Tag: career

Higher education has seen a wave of university closures in recent years. While data has been valuable in understanding the scale of these difficulties, there are real people and places behind the numbers. I decided to do a classic American road trip to dead and dying colleges this past summer, chronicling what the sector was losing through ethnographic research.

The road trip was more than 3,000 miles long and brought me to 12 campuses, taking me through the Rust Belt region—to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Syracuse and Cincinnati—to Plains cities like St. Louis, Oklahoma City and Tulsa and finally back home to the West Coast, with stops in Santa Fe and Albuquerque along the way.

The Eeriness of Dead Campuses

During my tour, no one was waiting for me at campus welcome centers. I did see my share of tattered signs welcoming newcomers. They were no longer welcoming students, but rather construction crews clearing out buildings.

In physically walking through these spaces, I felt the immensity of their history. Campuses were often sprawling and in the middle of nowhere, even more so now that the somewhere had closed.

There is a concept of liminal spaces, empty yet normal settings that evoke an unease. Walking around these uninhabited campuses and buildings, I kept imagining that they were once filled with hundreds if not thousands of people. It was like exploring a lost civilization—forgotten iconography and busted artifacts in crumbling buildings.

Those crumbling buildings were part of what broke these institutions. When neglected, the costs of repair can grow exponentially. I saw firsthand the cracks in the sidewalk at Notre Dame College in Ohio and the busted concrete at Bacone College in Oklahoma.

Returning to Nature

On some of the campuses, nature was taking back what once belonged to students. Instead of undergrads napping on the campus quad, I saw buzzing insects and whistling birds in tall grass.

At Urbana University in Ohio, I stumbled on a herd of deer grazing. Alone and at sunset, it was a majestic sight.

At the Santa Fe University of Art and Design, some kind of prairie dog creature popped its head up when I was plodding across the baking desert campus. It made a loud click, a warning to the rest of its coterie that a human had returned, before diving back into its burrow.

Plants, too, thrived without lost freshmen late for class making desire paths across the grass. While no campus I visited was completely overrun, they were often shabbier than the manicured lawns I’m used to at thriving universities. The trip reminded me that grounds crews might be the unsung heroes on our campuses.

Lost Space, Lost Memory, Lost Icons

It was somber seeing cherished civic institutions, central to local identities, shuttered. The colleges I toured were third places that locals enjoyed for recreation or gathering. No more.

Cazenovia College once sat in a prominent location within the walkable downtown of Cazenovia, N.Y., before shuttering in 2023. Locals told me that they used to enjoy the campus greenery, walking their dogs or letting kids play on the grass. But now the New York State Police has taken over the campus for use as a police academy. With heightened security in place, locals have been barred from their strolls.

The campus spaces I visited held considerable cultural meaning and memories. I saw countless signs for the “Class of …” or “In Memory of…” and even gravestones.

Bacone College in Muskogee, Okla.—which has stopped enrolling students—was the nation’s “oldest American Indian institution of higher learning.” The campus is the site of a small graveyard and a memorial for tribal members lost in wars.

At Urbana University, there was a memorial for three Chinese students killed in a car accident in 2007. “Gone but Not Forgotten,” read the stone carving. I was touched by the story of these international students, far from home on an adventure, at the start of their lives, tragically cut short.

I even stumbled on what was essentially a funeral for Wells College, as a group of alumni gathered for a final tradition of ringing the dinner bell before the campus closed for good. Many were laying flowers and messages where a beloved Minerva statue once sat for more than 150 years, decapitated just days before during a bungled moving process.

The metaphor was almost too on the nose for the attendees.

Rebirth

The visits were often sad, but that was only half of the story. Some institutions were making the best of their transitions.

In Shawnee, Okla., after St. Gregory’s University closed in 2017, the campus was contentiously sold off to the owners of Hobby Lobby and donated to nearby Oklahoma Baptist University.

I was expecting a depressing abandoned college like others I had seen on the trip. I found the opposite.

When I arrived, the campus was buzzing with volunteers working to move brush and debris from a recent storm. There was even a museum started by a world-traveling Benedictine monk more than 100 years ago still in operation with an impressive collection that families were enjoying.

You see, the monks who still operate St. Gregory’s Abbey made a deal with the Baptist institution for a land swap, getting back their former college buildings.

The monks and volunteers were excited by the return and the potential new direction. Yes, it was no longer a university, but it could still be an important touchstone for the community. They were hoping that the dorms could be adapted into senior or affordable housing.

I felt similar excitement at Medaille University in Buffalo, N.Y., which was being converted into a charter school. An administrator even invited me back in the fall to see their successful launch.

What’s Next?

At the end of my trip, I visited the former Marymount California University, which sits on the bluffs of the Palos Verdes Peninsula overlooking the Pacific. On a clear day, Catalina Island is visible from the campus green. This is some of the most desirable land in the U.S., but the affluent area meant upkeep was expensive and student residences were a farther drive inland.

The University of California, Los Angeles, has now taken over the campus, emphasizing research on sustainability.

Many of the people I talked to had hoped that their closing institution would be taken over by other educational institutions, whether another university or a K-12 school. Even then, the old legacy of the spaces may fade.

In Cincinnati, Edgecliff College long ago merged with Xavier University (in 1980), but its old campus became the site of luxury high-rise condos.

More colleges will close in the coming years. Some will find adaptive reuses that will carry on their educational legacies or service missions. Many, unfortunately, will not. These places, the campuses, the communities and their cultures, all deserve to be remembered beyond numbers on a spreadsheet.

Democracy and higher education have been good for each other. Although the first colleges on our shores were founded in colonies controlled by a monarchy in Britain, the impressive growth of universities that combined research, teaching and education of the whole student happened here as the country became more democratic. Slavery was the great stain on the nation, and the war fought to abolish this vile institution ended with promises that Black people, too, should enjoy opportunities for education, including at colleges.

The exclusion of women from institutions of higher learning began breaking down at the end of the 19th century, and, as the right to vote was finally enshrined in the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, women’s colleges were up and running and public universities were enrolling women.

It took time, far too much time, but educational institutions eventually recognized that white supremacy, patriarchy and the parochialisms that went with them obstructed learning because they prohibited certain subjects from investigation and excluded certain people from participating in research and teaching. In the colonial era and shortly after independence, colleges aimed at training clergy, but over time they saw their role as providing the country with an educated citizenry.

By the late 19th century, the research university was coming into its own, which meant fostering specialized investigation into areas that professional academics had decided were worth exploring. The professors valued their academic freedom because it allowed them to explore topics and problems that those outside the campus walls might find disturbing.

Academic freedom also allowed universities to create teaching environments free of official censorship or the soft despotism of pandering to commercial popularity. The classroom was a space for professors to share their professional expertise with students who could in turn explore ideas and methodologies without fear of orthodoxies imposed from the outside. In recent years, of course, teachers have been accused of imposing their own narrow views on those who study with them. They have been accused of abandoning their professional role and substituting their own personal opinions for scholarly investigation.

Colleges depend on the professionalism of their faculty to adjudicate claims of bias in the classroom. In the best of times, teachers debate with one another about how and what they should teach, and the more advanced the students, the more likely it is that they will have their own views on what should happen in the classroom. In most subject areas (and most notably in STEM and related fields), the issue of indoctrination rarely comes up. The classroom is focused on exploring demanding methodologies and complex content.

Everyone knows that teachers are imperfect and that there are times when the classroom is not as free and open as one might like. That’s why there are mechanisms for providing feedback so that professors can adjust how they teach. It would be far worse to rely on outside groups—like governmental agencies—to police teaching rather than expecting faculty to self-correct based on feedback regularly received. Education relies on the freedoms of democracy, and these should protect it from the interference of politicians.

That’s why what is happening now is so concerning. During this electoral season, we have seen a dramatic escalation of attacks on the autonomy of our educational institutions. These have gone hand in hand with the attacks on democracy. Both are under direct threat from populist authoritarianism in this country and around the world. When Donald Trump attacks his opponents as thugs and vermin and threatens to use the military against them, or when he proposes his own national university to replace the elites so despised by his base, he is declaring his intentions to remake higher education in the image of the violent cult he leads. Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance has declared that the university is the enemy.

Some academics and public intellectuals may shrug their shoulders, saying either that “other politicians aren’t so great either” or that politicians don’t really mean what they say. They are relying on their privileged status to protect them even as they disregard the profound threats to the freedom of expression and inquiry on which their privilege is based.

The attacks on higher education, on democracy, on the rule of law, threaten to sweep away freedoms that have been hard-won over the last 100 years. Education is a process through which people develop their capacities for exploration, collaboration and creative work. They learn to treat new ideas with curiosity and respect, even as they are also taught to critically evaluate these ideas. They learn skills that will be valued in the workforce and habits of mind and spirit that will help them flourish throughout their lives. They learn to think for themselves so that they can be engaged citizens of a democracy—not the cowering subjects of a dictator.

During periods of cultural and economic change, great pressure is often brought to bear on education because at such times people find it hard to agree on what is meaningful, let alone admirable. Ours is one such period. But we can agree that fearmongering and prejudice are wrong and that we should strive together to find ways to “cultivate individuality in such ways as to enhance the individual’s social sympathy,” as John Dewey advised.

In the United States, education and democracy can continue to protect and nurture one another. In the coming days, we must reject the cultivated ignorance that is used to fan the flames of hatred. Instead, we must defend the freedom to learn together in our schools, colleges and universities so that as a nation we can continue our democratic experiment—knowing we have a long way to go, but striving toward a more perfect union.

The University of Chicago has received a $75 million donation to support the construction of a new cancer pavilion at UChicago Medicine, the university announced Thursday.

The gift comes from the AbbVie Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to addressing health inequities, and will help fund an $815 million, 575,000-square-foot freestanding cancer center that will combine research, clinical treatment and patient care.

“We are deeply honored by this generous donation, as it strengthens our commitment to advancing the health and vitality of the community—a core priority of our South Side–based institution,” said University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos. “This significant contribution speaks to the confidence that the AbbVie Foundation has in UChicago as a pioneering medical institution dedicated to pursuing globally meaningful solutions to yet-unsolved challenges.”

The building, which will be called the AbbVie Foundation Cancer Pavilion, is set to open in 2027. It “will unify more than 200 leading cancer experts, who are now spread out across our campus, allowing us to collaborate very closely with one another to create something bigger than what we could achieve alone,” said Dr. Kunle Odunsi, director of the UChicago Medicine Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Starting college can be a daunting experience for many learners, but especially those who cross borders to enroll.

International students often face cultural and social barriers to success in higher education; a June report from Terra Dotta shows one-third of international students anticipated having challenges with social interactions or making friends.

The survey also found the most helpful events or services offered to international students by their institution upon first arrival are orientation (73 percent) and welcome and social events (63 percent). Around 10 percent of students wished they had had more cultural and social integration as they transitioned to campus, as well.

One initiative colleges and universities can provide international students is a student handbook curated around their transition to living in the U.S. and becoming a thriving member of the campus community.

What to include: For individuals looking to flesh out their college or university’s guide to the international experience, common topics addressed across existing guidebooks include:

1. Student life. A handbook is a good place to highlight various student support offices and resources to ensure students are aware of the suite of offerings available to them. Lamar University shares on- and off-campus resources and links to international student organizations in the handbook. Salisbury University also provides a link to all international student scholar events and activities and the Buddy Program, which pairs two students from different countries to engage in cross-cultural learning.
2. Regulations. To maintain status as an international student in the U.S., individuals have to hold an F-1 visa, which comes with special regulations such as an I-20, a valid passport and full-time, in-person enrollment each semester. The F-1 visa also limits student employment and some travel, so making students aware of what they can and cannot do while in the U.S. is critical. The College of the Atlantic’s guidebook has a glossary of basic immigration terminology that breaks down the documents and paperwork needed to remain in the U.S. and at the college. Community college students may need additional guidance around how to transfer institutions, as well.
3. American customs. Just over 20 percent of Terra Dotta survey respondents said they wished they had received more guidance on cultural and social norms prior to arriving to campus. Students may need a reminder that American college is not like what they’ve seen in the movies. “It is not necessary to wear Western-style clothing,” according to the University of North Dakota’s international student guidebook. “Clothing you have brought from home is acceptable.” Beyond information related to being a young adult in the U.S., Gardner-Webb University’s guide includes information like federal holidays, metric to the U.S. system of measurements and clothing size conversions to demystify norms.
4. Slang. Thanks to social media, young people invent new terms and phrases every day, which can be hard for older U.S. adults to follow, much less those who are nonnative English speakers. A directory on American slang can help students feel more confident in engaging with their peers. Salisbury’s handbook defines terms like “BYOB,” “cop-out,” “hit the books,” “in a nutshell” and “under the weather.”
5. Mental health support. Adjusting to a new culture is difficult emotionally and may leave students feeling isolated or alone. Referring students to on-campus counseling resources or other services available can help them be aware of how they can be supported through challenges they may face.

6. Location. Because the U.S. is a large country, it may be hard for international students to localize where exactly their college or university is if it’s outside a major U.S. city. California Northstate University notes some of the grocery and dining options available to students in the Sacramento area and the local sales tax rate in the guidebook. Some college towns may require students to drive a car as well, which can be helpful information to note along with how to obtain a driver’s license and a vehicle. Columbia International University has a section in its handbook dedicated to information on automobiles and licenses.
7. Weather. Some international students may be living in a brand-new climate when moving to the U.S. UND’s handbook takes special attention to highlight the winter season and some winter storm safety tips to ensure learners are confident and comfortable in all seasons.
8. Safety. One safety concern students said they held prior to their arrival to campus is around crime, theft and personal safety in the U.S. (49 percent), according to the Terra Dotta survey. The international student guidebook can highlight on-campus resources and security tips, such as the blue light emergency phone system and nighttime escort and shuttle services.
9. Postgrad planning. Over half (56 percent) of international students plan to seek employment in the U.S. after graduating, according to Terra Dotta’s survey. Handbooks can outline what is required for students to remain in the country, helping set expectations and kick-start career planning early.

If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

My (Victoria) first full-time role after completing my Ph.D. in world history combined teaching with administration; I suddenly had to oversee a curriculum, manage instructors and teach several classes. I found myself wishing I had formal training in these areas—though I had taught a handful of times during my Ph.D.. Later, as I moved into roles supporting postdocs and graduate students, I heard experiences that mirrored my own, a sense of being underprepared to take on roles with teaching and leadership responsibilities.

It was only as I started guiding others that I realized I had drawn on my experiences as a mentor and mentee to navigate these new professional areas. Some of the experiences I drew on were examples of successes, for instance, when I coached an undergraduate who was struggling. Others represented failures, whether it was the experience of feeling wholly unsupported by a mentor or the time I had avoided a difficult conversation that could have helped my own mentee.  

Similarly, when I (Jovana) stepped into my administrative role working with students, faculty and administrators, it required skills that were beyond those taught/discussed/modeled in my Ph.D. in education program. Or at least that’s what I thought at first. However, the more I worked on preparing myself for the requirements of my job, the more I realized that I already learned from my mentors how to guide, lead, collaborate and push back when necessary. Seeing the graduate school dean advocate for me and other students taught me how to do the same for my own students. My academic adviser’s diplomatic way of working with my dissertation committee modeled for me how to navigate conversations with different stakeholders. And finally, being asked by my supervisor to do too much taught me to push myself out of my comfort zone and have the necessary conversation about boundaries.

In your own educational experiences, you may or may not have the opportunity to engage with resources in areas that may be important to your next career step, such as teaching, management and leadership. However, you likely had mentors and have been a mentor to others, either informally (anything from helping a fellow student learn a skill to welcoming new students in your program) or formally (as a teaching assistant, peer mentor or in other capacities).

In our roles supporting graduate students and postdocs in their professional development, we see how these populations learn much from mentorship, including:

• How to articulate their values,
• How to align expectations with others whose priorities are different than their own, and
• The importance of a sense of belonging for themselves and those they work with.

In our previous essay, we shared advice on how to translate your teaching experience into skills such as project management and problem-solving, which can support you in a variety of potential roles inside and out of academia. Here, we continue the same thread and offer strategies for how to identify and translate skills developed through mentorship in pursuit of roles that emphasize teaching, management and/or leadership.

Communication

As a mentor or mentee, you likely presented your ideas and work to your mentor or served as an audience for your mentee. Effective communication to a variety of constituents is an essential part of teaching, leading and managing. Accordingly, drawing on your experience communicating in a mentoring relationship can help you demonstrate how you would be able to engage those who have different skill levels, varying amounts of experience and a variety of priorities.

I (Victoria) drew on my experience as a mentee in developing my communication approach. I realized that mentoring meetings were far more effective when I identified my goals for them and started documenting an agenda and a summary after meetings—otherwise these meetings felt meandering. I have adapted this insight in my management of staff (e.g., by encouraging a supervisee to create our meeting agenda, sharing the task of documenting next steps, etc.).

A further aspect of mentorship communication is giving and receiving feedback. A good mentor ensures a mentee receives regular feedback to help them reflect on their work and their learning and, in turn, invites the mentee’s feedback on the mentor’s support and the work itself. Applying this to how you’d manage others may mean simply scaling to your new context to articulate how you’d use a regular exchange of feedback to build trust.

As for teaching, you can mirror your mentoring approach by inviting feedback throughout or at key checkpoints during the semester to make adjustments in real time rather than waiting until end-of-semester evaluations. Additionally, inclusive teaching approaches encourage providing students with regular feedback on their learning. Your experience mentoring others and giving them feedback on their performance can assist you in offering transparent feedback on strengths and areas of growth for your students.

If your next career step is taking you outside academia, you can use these same principles with those you supervise. I (Jovana) make sure I meet individually with those I supervise and talk about work and their overall well-being, workload and life-work balance. Because of the power dynamics that inevitably exist, I also ask my own supervisor to check in occasionally with those I supervise to ask them how they are doing, and how they feel about work and working with me.

Promoting Independence, Self-Efficacy and a Sense of Belonging

An important part of the mentoring relationship is promoting independence and self-efficacy in the mentee. Reflecting on how you scaffold a mentee’s development to support them in taking on their own project can help you envision leading a course, team or unit. For example, you can articulate how you would scaffold learning in your classroom, perhaps breaking down a final project into assignments handed in throughout the semester. As a manager or leader of a large project, you can consider how you would invite your colleagues to identify strategies and steps toward completing aspects of the project effectively, independently and with confidence.

In a mentoring relationship, a mentor also serves as a critical resource for a mentee’s sense of belonging; they are a primary point of reference for a mentee to understand their context and their role within it. A mentor works to understand a mentee’s expectations for their role and their professional and personal goals as part of helping them achieve their next career step. The mentor can crucially welcome the mentee’s lived and learned experiences and offer perspectives on their goals, the achievability of those goals and what the mentee needs to do to make progress in the right direction. Whether you have experienced this as a mentor or mentee, you likely can draw on your experiences to formulate approaches to support someone feeling included so that they can be successful. Similarly, you can translate this into how you would create a learning or professional space in which everyone can thrive.

The Power of Reflection

The reflection we are encouraging throughout this essay includes reflection on mediocre or negative mentoring relationships—as these, too, can help you articulate the kind of teacher and leader you want to be. For example, in a teaching position I (Jovana) held, I had a supervisor who micromanaged absolutely everything and everyone. While it was overall a negative experience, I learned what kind of supervisor or mentor I did not want to be and what kind of supervisor or mentor I never wanted to have again.

On the other hand, my supervisor while I was a graduate assistant (and my subsequent boss until her retirement in April this year) and my Ph.D. adviser were both the embodiment of role-model mentors. I learned from them what it means to encourage and inspire those with whom you work through your own work ethic, clearly articulated values and commitment to holding yourself accountable.

In our two essays, we encourage you to reflect on your experiences as a graduate student and/or postdoc to consider how they can be used to envision yourself in your next role. In the frequently high-pressure, high-expectations and stressful timelines of academia, we do not always take the time to intentionally consolidate and ruminate on how much we are learning beyond the specific expertise and content knowledge that is formally emphasized in our graduate studies and postdoctoral training.

But to have navigated higher education, your unit and your mentoring relationships effectively, you have developed skills that make you an amazing future teacher, manager and leader. Here we have explored the ways mentoring experiences can feed into or be translated into these areas and can be correspondingly used when applying to and preparing to start that next role.

Robert Zaretsky, in his recent article “The Absurdity of Asynchrony” (Oct. 14, 2024), described his own experience teaching an asynchronous online course as students receiving “three credits to watch movies whenever they wish – along with taking a bi-weekly multiple-choice quiz and tossing a comment into the discussion board once a week” so that “apart from the discussion board” there is “no possibility of contact or connection between students and teachers.” Zaretsky said, “in an asynchronous setting . . . neither teaching nor learning truly occur.” Based on his description of his course, I agree with him. It is absurd. But many asynchronous online courses are not that way.

Teaching and learning can and do take place in an asynchronous online setting. Instead of a multiple-choice quiz every other week, there are several each week to help students check their understanding of the material. Rather than just tossing a post onto a discussion forum once a week, students respond to thought-provoking prompts and have discussions with their classmates. And teachers engage in regular, substantive interactions with students not only by joining in those public discussions, but also providing private feedback on student work. 

Just as from the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step, so is from the ridiculous to the sublime.  

Brenda Thomas has worked in various roles in online higher education, including adjunct faculty and instructional designer, at several colleges and universities since 2015. 

Learning a language involves much more than vocabulary and grammar; language learners must also uncover the cultural values and ideologies embedded within the language itself. In the case of Romance languages such as French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan, one of the most fundamental aspects of grammar is gender. Nouns, adjectives and pronouns are typically categorized as masculine or feminine, clashing with our more complex, 21st-century understanding of gender identity. This rigid linguistic structure can alienate students whose identities may not fit within the traditional gender binary. It is difficult for them to feel fully seen or respected in the classroom, where they often feel pressured to misgender themselves or prematurely out themselves due to their limited descriptive options.

In a world increasingly aware of the fluidity of gender, this issue is becoming more pronounced. According to a 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center, approximately 5 percent of young adults in the U.S. identify as non-cisgender; at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where I teach, almost a quarter of students identify as LGBTQIA+.

Recognizing the mismatch between students’ identities and the way gender is traditionally taught in the classroom, the Department of Romance Languages and Literatures at Michigan took action in 2019 by establishing the RLL Gender Diversity Committee. Composed of linguists, gender studies experts, language instructors and trans and nonbinary faculty and students, the committee’s mission was to reframe how gender is approached in Romance language courses. This initiative has resulted in curriculum revisions, public awareness campaigns and the creation of new online resources, all with the goal of making language learning more inclusive and affirming.

Principles for an Inclusive Classroom

As the chair of the department’s Gender Diversity Committee from 2019 to 2024 and a long-term member of Michigan’s LGBT Faculty Alliance, I saw firsthand how transformative these efforts can be. Here are five principles that have guided our team’s work and can serve as a model for other institutions looking to create more inclusive language classrooms.

1. Take Action

Every great journey begins with a first step. Ours was to bring together a group of committed individuals who could approach this issue from multiple perspectives. In our committee, the diversity of voices was key to addressing our topic in a well-rounded way, and our motto, “All identities are RLL identities,” reflected this inclusive approach. The input from each member was essential in shaping the inclusive and comprehensive framework we sought to create.

One of our first actions was to create an online presence, making our mission statement, syllabus statements and morphology tables available to members of the department. By providing these resources early and inviting feedback throughout the process, the team demonstrated its commitment to change while offering faculty and students tangible tools to implement more inclusive practices.

2. Bring Trans and Nonbinary Individuals to the Table

No initiative aimed at fostering inclusivity can succeed without the active involvement of the communities it seeks to serve. In our case, trans and nonbinary departmental members were instrumental in helping us understand the unique challenges they face in the language classroom. Through surveys and direct involvement in the committee, these members of the RLL community provided invaluable insights that shaped our approach.

It’s crucial to listen and learn from firsthand experiences. Misgendering, for instance, can be profoundly painful for students, signaling a lack of recognition or respect for their identity. By ensuring that trans and nonbinary students have a voice in the conversation, we can better meet their needs and create spaces where they feel seen and valued.

3. Don’t Expect Textbooks to Do Your DEI Work

One of the most significant challenges our department encountered was that most Romance language textbooks don’t account for nonbinary identities. While these textbooks provide valuable grammatical instruction, they often conflate grammatical gender with gender identity, perpetuating a binary understanding of gender.

As our team investigated the evolving linguistic landscape, we found that many cultures where Romance languages are spoken have integrated nonbinary pronouns and gender-neutral options into their languages. However, these innovations are rarely reflected in the textbooks used in U.S. classrooms. As a result, instructors must be proactive in supplementing textbook materials with more inclusive language content. We ended up creating a website for our department, which adapts current course content to include nonbinary language. Recognizing the additional work required, we applied for an instructional grant from Michigan to support this important step toward making our classrooms more inclusive for all students.

4. Teach Gender-Diverse Language Within a Gender-Diverse Cultural Context

Creating an inclusive classroom goes beyond modifying textbooks. It’s also about equipping students to use gender-diverse language in real-life communicative contexts. Through the committee’s work, we’ve incorporated nonbinary pronouns and gender-diverse language into reading, writing and speaking exercises that reflect the diversity of situations that students might encounter in real life. These exercises not only meet curriculum requirements but also provide a space for students to engage in critical discussions about gender identity and inclusivity.

Language is more than just a tool for communication; it reflects and shapes the worldviews of its speakers. By encouraging students to explore the cultural implications of gendered grammar, we can foster greater empathy and understanding both in and outside of the classroom.

5. Go Public With Your Support and Efforts

Public awareness is a powerful tool for inspiring change. At Michigan, we launched a public awareness campaign that prominently displays nonbinary pronouns in the five Romance languages that are taught on campus. These visuals have sparked conversations among faculty, students and even parents, broadening the scope of our work and extending its impact beyond the classroom.

Public awareness campaigns like these serve not only to educate but also to normalize the use of inclusive language. When students and faculty encounter nonbinary language in hallways and public spaces, it helps to reduce the discomfort some feel around this evolving aspect of language. The feedback we’ve received has been overwhelmingly positive, with many expressing gratitude for our department’s efforts to foster a more inclusive environment.

Moving Toward a More Inclusive Future

Language learning should be an inclusive, enriching experience for all participants. However, the binary gender framework that underlies the Romance languages presents unique challenges for trans and nonbinary individuals. By forming an innovative committee, collaborating with stakeholders, providing supplemental information, adapting course materials and launching public awareness campaigns, we’ve begun to dismantle these barriers and create classrooms for all students, no matter how they identify or present in private and/or public spheres.

The steps we’ve taken at the University of Michigan are just the beginning. There is still much work to be done, but these guiding principles can inform efforts to make similar changes in other language departments. Other institutions can join in creating more inclusive models for teaching languages and cultures—models that fully reflect the diversity of our student body and the complexity of gender in the modern world.

It is very much not like me to share a positive perspective about higher education writ large in this space. After all, I’m the guy who, in August 2023, wrote (of higher education), “It’s Over: Higher Ed in the Rearview Mirror,” in which I declared that whatever beliefs people had about higher ed being places where individuals can make themselves better through education—across dimensions other than future employability—was an artifact of the past.

But I’m going to break type this week and work through what I see as possible signs of hope. If what we may have once thought about higher education is in the rearview mirror, maybe, just maybe, there’s something visible on the horizon through the front windshield that should give us a sense of future possibility.

The first bit of good news is that according to research conducted by the College Board, once student aid and inflation are factored into the equation, tuition at public two- and four-year institutions is more affordable this year than last.

In fact, this is a trend that’s been ongoing since 2020. The study is indexed to the cost of college in 1994–95, so in 2024–25, the study found, tuition and fees for four-year public colleges are about twice what they were (again, indexed to inflation) 30 years ago.

This isn’t great, but it puts today’s costs roughly on par with 2009–10. In essence we’ve reset to the costs in place when people first started questioning the value of a college education. Not great, but undeniable progress.

More good news comes in the form of an opinion essay by Kevin Carey and Sophie Nguyen of New America, which argues that higher education is not nearly as unpopular and mistrusted as we have been led to believe.

Their argument is based in several observations:

1. People have lost faith in just about every institution, rather than higher education being unique in its position. In fact, while only 36 percent of Americans say they have high confidence in higher education, this still ranks well above other institutions such as the medical system, organized religion, public schools and television news.
2. Negative feelings about education have become attached to general political polarization, rather than outright negative experiences with higher education. In fact, most people still say that they think the higher education institutions they intersect with do a good job.
3. People still see a role for government to make education affordable, suggesting they don’t want to see a broken institution abandoned so much as a troubled institution given fresh life.

As the authors say, people don’t necessarily want to give up on higher ed; they just want it to be better.

Given that cost is the chief complaint about higher ed and the most significant barrier to enrollment, the fact that costs—while still high—have declined from their peak is good news indeed.

This good news is perhaps tempered by the fact that enrollment of first-year students declined by more than 5 percent year to year. The decline was most pronounced at four-year public institutions, which saw an 8.5 percent drop in first-year students. 

Liam Knox of Inside Higher Ed compiled some possible explanations for the drop, one of which is that the disaster of the new FAFSA rollout discouraged some potential students from even making an attempt at applying and enrolling. Given that community college enrollment growth was up, significantly aided by an increase in dual-enrollment students who would not need to go through the FAFSA process, this theory may hold some water.

In my view, what higher ed should take from this data is a desire for institutions to fulfill their core missions, to make themselves accessible to the people who want what they have to offer: an education.

The consumer/transaction model of higher education is well exhausted. Prices had to come down because they couldn’t get any higher. Institutions cannot cut their way to prosperity or drink a consultant elixir that turns a college into some kind of magical entity miraculously girded for the unique challenges of the 21st century.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s all bullshit. People want educations. They need credentials that mean something. They’re willing to pay a reasonable price for that, but if those criteria are not met, they’ll do something else.

This requires sustainable thinking and a focus on core values. I’m not saying this is easy to execute, but it’s not really all that complicated in terms of the underlying vision and values.

The public is telling us what they want from higher ed. Let’s do that as best we can, and should we have success, more support and resources will come, and maybe, just maybe, there’s a decent future ahead.

While a majority of colleges and universities offer tutoring to learners, not all students are aware of or taking advantage of these offerings. A July 2023 report from Tyton Partners found while 93 percent of university employees indicate availability of tutoring and academic support services, only 56 percent of learners say they’re aware of them.

Intentional and direct outreach to students who can benefit from services is one way colleges have increased access and use of support services. Pennsylvania State University launched a pilot in 2023, utilizing data and notifications from instructors to identify which students could benefit from tutoring.

After the first semester, campus leaders saw a majority of students who received personalized outreach respond or attend a tutoring program, and administrators plan to track data to see the program’s longer-term impact.

The background: Penn State adopted EAB’s Starfish platform in 2015, launching new institutional efforts to integrate technology into student support work.

“One of the stronger approaches we’ve developed here at Penn State is that the group that is managing that platform is inclusive of offices beyond just academic advising,” says David Smith, associate dean of advising and executive director for the division of undergraduate studies. “The more that that small group talks about ways to make this tool connect students to resources, it allows for brainstorming of ideas about where and how to apply the technology to connect students appropriately to the right resource at the right time.”

The university also has a larger goal to minimize equity gaps in student success, and the usage of technology is one critical piece of that, Smith explains.

How it works: Twice a year, Penn State instructors complete a progress survey on Starfish that tracks items including a student’s performance and instructor recommendations for how to improve. Performance categories range from “outstanding performance” to “meeting expectations” to “in danger of earning less than a C,” and related suggestions include “come to office hours,” “participate more consistently,” “seek tutoring” or “talk with your adviser.”

The surveys take place typically during the third and seventh weeks of the semester, with early indicators allowing students to make adjustments sooner in the semester to be successful and the midsemester benchmarking helping them realistically assess their progress in a course, including their continued enrollment.

Each flag and kudo raised creates an automated email to the student and their adviser, and students are expected to take action on that warning. Professors can also add a comment, which is included alongside the standardized email alert.

When a student is flagged for tutoring, they receive an email that links to the campus learning center and how to contact their student success network as well as reminds them that there is no extra charge for tutoring.

The tutoring and academic support center, Penn State Learning (PSL), launched a pilot in spring 2023 for students in writing courses who were flagged to seek tutoring, but PSL saw minimal uptake with requests for help. In fall 2023, the office began outreach to any student who was flagged to seek tutoring or learning support in mathematics, science and writing-intensive courses.

Within the platform, staff can view all students who’ve been flagged in particular classes to send a message to students within Starfish about how to access tutoring, says Neill Johnson, director of PSL.

By the numbers: Of those students who received a “seek tutoring” to-do, 59 percent participated in tutoring or a Guided Study Group (GSG).

Among GSG-supported students, 235 students in fall 2023 received a flag from their instructor to seek tutoring. PSL responded by sending these learners the session schedule, which resulted in 41 percent attending GSG sessions or exam reviews. When replicated in spring 2024, 1,267 students received referrals and 58 percent attended sessions or exam reviews.

Responses were highest for students in mathematics courses and those who have study groups associated with their class, which Johnson hypothesizes is because students receive constant information about GSG availability, making it hard to miss.

Learners at Penn State are in general open to engaging in tutoring, and there isn’t a strong stigma around utilizing resources because it’s talked about often and proactively, Smith says. But the initiative helps deliver timely and personalized interactions with staff and students.

“My sense is that it’s having an impact,” Smith says. “We can see better outcomes for students who receive flags. It’s creating a space where even our approaches to advising can become better.”

What’s next: The next iteration of the pilot will include students who are flagged for language courses.

Leaders hope to track student data to graduation to see how working with Penn State Learning impacted their retention or overall outcomes compared to peer or demographic groups.

One future challenge is breaking silos among Penn State departments and divisions at the University Park flagship to get more faculty on board with completing progress surveys. Across campuses in the commonwealth, more faculty members complete progress surveys and students receive more to-dos and kudos, Smith says. “There’s work that we at University Park need to do in really learning from our colleagues at [other] campuses around how to lower silos, how to be more intentional.”

Another area of focus is identifying how to close the loop on student support flags; while a to-do may be considered resolved because the outreach was completed, it doesn’t necessarily mean the academic issue is resolved with the student. “I think what we’re really trying to stress with instructors is the flag, that to do, is really to get somebody’s attention, and that some action needs to happen as a result of getting their attention,” Smith says.

We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our weekday newsletter on Student Success.

The cost of higher education continues to pose a threat to student retention and success, with over half of learners with some college but no degree unable to re-enroll due to financial constraints.

New data from ed-tech group StraighterLine and UPCEA, the online and professional education association, found over half of stopped-out students (58 percent) disagree that their current financial situation will allow them to afford tuition and related experiences for their education; but among those previously enrolled in a degree program, the motivating factor to re-enroll would be to improve their salary (53 percent).

“The contrast reveals a critical issue: while many individuals seek higher education to boost their incomes, they are often unable to afford it due to skyrocketing tuition costs,” according to the report.

Survey respondents indicated they are academically and mentally prepped to handle college, but financial constraints keep them from going back to school. Students who left their institution were less likely to consider higher education trustworthy and important to their future goals.

The background: Across the U.S., 36.8 million Americans have started some postsecondary education but did not earn a credential or degree, growing by 2.3 million students from January 2021 to July 2022 alone, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

As institutions scrounge for students to enroll and counter the looming demographic cliff, targeting stopped-out students is an opportunity to enroll highly motivated learners. For institutions focused on retention, the “some college but no degree” population paints a picture of challenges and barriers to student success.

During the 2022–23 academic year, students over all who re-enrolled were most likely to pursue an associate degree (52 percent), but those who had started a bachelor’s degree program were most likely to return to their four-year degree (57 percent).

Buck stops here: The survey asked students to consider their college readiness factors, including academic preparation, mental resilience, flexibility, learning environment, financial readiness and time management skills.

Eighty-eight percent of respondents agree they are proficient in essential academic skills (reading, writing, mathematics and critical thinking) and 86 percent agree that they are competent in using tech for research, coursework and other learning activities. Similarly, 81 percent say they are adaptable and can persevere when faced with obstacles, and 71 percent say they can cope with stress and challenges.

Stopped-out learners are also invested in their education, with 63 percent agreeing they would devote the time and effort needed to complete their program of study. The primary motivating factor for re-enrollment would be to improve their salary (53 percent). Forty-four percent want to complete as a personal goal, and 38 percent want a career change.

However, over half (58 percent) disagree that their current financial situation will allow them to afford tuition and related experiences for their education; only 22 percent agree.

Improving trust: Fewer than half of stopped-out students (42 percent) agree with the statement that colleges and universities are trustworthy, and just under one-quarter of those who were enrolled in a degree program believe earning a degree isn’t necessary anymore.

Those who did think colleges were trustworthy or communicative were more likely to re-enroll, showing how institutional efforts to build trust and support students while enrolled can impact their future decision-making.

But only about half of current students believe their administrators are trustworthy. A May Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found 52 percent of students say they have at least some trust in their president or executive-level officials to ensure students have a positive campus experience.

Colleges and universities should tailor their approach to address the interests and needs of prospective students to build trust and make learners feel seen and heard, according to the white paper. “With this understandable lack of trust and potential perception of a lack of value, it is essential that institutions are thoughtful in their attempt to build relationships.”

Administrators should also highlight postgraduation support services offered by the institution, such as career counseling, internships and professional development that can help graduates reach their goals. A September report from Tyton Partners found only one-third of stopped-out students were aware of career advising at their college.

Getting back to class: Over all, students who started a certificate program are slightly more likely to be ready to re-enroll, compared to their peers who were in a degree program, but both had a normal distribution, with most falling in the “somewhat ready” category.

The survey results demonstrate that students who were mentally prepared to handle challenges (including having a conducive learning environment, coping with stress, willingness to devote time and effort, and open to adaptation), who held positive opinions of higher education institutions and who saw the value of a degree or certificate were most likely to re-enroll.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.

For the past two years, a lot of us have written course, program and university policies about generative artificial intelligence. Maybe you prohibited AI in your first-year composition course. Or perhaps your computer science program has a friendly disposition. And your campus information security and academic integrity offices might have their own guidelines.

Our argument is that the integration of AI technology into existing platforms has rendered these frameworks obsolete.

We all knew this landscape was going to change. Some of us have been writing and speaking about “the switch,” wherein Gemini and Copilot are embedded in all the versions of the Google and Microsoft suites. A world where when you open up any new document, you will be prompted with “What are we working on today?”

This world is here, sort of, but for the time being we are in a moment of jagged integration. A year ago, Ethan Mollick started referring to the current AI models as a “jagged frontier,” with models being better suited to some tasks while other capabilities remained out of reach. We are intentionally borrowing that language to refer to this moment of jagged integration where the switch has not been flipped, but integration surrounds us in ways it was difficult to anticipate and impossible to build traditional guidance for.

Nearly every policy we have seen, reviewed or heard about imagines a world where a student opens up a browser window, navigates to ChatGPT or Gemini, and initiates a chat. Our own suggested syllabus policies at California State University, Chico, policies we helped to draft, conceptualize this world with guidance like, “You will be informed as to when, where and how these tools are permitted to be used, along with guidance for attribution.” Even the University of Pennsylvania guidelines, which have been some of our favorites from the start, have language like “AI-generated contributions should be properly cited like any other reference material”—language that assumes the tools are something you intentionally use. That is how AI worked for about a year, but not in an age of jagged integration. Consider, for example, AI’s increasing integration in the following domains:

• Research. When we open up some versions of Adobe, there is an embedded “AI assistant” in the upper right-hand corner, which is ready to help you understand and work with the document. Open a PDF citation and reference application, such as Papers, and you are now greeted with an AI assistant ready to help you understand and summarize your academic papers. A student who reads an article you uploaded, but who cannot remember a key point, uses the AI assistant to summarize or remind them where they read something. Has this person used AI when there was a ban in the class? Even when we are evaluating our colleagues in tenure and promotion files, do you need to promise not to hit the button when you are plowing through hundreds of pages of student evaluations of teaching? From an information-security perspective, we understand the problems with using sensitive data within these systems, but how do we avoid AI when it is built into the systems we are already using?

The top hit in many Google searches is now a Gemini summary. How should we tell students to avoid the AI-generated search results? Google at least has the courtesy to identify theirs (probably as a Gemini promotion), but we have no idea how these systems are supplying results or summaries unless search engines tell us. The commonality here and throughout this piece is that these technologies are integrated into the systems we and our students were already using.

• Development. The new iPhone was purpose-built for the new Apple Intelligence, which will permeate every aspect of the Apple operating system and text input field and often work in ways that are not visible to the user. Apple Intelligence will help sort notes and ideas. According to CNET, “The idea is that Apple Intelligence is built into your iPhone, iPad and Mac to help you write, get things done and express yourself.” Many students use phones to complete coursework. If they use a compatible iPhone, they will be able to generate and edit text right on the device as part of the system software. What’s more, Apple has partnered with OpenAI to include ChatGPT as a free layer on top of the Apple Intelligence integrated into the operating system, with rumors about Google Gemini being added later. If a student uses Apple Intelligence to help organize ideas or rewrite their discussion post, have they used AI as part of their project?

One piece of technology gaining traction is Google’s NotebookLM. This is the only non-integrated technology we are discussing, but that is because it is designed to be the technology for writers, researchers and students. This is a remarkable platform that allows the user to upload a large volume of data, like a decade’s worth of notes or PDFs, and then the system generates summaries in multiple formats and answers questions. Author and developer Steven Johnson is up front that this system is a potential hangup in educational settings, but it’s not designed to produce full essays; instead, it generates what we would think of as study materials. Still, is the decision to engage with this platform to do organizational and conceptual work the same as copy-pasting from ChatGPT?

• Production. Have you noticed the autocomplete features in Google Docs and Word have gotten better in the last 18 months? It is because they are powered by improved machine learning that is AI adjacent. Any content production we do includes autocomplete features. Google Docs has had this active since 2019. You can use Gemini in Google Docs in Workspace Labs right now. Do we need to include instructions for turning autocomplete off for students or people working with sensitive data?

When you log into Instagram or LinkedIn to publish an update, an AI assistant offers to help. If we are teaching students content production for marketing, public relations or professional skill development, do they need to disclose if the AI embedded in the content platforms helped them generate ideas?

Beyond Policy

We don’t mean to be flippant; these are incredibly difficult questions that undermine the policy foundations we were just starting to build. Instead of reframing policies, which will likely have to be rewritten again and again, we are urging institutions and faculty to take a different approach.

We propose replacing AI policies, especially syllabus policies, with a framework or a disposition. The most seamless approach would be to acknowledge that AI is omnipresent in our lives in knowledge production and that we are often engaging with these systems whether we want to or not. It would acknowledge that AI is both expected in the workforce and unavoidable. Faculty might also indicate that AI usage will be part of an ongoing dialogue with students and that we welcome new use cases and tools. There may be times when we encourage students to do work without using these tools, but this is a matter of conversation, not policy.

Alternatively, faculty may identify these integrations as a threat to student learning in some fields of study. In these cases, we need to use the syllabus as a place to articulate why students should work independently of AI and how we intend to set them up to do so. Again, framing this as an ongoing conversation about technology integration instead of a policy treats adult learners as adults while acknowledging the complexity of the situation.

There continues to be a mismatch between the pace of technological change and the relatively slow rate of university adaptation. Early policy creation followed the same frameworks and processes we have used for centuries—processes that have served us well. But what we are living through at the moment cannot be solved with Academic Senate resolutions or even the work of relatively agile institutions. There will be a time in the near future when jagged integration is smoothed into complete integration, where AI is at the core of every operating system and piece of software. Until that time, in the classroom, in peer evaluation and in institutional structure, we have to think about this technology differently and move beyond policy.

Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier has emerged as a strong advocate for institutional neutrality in recent years, arguing that institutions often go beyond their core mission when they strike stances on public issues. He expounded on those views in an interview with Inside Higher Ed in which he discussed the growing number of institutions that have adopted institutional neutrality and how tensions in the Middle East and related protests on campuses are driving university leaders to rethink how they engage on contentious issues at home and abroad.

Excerpts of the interview, edited for space and clarity, follow.

Q: How did Vanderbilt arrive at its institutional neutrality stance? 

A: Vanderbilt has had a commitment to institutional neutrality since the late ’60s, early ’70s, and it was first articulated by our fifth chancellor, Alexander Heard. When I arrived on campus, the speech that I gave to the community in my inauguration, I talked about the importance of free expression and institutional neutrality. Then about two and a half years ago I wrote a piece in Inside Higher Ed —I had a piece in The Chronicle [of Higher Education] a few months later—and then, of course, Oct. 7 happened, which made this issue front and center for everybody.

I was provost at University of Chicago for four years before [coming to Vanderbilt]. The Kalven report, of course, is a very important part of how the University of Chicago has thought about [speech] for decades. I would say that during these four years when I was provost [2016 to 2020], the main focus was really on free expression—the Stone report, the Chicago principles—because the main issues were speakers being shouted down and things like that, not so much institutional neutrality.

Now the focus, I think deservedly, is not so much on free speech; free speech discussions are just a red herring right now. The real issue is over institutional neutrality. Why? Because the student protesters—in particular, the pro-Palestinian groups—have asked universities to take a very clear position against Israel in words, but also through the endowments and by boycotting Israeli vendors or vendors that do business with Israel. So I’m delighted to see that universities, finally, are joining the [institutional neutrality] movement. One of the first was Harvard, of course; now there’s a whole bunch of them.

The overwhelming majority have interpreted this very narrowly as a commitment that the president will no longer issue statements. That is one part of institutional neutrality, but it’s not everything. The University of Chicago and Vanderbilt have always interpreted institutionality as also applying to actions—not just words—because the fundamental issue is position taking. Are you taking a position on a controversial or political and social issue that goes beyond the core functioning of university?

Q: Why do you think institutional neutrality seems to be gaining momentum in this moment?

A: Position taking by universities was always a problem. Now the question … is front and center to the conflicts on campus. People are realizing that this was never a good idea. Now they’re seeing that the costs are very high, because the practical consequences of [not having] institutional neutrality is that you are creating an environment of politicization. When you say, “Where should we be—on this side or the other one?” people lean in. And what makes this particular type of conflict different is that you have two sides, not just one. You have a pro-Israel and a pro-Palestinian side, and that creates an enormous amount of drama on campus. It makes the problem salient. That saliency is now leading university presidents and their boards to realize the wisdom of the position of institutional neutrality.

Q: What is your threshold for speaking out on an issue now for taking a position on something?

A: Institutional neutrality means [asking], “Am I taking a position that goes beyond that core purpose of the university?” … It’s not about being silent all the time. Of course, you can talk to your community, but you have to be careful that you restrict your comments and focus your comments on the values related to the core purpose of the university, like access for students, financial aid, research support for your faculty. These are all related to values, but they are related to the core purpose of the university.

You can and you should talk about the important value that universities bring to society, forcefully. That’s not a problem with institutional neutrality, because it’s your core purpose.

When you have a tragedy, for example, that affects the members of the community deeply, I think there is a need for the leader of the institution, a president or chancellor, to have a pastoral function, where you connect with the community emotionally, with empathy, with the suffering, with the concerns that they have. That can be a natural disaster or, as we had in Nashville, a school shooting that was only a few miles from campus, and that affected members of our community in the most horrendous way. When you do that, you need to comfort people and connect with them empathetically in an authentic fashion. But it’s not about decision-making. It’s not about position taking on policy issues. In the case of the school shooting, you can connect with people as a community that’s suffering. What you shouldn’t do is now come down with a position on gun control; that’s a policy issue.

Q: After Oct. 7, many presidents released statements, and many of them were skewered. Do you think the pushback to and perhaps missteps in some of those statements has been a factor in more leaders adopting institutional neutrality policies?

A: If you are carelessly—or maybe intentionally—taking positions on one side or the other, you will hear it from the other side, and you will hear it very forcefully. That’s just another example of how this particular conflict made the advantages of a position of institutional neutrality more manifest. It still took a long time for people to come around. I think it was the pushback on the statements, and then it was the politicization on campus associated with these topics, that made people more aware of [institutional neutrality] and created this movement toward institutional neutrality.

Q: Some universities make their political leanings very clear, both liberal and conservative institutions. Can those that are openly political adopt a stance of institutional neutrality? I can’t help but wonder to some degree if that would harm their marketing or recruiting efforts since they are drawing a particular type of student.

A: Institutional neutrality follows from the purpose of the university. And if your purpose is about the creation and dissemination of knowledge or being a place for path-breaking research and transformative education, then you have to have ideas from various different backgrounds, perspectives and ideological commitments present on campus. That is inconsistent with taking a particular ideological position, I would argue. The institutional neutrality principle is deeply tied or grounded in the purpose of what is sometimes called a liberal arts education, in which universities want to have multiple perspectives, and have students to deeply engage with them, that doesn’t say, “This is right” or “That’s right,” that encourages debate, not settles it.

Now, if you don’t want that, if you have a different purpose, then, of course, the principles that come with that have to fit that purpose. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “We want to have a free flow of ideas for both sides, and by the way, we have a progressive or conservative value orientation.” That’s not going to work … I don’t have a problem if people say, “We have a particular political orientation.” But your principles have to be clear along those lines.

Q: Where do you think institutional neutrality will go from here? Will it continue to gain momentum and be adopted by more institutions?

A: My strong expectation is that this movement will continue. People are appreciating the wisdom of institutional neutrality; they recognize it supports the core mission, and it also helps to avoid, or at least reduce, the politicization on campus.

Institutional neutrality should not only be practiced by universities, but by professional associations as well … When the American Sociology Association condemns Israel genocide, that is very problematic because the professional associations are important gatekeepers in the world of the academy. They give out awards and recognitions, they organize conferences … and they publish academic journals ,which are crucially important … The catastrophic decision by the American Association of University Professors to allow for academic boycotts makes it even worse.

Q: Public trust in higher education is obviously quite low, whether that is over issues of student return on investment or perceptions about ideology. Do you think a stance of institutional neutrality adopted broadly by institutions can help restore trust in higher education?

A: Everything that universities can do where they clearly articulate their purpose, and act accordingly, will help restore trust. The purpose of universities is noble, with tremendous positive benefits for society. But if we’re deviating from that, or we’re not acting according to our purpose and the values that support that, that’s when we get into trouble. So the reaffirmation of that is a very, very good idea, and it would help with restoring trust.

Q: Historically, presidents and chancellors have often been looked to as moral leaders, and some use their platform to strike stances on issues. What do you think of this notion that university leaders are backing away from the public debate by not speaking up on issues?

A: Your No. 1 responsibility is to your university and to the world of higher education. There are plenty of areas where you can make an important contribution to society: on access to education, on innovation, the value of higher education for American prosperity and an inclusive economy. I just don’t think that it’s a good idea to wade into the foreign policy. You have no expertise on that, and it’s unrelated to the function that you play in society. You are the leader of a university, and focusing on that mission and that purpose is plenty and it’s super important.