IP created.”

Mitra allegedly replied that the project was part of his consulting company and signed a binding letter, generated by Auven, waiving the university’s rights to any IP. And Mitra simply placed the draft agreement on university letterhead and signed it, without consulting the university, Missouri says.

“Mitra did not have authority to sign the letter, to bind the university, or to otherwise waive the university’s rights to IP,” reads the lawsuit. Auven “knew that the letter presented a conflict of interest” because Mitra stood to gain financially.

Mitra is poised to collect millions more dollars from the deal. The university recently said that it will pursue a profit-sharing agreeing with Cholkar if its case succeeds, the Star reported.

A spokesperson for Auven said via email that the company “regards universities doing basic and clinical research as valued partners.”

There is “no merit” to Missouri’s complaints as they relate to Auven and its commercial partner on the dry-eye Cequa product, she said. “The university reached out to us in regard to this matter, and we look forward to engaging constructively with them.”

FacultyEditorial Tags: FacultyGraduate studentsIntellectual propertyLegal issuesTeachingImage Caption: Ashim MitraIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: College: University of Missouri-Kansas City

Argosy students lose out as millions of dollars in federal aid goes missing

Inside HigherEd - Mon, 03/04/2019 - 08:00

Argosy University has failed to distribute nearly $16.3 million in federal aid to thousands of its students.

And chances are the students won’t get the money, according to financial aid and education experts.

The unusual problem escalated last week, when the U.S. Department of Education suspended Argosy and some Art Institutes campuses, which are owned by the nonprofit Dream Center Education Holdings, from receiving federal aid. The department also denied Argosy’s request to change its tax status to nonprofit.

“I am a third-year law student and should be worrying about studying for the California bar exam instead of worrying about financial woes like this,” Demis Camacho, a student attending Western State College of Law at Argosy University, said in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Students are growing more worried as another day passes without financial aid.”

Camacho, like many of his peers, relies on financial aid stipends or refunds to help pay for his rent, food, transportation to class and other basic needs.

“The frustration with students keeps growing each day,” Camacho said. “More and more students are skipping class, and being on campus is a constant reminder of this difficult situation because all people talk about is what is going on. I do not think there is a single student that can fully concentrate on their studies -- even more, the bar.”

He said students also are largely in the dark about what to do if the law school closes midsemester and before the California bar exam in July.

In the letter explaining why it was cutting off federal funds to Dream Center, the Education Department said Argosy has failed to meet its financial responsibility to students.

“Not only did Argosy fail to pay credit balances prior to submitting its request for payment from the department, even after Argosy received the funds, it still failed to pay those credit balances,” the department said.

Dream Center filed for a court-appointed receiver in January, because the missionary organization was facing insolvency and wanted to sell its campuses to keep them open.

Argosy received nearly $13 million from the department in federal financial aid between January and Feb. 5. Instead of ensuring credit balances were paid to students, the institution paid nearly $4.3 million to its staff and about $2.2 million to vendors and used roughly $1.8 million for payroll expenses. Another $3.8 million was maintained in the receivership account.

“Significant funds were released by the department since mid-January, including after the receiver was appointed,” the Education Department said.

The nonprofit purchased Argosy, Art Institutes and South University campuses from the for-profit Education Management Corporation in 2017 amid criticism about a lack of transparency and concerns over whether Dream Center could successfully operate the campuses. However, the department held off on officially approving the transaction.

The receivership status triggered the department to place cash management sanctions on Argosy, especially after it received numerous complaints that the institution had failed to pay students and parents their federal aid refunds. The sanctions, known as heightened cash monitoring, which are designed to protect federal funds and students, required Dream Center and the receiver to disburse aid to Argosy students before seeking reimbursement from the department.

“We are disappointed at the decision by the Department of Education to deny Argosy University’s request for change of ownership,” Mark Dottore, the receiver, said in a written statement. “We are working to determine the best path forward at this time.”

Dream Center has until March 11 to present new evidence to dispute the department’s findings.

Missing Money

Financial aid experts said while the department’s moves with Argosy are reminiscent of Corinthian Colleges' collapse in 2015, denying students’ their financial aid refunds is unique.

“This is a very unusual situation,” said Justin Draeger, president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “I’ve never seen this sort of thing where funds are moving around in a school with no explanation of where they are, and they haven’t been accounted for correctly.”

Also unusual are the department’s actions in its attempt to prevent Argosy from shutting down the way Corinthian did.

“A lot of things here just don’t make sense,” said Mark Kantrowitz, an expert on student aid. “The U.S. Department of Education should really know if an institution is financially viable and what kind of pressure can be put on an institution before it shuts down.”

The department released “significant funds” to Argosy even after it entered receivership, according to the letter. But the decision to pull Argosy's access to federal student aid is often a "death knell" for colleges, he said.

“I would’ve thought the department learned its lesson after Corinthian that before you put an institution on heightened cash monitoring, you do some analysis of the institution’s cash flow so you understand what the consequences are,” Kantrowitz said.

Kantrowitz and Beth Stein, vice president of the Institute for College Access and Success, said it also is odd that the department never required a letter of credit from Argosy. That action is designed to protect students and taxpayers and is used as collateral if a company or college does not pay the department back.

“It’s unlikely the students will ever see the money,” Stein said. “Could the department make students whole? Yes. Will they? Well, that is a different question.”

Since the department never formally approved of Dream Center's acquisition of the campuses from EDMC, there is a legitimate question about whether students enrolled since Dream Center took over the campuses in 2017 should be entitled to closed-school discharges, she said. The discharges would ensure Argosy students aren’t left on the hook for federal loans.

If students transfer to other institutions, they won’t be eligible for a closed-school loan discharge. But Stein said it may be difficult to find colleges that will accept Argosy’s credits.

“Students have a long road ahead of them, and it’s disappointing to us that there has been so little outreach from the department,” Stein said.

Some students, who are desperate to learn more about what happened to their aid payments, have reached out to Dottore and his team. But they have been frustrated by a lack of answers.

"So there is no money to pay us? How are we expected to pay our bills?" Lee Moore, an Argosy student, said in an email to a Dottore Companies representative. "It's unfortunate how the true victims get lost and trampled on in the crossfire of the blame game."

Unsure Fate for Other Dream Center Campuses

It's not clear what effect cutting off Argosy from federal aid will have on other Dream Center campuses.

The department’s decision only affects Argosy, Western State, the Art Institute of California in Hollywood and the Art Institute of California in San Diego.

Institutions Losing Aid Eligibility

  • Argosy University, Phoenix
  • Argosy University, Phoenix ATS Chandler
  • Argosy University, San Francisco Bay Area
  • Western State University College of Law at Argosy University
  • Art Institute of California, Hollywood
  • Art Institute of California, San Diego
  • Argosy University campuses in Arlington, Va.; Atlanta; Chicago; Clay National Guard Center in Marietta, Ga.; Dallas; Draper, Utah; Eagan, Minn.; Hilo, Honolulu and Wailuku, Hawaii; Los Angeles and Orange, Calif.; Seattle; Tampa, Fla.; and Utah National Guard Base.

Campuses That Remain Eligible

  • Art Institute of Seattle
  • Art Institute of Las Vegas
  • Art Institute of Pittsburgh

Campuses Acquired by Education Principle Foundation

  • South University campuses in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia
  • Art Institutes campuses in Atlanta; Austin, Tex.; Dallas; Houston; Miami; San Antonio; Tampa, Fla.; Virginia Beach, Va.

Some Art Institute campuses were acquired in January by Education Principle Foundation, which until Dec. 31 was known as the Colbeck Foundation. The foundation is owned by Colbeck Capital Management, a private investment firm. The organization now controls Art Institutes in Atlanta; Austin, Tex.; Dallas; Houston; Miami; San Antonio; Tampa, Fla.; and Virginia Beach. It also acquired South campuses in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. However, accreditors and the department will have to approve the deal. And it’s unclear if the situation with Argosy’s ownership will affect the outcome, although the department has shown support for the move, according to court documents.

Education Principle Foundation did not buy the Art Institutes of Seattle, Las Vegas and Pittsburgh. So those campuses were not affected by the department’s decision to cut off federal aid to Argosy. The Pittsburgh location is scheduled to close March 31. The Las Vegas campus also was scheduled to close at the end of the month but is remaining open, according to a February letter Roger Hosn, the campus president, sent students.

As for the Seattle campus, the Washington Student Achievement Council, which oversees colleges and universities in the state, emailed students Tuesday that the institution was at risk of imminent closure. Emily Pesky, a spokeswoman for the council, said it received notice from the Education Department that Dottore told the feds that the Seattle campus had limited funds and would not be able to meet its financial obligations for the rest of the term. The Seattle campus enrolls about 650 students.

Lawsuit to Recoup Funds

Dottore asked a federal court last month to force Studio Enterprise Manager, a for-profit education management services company, to return about $6 million Dream Center paid the company to provide nonacademic services, such as enrollment management and marketing, to the eight Art Institutes and South University campuses.

Dottore, in a Feb. 7 letter to the department, said the “dire cash situation” is due to a series of agreements made in January. Studio Enterprise Manager is an affiliate of Colbeck Capital Management.

Studio disputes that assessment. The company said in court filings that the receivership has hurt the campuses.

Despite what happens in court, financial aid experts said students ultimately will lose out as the former EDMC campuses try to remain afloat.

A regional accreditor is warning students that the only options for the Art Institute of Seattle are closure or finding a new buyer. Camacho, the Western State law student, said students have heard the same thing at his California institution.

“Not only do students not have their refunds, so they're going to struggle to figure out how to make rent … if they want to continue their education, they’re probably starting from zero,” Kantrowitz said. “Their aspirations, their dreams, are derailed. They’ll apply for a closed-school discharge and their loans will be gotten rid of, but it isn’t instantaneous.”

Camacho said he and his classmates want to petition the State Bar of California to allow them to sit for the exam even if they don’t receive their degrees. Another option is to transfer to a different law school and risk losing the credits they have earned from Argosy.

“If the school does not close midsemester and we still do not receive our financial aid, we are either going to borrow money to be able to complete our studies and pay the bar fees or take a leave of absence,” he said.

For-Profit Higher EdEditorial Tags: Conflicts of interestFinancial aidFor-profit collegesNonprofit ConversionsImage Caption: Western State College of Law at Argosy UniversityIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 

University president challenges Clay Christensen to a $1 million bet on future of private colleges

Inside HigherEd - Mon, 03/04/2019 - 08:00

Many private college presidents are more than a little frustrated with the way journalists and politicians love to quote Clayton Christensen. The Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration at Harvard University, Christensen famously predicted in a 2011 book called The Innovative University that as many as half of American nonprofit private colleges would close within 10 to 15 years. Last year, Christensen said he stood by the prediction, linked to his view that online providers will provide "disruption" to traditional higher education markets. (Disruption in various industries, not just higher education, is Christensen's area of expertise.)

A flurry of private college closures in the last year (Green Mountain College, Mount Ida College and more on the verge), while not nearly at the pace necessary to make Christensen's prediction true, have led more people to point to his work.

But Mark Zupan isn't buying the thesis. He's president of Alfred University, which has an endowment of $118 million and is, in other words, tuition dependent. Alfred is located in upstate New York, known for having many colleges and much natural beauty, but not a booming population that would yield enrollment growth. Alfred, Zupan says, is "the kind of private, nonprofit university that Christensen believes most likely to be disrupted by the online revolution."

Zupan is not Panglossian about private higher education. But he has a challenge for Christensen.

In an essay Sunday in The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, Zupan wrote, "Of course, universities such as ours face challenges. Changes in demographic factors, online learning options, the popularity of various majors, state funding for public institutions and international enrollments create a dynamic marketplace. Nonetheless, we see more opportunities than threats. From this perspective, let me propose a friendly wager. If at least half of all traditional universities fail or merge by 2030, then I will give $1 million to Christensen’s institute (provided it is not disrupted before then!). If, however, his prediction fails to materialize by 2030, then Christensen will contribute $1 million toward Alfred University’s endowment."

Added Zupan, "In making his gift, Christensen will be investing in a university whose graduates have produced glasses that correct for colorblindness; developed ways to transmit voice and data by fiber-optic cable; started Meals on Wheels; contributed to devising a treatment for neonatal jaundice; created art showcased by the world’s major museums; invented body armor to protect soldiers and first responders; helped develop Gorilla glass; and transformed Marvel Comics from bankruptcy into Marvel Entertainment, which sold to Disney for $4.8 billion; saved AIG; and lead Voya Financial. Clay, my email is zupan@alfred.edu should you wish to financially stand behind your forecast."

On Sunday, asked if he had heard from Christensen, Zupan said, "The fish hasn’t nibbled yet."

Inside Higher Ed reached out to Christensen and has not heard back.

Editorial Tags: College administrationImage Caption: Mark Zupan (left) and Clay ChristensenIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: $1M Challenge for ChristensenTrending order: 3

President Trump vows to issue executive order barring research funds to colleges that don't support free speech

Inside HigherEd - Mon, 03/04/2019 - 08:00

President Trump vowed Saturday to "soon" issue an executive order that would deny federal research funds to colleges and universities that do not support free speech.

"If they want our dollars and we give them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people to speak," said Trump in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

He did not describe how the executive order would work, or who would judge whether a college or university was not protecting free speech.

During his speech, President Trump brought on stage and praised Hayden Williams, who was punched last week when he was at the University of California, Berkeley, seeking support for the president and conservative causes and criticizing Jussie Smollett, the actor who is facing charges of false reporting to the police in a hate crime he claimed to have experienced.

Of Williams, President Trump said that he should sue Berkeley "and maybe sue the state." To loud applause, Trump said, "He took a hard punch in the face for all of us. We can never allow that to happen." And he added that after Williams sues Berkeley, "he's going to be a very wealthy man." The crowd at the meeting chanted "USA" as Trump made these statements.

Video has widely circulated showing Williams being punched.

Trump did not note that Berkeley arrested a man, Zachary Greenberg, for assaulting Williams. Neither Williams nor Greenberg are students at Berkeley. The university had permitted Williams to be on campus expressing his views.

Late Saturday, Berkeley released a new summary of what had happened, reiterating that the university had in this incident not wavered in its commitment to free speech or its willingness to take action in response to the attack on Williams. The statement said that events at the university have been "willfully distorted and inaccurately reported."

This is not the first time President Trump has used an incident at Berkeley to suggest that federal research dollars should be cut off over alleged denial of free speech rights.

In 2017, violent protesters (believed by university officials to be from off campus) set fires and damaged property at the university just before a scheduled appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos. President Trump tweeted:

If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017

What he didn't note at that time was that Berkeley officials had allowed Yiannopoulos to speak, calling off the event only amid the violence. Berkeley had defended his right to appear on campus (and he has appeared since), citing principles of free speech even as some on campus said he should be kept away because of views many find offensive.

Terry Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, in an interview shortly after President Trump's Saturday speech, called the proposed executive order "a solution in search of a problem." He said that is because "free speech and academic freedom are core values of research universities."

While "controversies do arise," Hartle said that the norm is for universities to err on the side of promoting free speech. He asked how some federal agency in the future would try to enforce the executive order by determining whether a college had done enough to promote free speech. He predicted that an executive order would lead people to try to create free speech incidents just to stir up controversy.

And Hartle said that federal law gives religious institutions broad discretion about campus activities. "Would religious institutions be required to have speakers whose views were antithetical to the college?" Hartle asked. "Would Yeshiva University be required to host a Holocaust denier?"

Hartle also noted the lack of consistency of the Trump administration about free speech.

"As always in the current environment, irony does come into play. This is an administration that stifles the views of its own research scientists if they are counter to the political views of the administration, such as on climate change. And the president vigorously attacks people like Colin Kaepernick who exercise their free speech rights."

Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, said via email, “Public research universities have a First Amendment constitutional obligation to protect free speech. It is an obligation they take very seriously and work hard to protect. Our campuses serve as important forums for the debate of diverse ideas. An executive order is unnecessary, as public research universities are already bound by the First Amendment, which they deeply respect and honor. It is core to their academic mission.”

The Trump Administration Record

Before he was president, Trump called for the National Endowment for the Arts to stop supporting, and for museums to stop displaying art he considers to be "gross, degenerate stuff." And while he has been president, his staff has taken actions -- such as blocking critics from the Trump Twitter feed -- that have led to the administration being sued over First Amendment concerns.

Trump's first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, gave several speeches denouncing the squelching of speech on college campuses. But Sessions was silent about (and declined to answer questions on) squelching that was done at the behest of Republican politicians, such as when the University of Kansas took down an artwork featuring the American flag after GOP leaders in the state demanded that it come down.

The Trump administration's officials talk regularly about Berkeley. The administration has been silent as Republican legislators in Tennessee have for years tried to kill a student-organized "Sex Week" at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville -- an event that does not use state funds.

Views of Groups That Focus on Free Expression

Among organizations that promote free expression on campus, the response to President Trump's Saturday speech was tepid.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released a statement that said in part, "While we are glad that this important national issue has the president’s attention, we do not currently have any more information on the details of the executive order. We are looking forward to learning more about this initiative in the coming days."

Jonathan Friedman, project director for campus free speech at PEN America, said via email, "We need to see the text. On the surface the government reaffirming the importance of free speech on campus is appropriate and essential, particularly at a time of serious threats to open discourse. In practice, new and proposed measures ostensibly intended to protect speech can yield unintended negative consequences for speech, which we've documented in our work. While we at PEN America reserve judgment until a draft of the order is released, we believe that any government action on this issue should be approached in a thoughtful, nonpartisan manner, upholding the universal principles of free speech and academic freedom."

Debra Mashek, executive director of Heterodox Academy, said via email that "we need diversity and dialogue, not decrees."

Added Mashek, “Heterodox Academy encourages individual colleges and universities to advance common-sense policies and practices that promote teaching, learning and discovery. Higher ed would not benefit from a blunt, top-down, partisan decree that politicizes the academy’s core values of open inquiry and academic freedom. Governments cannot legislate campus cultures. In order to create classrooms and campuses that welcome diverse people with diverse viewpoints and that equip learners with the habits of heart and mind to engage that diversity in open inquiry and constructive disagreement, colleges and universities must harness their own values, histories and capacities.”

Could Solomon Amendment Be a Model?

Many in higher education questioned how the executive order might work. Two proponents of the measure, however, say that the Solomon Amendment provides a model.

In an article in National Affairs last year, Frederick M. Hess and Grant Addison, both of the American Enterprise Institute, called for federal funds to be cut off to American colleges that do not support free expression on campus. They said that the precedent for this could be the Solomon Amendment, the 1996 law that barred federal funds from going to colleges and universities that did not permit military recruiting or Reserve Officer Training Corps programs on campus. The law came at a time when some colleges were barring the military from campus, citing its policies (since lifted) of discriminating against gay people. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, which was challenged by law schools.

While there was no dispute that some colleges barred the military, in the case of free expression, some institutions (such as Berkeley) denounced by President Trump can point to evidence that they in fact support free expression.

"New federal guidance in this area has a chance to make free inquiry and free speech relevant to the broader scientific research community in a fashion that it has not been previously," says the article. "The slumbering, silent middle on campus may awaken when accomplished researchers bringing in millions in 'indirect' costs suddenly recognize that the ideological crusades of their colleagues may imperil their laboratories and research projects. Campus leaders who have found it easy to virtue signal by indulging students and faculty demanding constraints on speech will now have a fairer fight on their hands, and they will need to be worried about their biochemistry and engineering faculty departing for institutions eligible for federal funds."

Editorial Tags: Academic freedomImage Source: TwitterImage Caption: President Trump with Hayden WilliamsIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Trump and Campus SpeechTrending order: 1

University of California cancels deal with Elsevier after months of negotiations

Inside HigherEd - Fri, 03/01/2019 - 08:00

The University of California System has canceled its multimillion-dollar subscription contract with Elsevier, an academic publisher.

Other institutions have canceled their “big deal” journal subscription contracts with major publishers before. But none in the U.S. have the financial and scholarly clout of the UC system -- which accounts for nearly 10 percent of the nation's publishing output.

The cancellation, announced Thursday, is a blow to Elsevier, which is facing increasing pressure to change its largely subscription-based business model. Last year, hundreds of institutions in Germany and Sweden refused to sign a deal with Elsevier unless it agreed to fundamentally change the way it charges institutions to access and publish research.

UC has been pushing for a so-called read-and-publish deal with the company, which would offset the cost of open access publishing against the cost of access to subscription content. Lead negotiators for the system argue that this kind of deal will help publishers accelerate open-access publishing and eventually eliminate paywalls. Under such a deal, all UC research published in Elsevier journals would be immediately available to the public.

After more than six months of negotiations, it became clear that Elsevier was not willing to meet the UC’s demands, said Jeff Mackie-Mason and Ivy Anderson, the system’s lead negotiators.

Elsevier made an offer that would combine the costs of accessing paywalled content and publishing open access articles. But the offer came with a hefty price tag, the negotiators said, which the system was not willing to pay.

UC wanted to integrate its fees and reduce its costs. Elsevier wanted to charge publishing fees on top of subscription fees, said Ivy Anderson. “That predicate made it impossible to reach an agreement,” she said. The UC system was paying the company more than $10 million a year for journal access.

In a written statement from Tom Reller, spokesman for the company, Elsevier emphasized the importance of letting authors choose how they want to publish. He said more than 85 percent of authors from the UC system currently choose to publish paywalled research. Authors have plenty of options if they want articles to be available to the public for free, he said.

The publisher said it proposed a “unique model” to UC, which included a “clear path allowing every researcher to choose to publish for free or open access and provides a scaled path to reduce the costs for each campus library.”

“It’s disappointing that the California Digital Library (CDL) has broken off negotiations unilaterally,” the statement said. “But we hope we can bridge this divide with them soon.”

UC's negotiators said the door is open should Elsevier decide to come back with another offer. But they aren’t holding their breath. The system said many other U.S. institutions have shown interest in read-and-publish deals.

Thank you to @UofCalifornia for terminating your Elsevier contracts. This sends out a huge message that #openaccess is critical for democratic access to science, and that people matter more than profits https://t.co/y2p6KRSdEJ #democratiseknowledge @eduint

— Jon Tennant (@Protohedgehog) February 28, 2019

Open-access advocates praised the system on social media for taking a stand. UC faculty members also backed the decision. The system's Faculty Senate, for example, said in a written statement that taxpayer-funded research should be as “freely and widely available as possible.”

Janet Napolitano, UC's president, said she fully supported efforts by students and faculty and staff members to take down paywalls. “This issue does not just impact UC, but also countless scholars, researchers and scientists around the globe -- and we stand with them in their push for full unfettered access.”

Rick Anderson, associate dean for collections and scholarly communication at the University of Utah, said he was “not shocked” by the system’s decision. “I always wondered if there was going to be a realistic middle ground between what the two parties wanted.”

Rick Anderson, who is an unpaid member of Elsevier’s North American Library Advisory Board, said UC’s cancellation is significant, as it is a very large Elsevier customer. But he is unsure whether the decision will really hurt Elsevier in the long term. “From a political perspective, it certainly undermines any public impression that Elsevier’s big deal is a must-have product for a research institution,” he said.

It remains to be seen, however, how faculty and students will be impacted by the decision, said Rick Anderson. “Will there be an outcry? If not, then the impact on Elsevier’s public image could be significant: it will mean that tens of thousands of academics lost access to the current content of their journals and said, ‘Meh,’” he said, adding, “If there is an outcry, the question will be whether it ends up being significant enough that the system reverses course. I would be surprised if that happened.”

For a company that generates billions of dollars in revenue, the loss of $10 million per year will not be catastrophic financially. If UC decides to subscribe to some Elsevier journals on an individual basis, or frequently pays for one-time access to journal articles, the system may end up paying a substantial amount to the publisher, at worse value than their old big deal, said Rick Anderson. “I’m sure this development will represent a net loss for the company, but I don’t know how big it will be.”

UC's academics and students will not lose access to all Elsevier research, stressed Mackie-Mason. The system has perpetual access to many journals’ archives up to the end of 2018. Researchers have multiple options if they want to access new Elsevier-published research, he said. Approximately 15 percent of Elsevier journal articles already are open access, and many articles are available as preprints for free. Otherwise, researchers can email authors for copies, request them from interlibrary-loan systems (which can take a day to process) or pay a one-time purchase fee. At the time of going to press, Elsevier had not yet revoked the UC system's journal access. 

Not being able to instantly access research may be irritating for some academics, acknowledged Mackie-Mason. “It will cause some friction, but it’s not going to be devastating,” he said. UC researchers are aware of what the challenges will be, he said, but they have been broadly supportive. “We’ve been communicating for months, and we’ve consulted widely, deeply and often." 

Barbara Fister, a librarian at Gustavus Adolphus College (who also blogs for Inside Higher Ed) said she was impressed that an American university was able to "take a principled stand" and gain support for the move among its faculty members.

“Elsevier is a major publisher, so students and researchers at UC institutions will feel the impact,” said Fister. “It’s courageous of them to take this step, knowing that it will be harder to access research in those journals.”

Books and PublishingEditorial Tags: OERPublishingCaliforniaIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Rejecting ElsevierTrending order: 1

Nearly half of new moms -- and nearly one-quarter of new dads -- leave full-time STEM employment

Inside HigherEd - Fri, 03/01/2019 - 08:00

Women are more likely than men to leave full-time careers in the sciences, technology, engineering and math when they become parents. But this is not just a “mothers’ problem” -- dads are leaving, too, at too high a rate, says a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Using National Science Foundation data on STEM professionals -- about 10 percent of whom were academic scientists, representative of national trends -- the authors found that 43 percent of women and 23 percent of men left their full-time jobs within seven years of having or adopting a child.

The finding was consistent across STEM fields in the period studied, from 2003 to 2010. But parents in the life sciences were even more likely than their engineering peers to leave the work force.

New mothers were more likely than new fathers to switch to part-time jobs or cease working outside the home altogether. And both moms and dads were more likely than their childless colleagues to attribute their departures from the field to family concerns.

These parents didn’t appear to return to the STEM work force once their children reached school age, either.

The paper, called “The Changing Career Trajectories of New Parents in STEM,” argues that parenthood is actually an understudied piece of the attrition puzzle in the sciences: other points of the so-called leaky pipeline get more attention, it says. So using longitudinal survey information from the Scientists and Engineering Statistical Data System, the researchers followed a representative national sample of initially childless, full-time STEM professionals -- some of whom had their first child at the beginning of the eight-year study period.

Source: Cech and Blair-Loy

“These professionals were rich in human capital, having successfully completed college- or graduate-level training and being employed in a STEM field,” the study says. “They also demonstrated commitment to full-time work in these male-dominated, math-intensive fields and had moved beyond the key attrition points of education and the school-to-work transition. The exit of these trained and experienced professionals from the STEM workforce would be disadvantageous for both the organizations that employ them and for U.S. STEM industries broadly.”

The researchers compared respondents who had their first child between the first and second survey waves (841 scientists) with those who remained nonparents through 2010 (3,365 scientists).

Asked about the implications of her work for academic STEM in particular, co-author Mary Blair-Loy, professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego, said there is “some evidence that faculty are subject to challenging cultural pressures to demonstrate their devotion to academic science as a vocation.”

Family caregiving or other aspects of a “rich personal life are still often viewed as distracting and even polluting to a scientific calling,” Blair-Loy said. Such “devaluation of motherhood and caregiving” is a historical artifact from a time when women were excluded from academic life and men weren’t (for a variety of reasons) involved caregivers, she added.

Artifact or not, parent pressure is real -- and “arbitrary,” she said. That is, a “meaningful and close set of family and personal obligations” does not automatically reduce academic productivity, Blair-Loy added. But women face the assumption that it does. And these cultural pressures may even discourage talented early-career scientists, including Ph.D.s and postdoctoral fellows, from entering faculty work.

Lead author Erin Cech, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Michigan, said that from a business case perspective, the level of attrition she and Blair-Loy found is a problem across STEM. It may be “especially problematic” within colleges and universities, though, she said. That’s because it’s “expensive and time-consuming to replace highly educated STEM professionals in academia, and taxes the resources and people power of departments and institutions.”

Robust parental leave policies may help mitigate that, Cech said. But they must "be matched with institutional and departmental cultures" that don't "stigmatize faculty and research staff for taking advantage of those policies.” (Cech and Blair-Loy have previously studied the negative effects of “flexibility stigma,” or the devaluation of workers who need or use flexible work arrangements, on academic scientists.)

Cech said that academic positions often offer greater day-to-day flexibility than positions in industry or government. But that flexibility is not matched by cultural expectations about making use of that flexibility for caregiving.

Jessi Smith, associate vice chancellor for research and professor of psychology at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, has studied women in STEM and advocated work-life integration -- not work-life “balance,” which she said indicates that something “has to give.” She said the new paper illustrates “the big-picture problem of a work force developed by men, for men, at a time when men were the traditional breadwinners and women were the traditional caretakers.”

Why hasn’t the workplace changed, she asked? The STEM workplace, academic or otherwise, "is simply not set up to support parents.”

Smith said that those who are so motivated will “want to interpret" this new research as supporting a kind of “choice narrative” that blames parents for opting out of work. But not only does that view “let the workplace off the hook for taking any responsibility” to change to support parents, she said, “it also assumes that choices are made in a vacuum.”

Parents are choosing to leave a “hostile, nonsupportive workplace” because there is no “viable alternative, except going part-time or exiting altogether.” In other words, Smith said, “Childcare is so very expensive, the tenure-track punishes people who cannot devote 80 hours-plus a week to their work, and the tenure clock timeline coincides with women’s reproductivity years.”

People can pause the tenure clock, Smith added, “but then bias creeps in with, ‘Well, she really had an extra year,’ and, ‘She just had another child because she was in research trouble.’ Yes, I have heard it all.”

Over all, Smith said the new paper is important because it's important to understand that parenthood is a barrier to participation in any work force, “even within academia, where we assume autonomy and flexibility reign supreme."

Just “don’t be tempted to call it a choice,” Smith warned. “The choice between rock and hard place is never a real choice.”

Stephen Ceci, Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology at Cornell University, has found that women’s life choices, whether voluntary or constrained, have more to do with their underrepresentation in STEM than gender bias in those disciplines. 

Of the new paper, Ceci said that Mary Anne Mason’s “baby penalty” and other, similar research have long documented that even the intention to become a parent comes at a career cost for academics. So what Cech and Blair-Loy’s paper “tells us is that the magnitude of this attrition is large,” or nearly twice as large for women than men, and not confined to academic STEM, he said.

Ceci and his longtime collaborator Wendy Williams, professor of human development at Cornell, have faced criticism -- including from Smith -- for framing the work-family issue as one of choice. But Ceci said that he and Williams have long pushed for institutional policies on caregiving leave and “massive changes in the cultural expectations about caregiving responsibilities and whose career should be privileged.” Examples of the latter include allowing greater flexibility on grants to accommodate new parents, travel with children to conferences and flexible work scheduling.

Noting that the situation might even be worse in nonacademic STEM jobs, Ceci said that employers “really must acknowledge" the substantial burdens of parenthood, which should "not be shouldered largely by new mothers and new fathers.”

Why? When highly educated professionals leave the work force, he said, echoing the new paper, it’s “a loss for all of us.”

FacultyEditorial Tags: Sciences/Tech/Engineering/MathFacultyImage Source: iStockIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 

UNC student alleges administrators censored her race-relations website

Inside HigherEd - Fri, 03/01/2019 - 08:00

A student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill alleges that the institution took down her parody website that lampooned officials' handling of race relations and only restored it after a lawyer and civil rights group intervened.

The website, called UNC Anti-Racist Jeopardy, modeled off the game show, asked questions about the university’s history and ties to racism and police and administrators' interactions with activists. For instance, in the category "violence against students," the game asks what was deployed against students at a dance party in August. Answer: pepper spray.

The accusations of censorship come at a particularly strained time for the University of North Carolina System’s flagship. UNC has been embroiled in a debate on the Silent Sam Confederate monument. And the website -- which officials considered “personal work” and not appropriate for the university’s service -- was shut down despite many other instances where students’ blogs were allowed to remain up. The student, Annie Simpson, said administrators likely flagged her creation because of her campus activism, partially around the Silent Sam statue.

What to do about the monument, which protesters tore down in August, seemingly spurred the exit of Carol L. Folt, former UNC chancellor. Folt announced her resignation simultaneously with the decision to remove the remnants of Silent Sam from the center of campus, a controversial move that many students celebrated but that did not erase the lingering tensions between them and politicians who liked the idea of a Confederate statue on campus.

Joanne Peters Denny, UNC spokeswoman, declined to provide additional comment.

Simpson, a senior visual arts student, created the website in December. It was not built for a class, but rather as an online art piece and part of Simpson’s portfolio, she said.

Simpson has been involved in the Silent Sam protests, but also a campaign in the art and art history departments to add arts faculty and classes and improve facilities. She said her efforts hurt her relationships with UNC officials.

“Silent Sam's toppling did not end white supremacy at UNC,” Simpson wrote in an email. “In fact, we've watched the rise of the far right on our campus. I’ve seen friends pepper sprayed in the face at protests, seen Klan members parade through campus with Confederate flags, flanked by police. Friends of mine bought Kevlar sleeves for when armed hate groups show up on the weekends. University administrators have called student activists, alumni and neighbors 'outside agitators' while they have failed to even once condemn the individuals (who come from counties or states away) affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan or far-right militia groups that show up to intimidate students and defend racially motivated violence. I built UNC Anti-Racist Jeopardy to center and platform the decades of black-led, woman-led, student-led activism at UNC that the school has tried to whitewash and suppress.

“I guess being censored by UNC proved my point better than any website I built could have.”

Emails among administrators obtained in public records requests show that the website was discussed at the top levels -- from an official at the North Carolina system down to officials in UNC’s Information Technology Services.

Simpson said that in mid-December, art department chairwoman Carol Magee told her that administrators wanted her to remove the website, which Simpson refused to do.

Days later, Chris Kielt, then the chief information officer and vice chancellor for information technology, wrote to Simpson in an email that the Jeopardy site violated the university’s terms of service on the platform. In that email, Kielt never specified what part of the agreement the website infringed upon, but UNC’s senior counsel later told a lawyer Simpson had been told that the university’s domain was not for “personal projects.”

The emails referenced another website Simpson was working on, a wiki page about the UNC Board of Governors, but it is unclear if it was ever affected.

Kielt wrote in his email that website would be deactivated if Simpson did not shut it down within a day. Simpson wrote back to Kielt and said that the website was university research.

“I feel that the targeting of them [was] not content neutral,” she wrote.

Kielt replied that if Simpson would give him a faculty contact she was working with, he would verify it was related to the university. Having a professor sponsor the creation of website is not part of UNC’s terms of service.

Simpson never contacted Kielt after that email, and the university deactivated the website.

She began working with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a civil liberties watchdog group in academe, which wrote on Feb. 1 to Folt, who had not yet stepped down.

Sarah McLaughlin, senior program officer at FIRE, wrote that the web policy was vague and enforced inconsistently.

Though Simpson was told her website was personal and in violation of the policy, FIRE unearthed multiple cases in which UNC had allowed pet projects to stay live.

One student literally deemed her UNC website a “personal blog” and wrote at length about her dog Snickers, her favorite color and her adoration for coffee. That website, My Carolina Blue Bubble, was still up as of Thursday afternoon -- the student’s last blog entry was from 2015.

Administrators' emails seem to reinforce the theory that Simpson’s website may have been targeted.

Shortly after the website was created, Dennis Schmidt, assistant vice chancellor and chief information security officer, wrote on a late December night to several other administrators asking if they could determine who had made it. The emails don’t reference how Schmidt was alerted to the website.

Kate Hash, director of communications and chief of staff for Information Technology Services, identified several other of Simpson’s websites on the UNC platform.

Kielt, who was looped in on the email chain, asked if a policy existed around how many websites a user could make or what they could be used for.

Hash wrote back with a link to the terms and services and cited the stipulation about personal use, but added, “I think it’s important to add that we don’t regularly enforce the ‘not for personal projects’ aspect. The most common use case for that are professors trying to create business/consulting websites using the platform.”

The morning after the email exchange, the administrators held a conference call, according to their emails. Days later, Simpson was informed her websites would be removed.

The emails also show that Thomas Shanahan, senior vice president and general counsel for the University of North Carolina system, forwarded the URL of Simpson’s website to Mark Merritt, former UNC vice chancellor and general counsel, who left the university in December.

Shanahan did not respond to a request for comment. A system spokesman declined interviews and directed all questions to Chapel Hill.

Last week, Simpson was told by J. Michael Barker, the interim vice chancellor for information technology and chief information officer, that the university would revive the Jeopardy website within 24 hours.

A separate message was sent to FIRE in which the university said it would review its web policies.

McLaughlin said in an interview that UNC should clarify what “university related” and “personal project” means in its policies.

She said she was unaware of any other case where administrators had apparently gone after a student website, though colleges and universities have written unclear or poor policies around internet usage.

“As we argued, there are some First Amendment concerns,” McLaughlin said. “UNC did create a designated public forum with this web hosting service, and by engaging in viewpoint censorship, that could be concerning from a First Amendment standpoint.”

DiversityEditorial Tags: CensorshipFree speechIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Diversity Newsletter publication date: Tuesday, March 5, 2019Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Email Teaser: Can Chapel Hill Take a Joke With a Point?Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Satire, Free Speech, UNCTrending order: 2College: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Senator Patty Murray says higher education legislation must focus on college affordability

Inside HigherEd - Fri, 03/01/2019 - 08:00

Senator Patty Murray said Thursday that an overhaul of the Higher Education Act should tackle college affordability directly by addressing state investment in public colleges and boosting federal spending on need-based aid programs like Pell Grants.

Murray, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate's education committee, argued that even when college students receive federal grant aid, it covers a diminishing proportion of the total cost of college -- meaning more low-income and minority students in particular are forced to take out student loans.

“Everyone who wants to go to college -- whether it’s a two- or four-year degree -- should have the choice to do so and shouldn’t be saddled with debt as a result,” she said.

Murray was speaking at the Center for American Progress, where she laid out her broad goals for reauthorizing the federal higher ed law. Her speech was partially in response to priorities outlined weeks earlier by Senator Lamar Alexander, the GOP chairman of the education committee. Alexander said his key concerns were simplifying the federal student aid system, streamlining loan repayment and holding colleges accountable with a single borrower-repayment benchmark.

Murray, by contrast, argued that Congress shouldn’t just make it easier to get student aid but also should give more money to those students.

She said she wants to improve access to higher education in part by steering more funding to historically black colleges and universities, as well as to other institutions that serve underrepresented students. Murray also called for an end to predatory practices that leave college students worse off, and she said she wants to address an “epidemic” of campus sexual assault, suggesting that a Betsy DeVos Title IX proposal should be scrapped.

The speech contained few specifics but signaled key issues where Senate Democrats would devote energy on a higher ed law. Murray signaled that she wants to think big on reauthorization, viewing the legislation as an opportunity to recommit the federal government and states to providing opportunities for low-income college students.

“We must negotiate a comprehensive reauthorization that truly addresses the full spectrum of issues students are facing today,” she said.

Pushing for More State Investment

Murray’s call for a partnership between the federal government and the states reflected a growing recognition among many in Washington that spending more on aid like Pell Grants will have a limited impact on the cost of attending public colleges if state support diminishes.

"I just don’t think there is a way forward to actually make college affordable for students that does not engage states to encourage them to fund higher education," said ​Zakiya Smith Ellis, New Jersey's secretary of higher education, said in comments immediately after the speech.

Lawmakers, academics and higher ed organizations recently have offered various proposals for state-federal partnerships. For example, Rob Anderson, president of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, called for such a program in Senate testimony last year, arguing it could help reverse state disinvestment in higher education spending during the past decade. Anderson said per-student state funding declined by 26 percent from 2008 to 2012, roughly $2,000 per student.

“Today, we have only recovered half of that lost investment,” he said in an email.

Free-college bills introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders and Brian Schatz, as well as a proposal from the Center for American Progress last year, included state matching requirements for new federal spending.

Recent research has found that a 10 percent increase in state spending at community colleges increased degree completion by 10 percent.

Murray said those kinds of proposals may not be included in a bipartisan HEA reauthorization. Yet she said, “We still have a significant opportunity to take a big step in the right direction, and to make a significant down payment toward providing real opportunities for future students.”

The federal government should also help borrowers who are struggling with student debt by fixing loan-forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness and improving the effectiveness of federal loan servicing, she said. However, Murray appeared to hint that she was not on board with an Alexander proposal to have student loan payments automatically deducted from borrowers’ paychecks. Lawmakers should provide borrowers with real relief, she said, "not just prioritize their student loan payments over all their other expenses."

Looming Accountability Fight?

Murray didn’t specify how Congress should hold low-quality college programs accountable. But in recent years, a debate has taken shape in which Republicans have argued all institutions should have to meet the same standards and Democrats have insisted on strengthening or reinforcing the rules that apply primarily to for-profit colleges, which Murray identified as troublesome in her remarks.

“One of the root causes of unaffordable debt is low-quality programs or colleges that churn out students -- or require them to take out too much debt without providing them with the support and credentials of value to get good-paying jobs,” she said. “We need only look at the stories of Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, Education Corporation of America and so many other large, predatory for-profit colleges to know that the HEA needs to respond to what is happening to students today.”

A staff white paper released by Alexander’s office last year suggested dropping two of the standards targeting for-profit colleges -- the so-called 90-10 and gainful-employment rules -- and suggested it was unfair to apply rules based solely on an institution's tax status. And the accountability approach Alexander proposed in February would apply the same loan-repayment benchmark to all higher ed programs, regardless of the type of institution.

Whether the two senators can reach an understanding on accountability rules could determine if there’s a deal to be struck at all on higher ed legislation. And their statements so far indicate a divide that will likely be a major part of negotiations.

The fact that both lawmakers have identified accountability as a key priority is a significant shift in itself, however. For years the higher education system has been "largely unaccountable to anyone," said Amy Laitinen, director for higher education at New America's education policy program.

Responding to Murray’s remarks, Alexander said he was encouraged by the progress of talks so far and believes a bipartisan deal can be reached this year.

“Senator Murray and I have been working for the last several years towards reauthorizing and updating the Higher Education Act. I always welcome and pay attention to her ideas,” Alexander said. “We have a good history of working together to find areas of agreement, and I expect that we will be able to do the same this year. My hope is that working together our committee can produce a recommendation to the full Senate before summer.”

Student Aid and LoansEditorial Tags: Federal policyFinancial aidState policyImage Caption: Washington senator Patty MurrayIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 

IT staff survey sheds new light on diversity stats

Inside HigherEd - Fri, 03/01/2019 - 08:00

Despite higher numbers of minority students obtaining technical degrees, the IT work force in higher ed remains overwhelmingly white and is not getting any younger.

According to the latest annual survey conducted by higher education IT membership organization Educause, the IT work force at American colleges and universities is 83 percent white, compared to the 78 percent of the total U.S. work force that is white.

There have been modest improvements in the ethnic diversification of the higher ed IT work force, but the survey found that movement has been slower at the managerial and chief information officer level.

Currently, 5 percent of higher ed IT employees are Asian/Pacific Islander, 3 percent are Hispanic/Latino, 3 percent are black/African American and 6 percent were classified as "nonwhite/other/multiple."

Women continue to be underrepresented in college IT and are just 38 percent of the IT work force, the survey found. It also concluded that fewer women are being promoted to the level of chief information officers.

Millennials were also underrepresented in IT. According to the survey, the median age of higher ed IT employees is 50.

The findings were disappointing but not surprising, as these trends have been stable for some time, the report said. This year, however, new light was shed on previously unknown data about the sexual orientation and disability status of employees.

Nearly 10 percent of IT staff identified themselves as LGBQ, double the number who self-identify as LGBQ in the US work force generally, the survey said. 

Among survey respondents, 5 percent identified as gay, 3 percent as bisexual, 1 percent as queer and another 1 percent as another sexual orientation. The rest identified as straight.

Christopher Brooks, director of research at Educause, said that the collection of new data on sexual orientation and disabilities would help “raise our collective awareness about the diversity of the higher ed IT work force” and help IT organizations create an “inclusive, positive work environment for all employees.”

The data suggest that higher ed may already be seen as a welcoming sector to IT workers who identify as LGBQ, especially compared to corporate IT employers, said Brooks. He hopes that raising awareness about their numbers will empower people to “take stands against instances of bullying, harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

The number of survey respondents who reported having a disability or impairment was significant at 8 percent, but much lower than the 19 percent national rate reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Educause advocates for higher ed IT to maintain a culture that is supportive of hiring and retaining employees with disabilities or impairments, said Brooks. He noted "excellent" resources listed in the report, such as the Employee Assistance and Resource Network, to help IT managers accomplish these goals.

Amy French, assistant professor of educational leadership at Indiana State University, said that the ability of the higher ed IT sector to welcome diverse employees to the work force is “contingent upon having diverse candidates in the hiring pool.” Higher education as a whole needs to get better at recruiting and retaining minority students, particularly in STEM subjects, said French.

The survey identified quality of life and work environment as top factors for retaining IT staff, but French said fostering a sense of belonging on campus for diverse faculty is also essential to retaining them.

“If higher ed IT is dedicated to welcoming diverse employees, the field must evaluate current hiring and promotion practices, encourage and celebrate versatile approaches to task completion, and work to discontinue oppressive campus policies or traditions that ostracize those from diverse populations,” said French.

Is this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Diversity Newsletter publication date: Tuesday, March 5, 2019Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Email Teaser: IT Still Old, White and MaleMagazine treatment: Trending: 

Academics criticize plan for Oxford's new college

Inside HigherEd - Fri, 03/01/2019 - 08:00

Academics have criticized plans for the University of Oxford’s new graduate college, which they say is a push from central management to diminish the collegiate system.

Earlier this month, the university announced that the college, which has been given the temporary name Parks College, would have an initial intake of 50 graduate students in 2020, growing to 200 by 2022.

However, critics have pointed out it will not be an official “college” and hence not an autonomous legal entity, but will in fact be a department of the university. This means that the university would make the new college’s rules, not its members.

Oxford, like the University of Cambridge and Durham University, operates a collegiate system that is fiercely protected, and past attempts to centralize functions at Oxford have proved unpopular.

The planned location, the Radcliffe Science Library, part of the Bodleian Library, is another point of contention. According to Oxford, the college and the science library will be integrated and users of both “may make optimal use of [the site] at different times of the day on different days of the week."

Peter Edwards, professor of inorganic chemistry at Oxford, said he and colleagues were “surprised” to learn that “a laboratory necessary for training the next generation of synthesis scientists is now earmarked for a college dining hall, functioning as a science area interdisciplinary hub mainly at lunchtime and in the late afternoon or early evening."

An article in Oxford Magazine says that one interpretation “is that the creation of the new college is a part of a drive by the center to take over the collegiate system according to its own model of direct administrative control." When the central administration operates “to subvert the collegiate structure of the university and diminish the university’s prized Bodleian Library, something is going seriously awry," it says.

Also writing in Oxford Magazine, Peter Oppenheimer, an economist and fellow of Christ Church, Oxford, points out that staff working at what would in effect be a university “society” would be employees of the central university. This facilitates “increased uniformity and centralization in the operation, and the culture, of the university. Academic autonomy is narrowed.... The more ‘societies’ proliferate, the greater the threat,” he writes.

Parks College would become the third such society at Oxford, alongside St Cross College and Kellogg College.

One academic told Times Higher Education that they were “concerned about the patronizing and self-important attitudes of the superfluous senior administrators, notably pro vice-chancellors, who nowadays think they run the place."

According to Gill Evans, emeritus professor of medieval theology and intellectual history at the University of Cambridge, the new entity will need the congregation’s approval but “first it needs to be a great deal clearer what it is actually going to be. The hurry to rush it into existence…surely requires great clarity about the nature of the entity into which they are to come?”

An Oxford spokesman said the college “will promote cross-disciplinary interaction, offering workshops, seminars, reading groups and lectures to stimulate new thinking," as well as integrating “the redevelopment of the Radcliffe Science Library, offering a fresh, 21st century service which includes access to scientific information of all kinds and support from specialist science library staff who will be an integral part of the college’s research culture."


GlobalEditorial Tags: BritainTimes Higher EdIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 

Education Department boots Argosy campuses from federal student aid program

Inside HigherEd - Thu, 02/28/2019 - 08:00

The Education Department said Wednesday it would block plans by Argosy University to go nonprofit. In the same announcement, it said it would also boot the for-profit college from the federal student aid program.

The decision, which was driven in part by recent failures by Argosy to make payments to thousands of students, means the likely closure of its institutions.

In an announcement on the Federal Student Aid website, the Education Department said that the roughly 8,800 students enrolled at Argosy campuses could seek to transfer their credits elsewhere or apply for loan cancellation in the event their campus shuts down.

The Argosy decision marks the first time the Trump administration has blocked a for-profit college’s attempt to change tax status. A letter outlining the move, however, indicates it was likely a reaction to the deteriorating financial situation at the chain, rather than a change in philosophy on the blurring of the for-profit business model. In the letter to Dream Center Education Holdings, the nonprofit owners of Argosy, department officials said that the college chain does not meet fiduciary conduct, financial responsibility and administrative capability standards required to participate in the federal Title IV aid program.

In 2017, for-profit college operator EDMC announced the sale of Argosy, Art Institute campuses and South University to the Dream Center, a Los Angeles-based religious nonprofit with no prior experience running higher education institutions. Since then, the Education Department had held off on giving its blessing to the transaction, which affected close to 60,000 students at the time. But it didn’t stop the deal from going through, either.

Over the last two years, the parties sought the approval of various accreditors involved in overseeing the colleges. Some of those groups gave their approval but still raised conflict-of-interest concerns about the deal.

Later, Dream Center, facing lawsuits from vendors, sought court-appointed receivership status. The receivership prompted the Education Department to tighten cash management sanctions already in place on the college. Those sanctions, which are designed to protect students and federal funds, meant Dream Center could receive federal funds only after it disbursed aid to Argosy students and then sought reimbursement.

In recent weeks, though, media reports revealed that students at Argosy campuses hadn't received their expected funds, and many found themselves unable to pay for expenses like food and rent. Mark Dottore, the court-appointed Dream Center receiver, claimed that money that should have been available for the college to pay students was missing. The Education Department said it is still waiting for an accounting of how those funds were spent.

In the letter to Dream Center, department officials said a list of unpaid student stipends provided by Dottore on Feb. 7 showed more than $16.2 million had gone unpaid, including nonpayments to Argosy students and students at Western State College of Law. A cash-flow statement provided by Dottore also showed federal funds had been paid to staff and vendors, instead of students and parents.

Department officials also found Argosy had been locked out of its Phoenix location and was holding classes at an unauthorized location. And Dottore, the receiver, had terminated Argosy's chancellor and almost 100 faculty and staff members despite assuring the department that step would not be taken.

That process was so disruptive, department officials wrote, "that professors were called out of classrooms while they were teaching and their employment terminated."

Dream Center Education Holdings will have until March 11 to present new evidence to dispute the department’s findings on the campuses.

“We are disappointed at the decision by the Department of Education today to deny Argosy University’s request for change of ownership,” Dottore said in a statement. “We are working to determine the best path forward for students at this time.”

Critics of the Dream Center deal, meanwhile, said the department’s decision, while welcome, should have come long ago.

“The Dream Center deal stunk at the time and it’s only gotten more rotten since,” said Ben Miller, vice president for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress. “More broadly, this is another instance of the Trump administration dithering in its oversight of schools that still leads to the same inevitable outcome of closure, just with a lot more harm along the way.”

Bob Shireman, director of higher education excellence and senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a longtime critic of for-profit higher education, said the decision “probably should have happened two years ago.”

Shireman and other consumer advocates have argued that federal regulators should be applying more scrutiny to for-profit colleges seeking to convert to nonprofit status, a trend that began under the Obama administration and accelerated under President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

For-Profit Higher EdEditorial Tags: For-profit collegesImage Source: Getty ImagesImage Caption: Argosy University's Alameda, Calif., campusIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Argosy BlockedTrending order: 2
Syndicate content