Tag: education

The Trump administration’s effort to use the problem of antisemitism on campuses as an excuse to bend universities to its will has been well documented. Reaching into its bag of tricks, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent a subpoena to the University of Pennsylvania last July seeking the names of Jewish employees who’d filed complaints alleging antisemitism or discrimination based on religion or ancestry/national origin, as well as employees affiliated with its Jewish studies program, Jewish organizations or community events.

When the university refused, the EEOC filed a lawsuit. It asked a federal judge to enforce its subpoena.

It claimed to need the personal information about Penn’s Jewish employees to investigate claims that Penn engaged in “unlawful employment practices by allowing antisemitic harassment to persist and escalate throughout its Philadelphia campus and creating a hostile work environment for Jewish faculty and staff.”

On Jan. 20, Penn responded by calling the EEOC’s demand “extraordinary and unconstitutional.” It was right to do so.

As three University of Pennsylvania faculty members note in an op-ed in The Guardian, “If history teaches us anything, it is that making lists of Jews, no matter the ostensible purpose, is often a prelude to their and others’ persecution … Even if the EEOC is collecting Jewish community members’ personal data in a good-faith effort to ensure safety, lists of Jews can later be leaked, or deployed to other, more sinister ends.”

Such concerns seem particularly warranted at a time of rising levels of antisemitism and violent hate crimes against Jewish Americans. One recent survey found that “one-third (33 percent) of American Jews say they have been the personal target of antisemitism—in person or virtually—at least once over the last year.” Moreover, “Nearly six in 10 (56 percent) American Jews say they altered their behavior out of fear of antisemitism” in 2024.

In its suit, the EEOC said it is investigating “a pattern of antisemitic behavior that has been publicly displayed throughout Respondent’s campus.” It claimed that the list of Jewish employees would enable it to reach out to them: “Throughout its investigation, the EEOC has endeavored to locate employees exposed to this harassment and to identify other harassing events not noted by Respondent in its communications, but Respondent has refused to furnish this information, thereby hampering the EEOC’s investigation.”

But what the EEOC is offering, many Jewish employees at Penn do not want.

As the three Penn faculty members pointed out in their Guardian op-ed, “Jewish and non-Jewish community members at Penn and beyond have united to support the university’s resistance to compiling and releasing data about members of campus Jewish organizations, the Jewish studies department, and individuals who participated in confidential listening sessions and surveys about antisemitism.”

On Jan. 20, the Penn Faculty Alliance to Combat Antisemitism, an association whose membership consists predominantly of Jewish faculty, asked permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the EEOC’s effort. Their brief, which they appended to their request, pointed out that “disclosure of sensitive information about the members of Jewish organizations … burdens Jewish association rights, unintentionally echoing troubling attempts in both distant and recent history to single out and identify Jews—a historically persecuted minority.”

While expressing appreciation for the “EEOC’s concern regarding antisemitism on university campuses,” the alliance noted that by requesting lists of Jewish employees, the EEOC was “exacerbating the fear and uncertainty of Jewish faculty at Penn.” It called the EEOC’s subpoena “an ill-designed means for addressing workplace antisemitism, particularly because the agency could accomplish its goals in ways that would better protect the university’s Jewish faculty and staff, as well as their First Amendment rights.”

“Ill designed” is one way to put it, but more important is the point that Jewish faculty at Penn make about the burden on association rights and their fear. As for many Americans, that fear is in part based on mistrust of the Trump administration.

It is born of the administration’s growing record of disregard for constitutional rights and basic human dignity, and of its seeming willingness to do anything to accomplish its goals.

Almost 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot demand and force an organization to turn over its membership list absent a “compelling justification” for doing so. In NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the court found that Alabama’s request for the NAACP’s membership list “trespasses upon fundamental freedoms,” ruling that “the effect of compelled disclosure of the membership lists will be to abridge the rights of its rank-and-file members to engage in lawful association in support of their common beliefs. “

In that case, the court recognized what it called “the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.”

The University of Pennsylvania, in its response to the EEOC lawsuit, says that the EEOC “seeks to invade employees’ private affairs and compel the disclosure of their associations without articulating any compelling interest justifying that serious burden on First Amendment rights.” It went on to say that “if the information demanded were somehow made public, the individuals identified on the lists could face real risk of antisemitic harm.”

And, similar to the case with the NAACP, Penn suggested that disclosure of membership in Jewish organizations “will have a substantial chilling effect on the association with Penn Jewish organizations and participation in Jewish life on campus.”

The EEOC’s effort to access such information is clearly unconstitutional. It is now up to the courts to stop that effort.

Florida took another step Thursday toward banning all its public universities from hiring foreign workers on H-1B visas.

The state university system’s Board of Governors will now take public comments for two weeks on a proposed prohibition on hiring any new employees on H-1Bs through Jan. 5 of next year. The vote from a committee to further the proposal was a voice vote, with no nays heard from any committee member. The proposal will come back to the full board for a vote after the public comment period ends.

If enacted, Florida would become the second state to ban the use of H-1B visas at public universities. Texas governor Greg Abbott announced a one-year freeze earlier this week—a move that prompted pushback from faculty.

The state bans come after President Trump placed a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications in September (international workers who are already legal residents aren’t required to pay the fee). The next month, Florida governor Ron DeSantis ordered the state’s universities to “pull the plug on the use of these H-1B visas.” Fourteen of the Board of Governors’ 17 members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.

DeSantis complained about professors coming from China, “supposed Palestine” and elsewhere. He added that “we need to make sure our citizens here in Florida are first in line for job opportunities.”

Universities use the program to hire faculty, doctors and researchers and argue it’s required to meet needs in health care, engineering and other specialized occupations. Some conservatives contend that the program is being abused.

Discussion about the proposed ban lasted about 15 minutes Thursday, during which no committee member strongly advocated for the policy. Much of the time consisted of the board’s only faculty voting member and its only student voting member—neither of whom are members of the committee—reading off their objections to the move. Among their concerns: university system leaders’ plans to collect information on the H-1B program during the hiring moratorium, instead of collecting the data before making a decision.

Kimberly Dunn, chair of the statewide Advisory Council of Faculty Senates and the faculty board representative, said institutions and the university system “rely on the H-1B process to recruit world-class talent to our institutions.”

“Whether it is a pediatric cancer surgeon or a globally recognized researcher, these individuals directly contribute to Floridians’ health, safety and economic success,” Dunn said. “In many cases, the H-1B visa is the only viable pathway for bringing this level of expertise to our state.”

“Limiting our ability to recruit the very best talent in the world risks undermining the excellence that has positioned our system as a national leader,” Dunn added. She said the reputational damage from the ban could outlast the yearlong moratorium.

She urged the system to collect the data before pausing hiring new H-1B visa workers.

Carson Dale, Florida State University’s student body president and chair of the Florida Student Association, said he believes that “American taxpayer dollars should support hiring Americans whenever possible.”

“Where I part ways is with the mechanism chosen here,” Dale said. “This is not a neutral reform; it is a categorical restriction that determines who we are allowed to consider regardless of who is most qualified.”

He said the prohibition undermines Florida universities’ commitment to “merit” and goes against other actions that Florida has taken, including scaling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives because “we believed they risked interfering with merit-based selection.”

“This regulation has the practical effect of excluding otherwise highly qualified candidates before individual merit can be assessed,” Dale said. “That matters because the labor market for advanced research talent is global.”

He said Trump’s $100,000 fee was already implemented “to deter overuse and protect U.S. workers.” He noted Elon Musk, along with other entrepreneurs, came to the U.S. from overseas.

“Top-tier candidates are not going to pause their careers to wait on a single state,” Dale said. “When Florida removes itself from consideration for an entire hiring cycle, those candidates accept offers elsewhere.”

Last fiscal year, according to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services database, the federal government approved 253 H-1B visa holders to work at the University of Florida, about 110 each at Florida State University and the University of South Florida, 47 at the University of Central Florida, and smaller numbers at other public institutions.

Ray Rodrigues, the university system’s chancellor, told the committee that if the H-1B hiring pause is approved, his office and the universities “will be studying the cost of the H-1B program as well as how the program is used by our universities, including identifying the areas where the program is currently being used and whether those areas are of strategic need.”

He also said the study will look at whether employers have used the program to bring in employees who are “paid less than market wage.” He added that the system plans to work with universities to identify other areas that should be included in the study.

Alan Levine, chair of the Nomination and Governance Committee, which considered the proposal, appeared to acknowledge the issues that a blunt yearlong ban on H-1B hires could cause.

“I would encourage the universities—if an issue arises that’s unforeseen, particularly in areas like medical schools, faculty, engineering, where we have contracts with the Defense Department, things like that—where there’s issues that become an issue of concern for you, please bring those to the chancellor so that we can make a decision about how to address it,” Levine said. “We can always bring the group back together again if we need to.”

“Certainly there are physician shortages, and there’s needs particularly in high-acuity specialties in health care and medicine, and certainly there’s issues in certain STEM areas like engineering, so it’s understood,” Levine said. “The goal here is to collect information.”

Now that we text each other approximately 7,000 times a day, and we’re going forward as friends in a relationship of equals, we’ve decided to use our initials for this column. Gordon’s full name is Ebenezer or something that starts with an E. Rachel was born without a middle name and in college, among the preppies, decided to give herself an S.

RST: That good with you?

EGG: Do I have a choice? I would have preferred Your Highness but highly unlikely that would fly.

RST: That’s what my phone calls me. I like thinking of you as an egg. Maybe gain a whole bunch of pounds around your middle and then I’ll crack you.

EGG: That is cruel. You have no respect for older people.

RST: Whatever, geezer. Within minutes of our first column’s publication, I heard from folks telling me how I should attack you.

EGG: Rachel, one of the agreements we have is that this is not an effort to say what others wish to hear. This is us unfiltered—

RST: —um, I am always unfiltered. It’s why you wanted to work for me, since you are always decorous and stuffy.

EGG: —and the reason we decided to do this together is because we can ask each other the tough questions and not let each other resort to pablum. Truthfully, it is a bit frightening for me after 45 years of people holding their breath about what I will say, but you insist that I be honest and say the things out loud that I mutter under my breath.

RST: Well, we promised our readers we were going to get into it, go there, have it out. We already have a list of meaty topics to cover, and we’re both excited and energized by this project. We even started working on a column called “Majors Are Dumb.”

EGG: Point of order: It is not so much that majors are dumb, rather it is because the structure that requires majors is antiquated. Universities are structured to put both faculty and students into a system that is hierarchical and siloed. Yes, students need to learn and have deep understanding about topics but not be forced to learn more about this and less about that. Only when we get rid of departments and colleges and organize around centers, institutes and working groups can true creativity happen and curiosity be stoked.

RST: Can’t wait to get into that. But first, I want to ask about some of the things I’ve learned in the past three years talking confidentially to presidents for The Sandbox. They all say that everyone wants to tell them how to do their job. What do people like me fail to understand about the presidency?

EGG: Everyone “knew” how to run the university better than I did. I always felt that if people who were second-guessing me and had the same amount of information that I had, they would make the same decisions. For example, at WVU when we were looking at the need to restructure, we had a fact-based approach. We discovered we had 28 faculty in World Languages teaching 21 majors. What the hell! That was a better student-faculty ratio than the Department of Surgery. Yet when we made the decision to eliminate the department, I was accused of being an absolute heretic. We continued to teach languages based on student demand. I know that asking the students to vote with their feet is a strange concept, but it is the reality.

RST: What if there is a sudden and intense demand from students to learn Klingon? Would you set up a department to teach that? Don’t tastes and trends change? I mean, only a few years ago, students were being advised to major in computer science. Oops. I meant for us to have this conversation later.

EGG: Not a department of Klingon, but I would respond by further reducing language programs where there is no demand and hiring Professor Spock and several others if the demand persisted.

RST: Cultural appropriation much? Dr. Spock is Vulcan, Gordon (you ignorant slut!). Squirrel! We are both easily distracted, which is partly why it’s a hoot to collaborate with you.

EGG: I am having so much fun, despite your unfiltered mouth. I will take your slings and arrows with grace … and get back at you.

RST: Getting back to it, every president I talk to—and, to be clear, my circle is large but may not be representative, because everything in The Sandbox is anonymous and I do nothing to promote them or feed their egos—says that no one understands the job until their butt is in the chair. You got into that seat seven different times. Even when you were returning, did you still have a steep learning curve?

EGG: Rachel, there is no playbook for the presidency. Each place is different, with their own values and culture. And when I returned to OSU and WVU, I had to totally reinvent myself and relearn the institutions because they had changed. If I had tried the old playbook for either place, it would have been a disaster.

RST: Because you can’t step into the same river twice, though some colleges and universities are more like scum-covered ponds. An old peer of yours asked me this fall if I thought the presidency had changed in the last five years. Nope, I said. I think it’s changed in the past two. Now when former presidents spout off and tell those still in the job what they should be doing, it does damage, and I’m not going to allow you to do that, Gordon, so don’t get any ideas. The only thing worse is when those who haven’t spent meaningful time on a campus since they were students tell presidents how to do their jobs and treat higher ed as if it’s monolithic. What do you make of all these calls for presidents to stand up, fight back, make statements?

EGG: They are fools. Some of those people would have their asses fired in two minutes if they were at a public university in a red state and did what people are calling for. You learn how to dance with the partner that brought you.

RST: You mean boards. You’ve had public and private university boards, and if my sources are right, you make tons of coin serving on corporate boards (can you get me one of those cushy jobs?). What do people not understand about university boards?

EGG: University boards are the challenge of the moment. They are often appointed because of political connections or have been substantial donors to the governor or the university. And sometimes they are even elected. I had many wonderful board members who wanted to learn and support the university, but when you get a rogue board member or a cabal, it makes the life of the president miserable and you end up fighting a two-front war—the board and/or the faculty or legislature—and so you slink off into obscurity. Truthfully, tender love and care of the board is a president’s first duty and ultimate lifeline.

RST: I don’t know which is Scylla and which is Charybdis, but only one of them has real power. Lots of presidents get hired by boards who want them to do stuff, but when they fire the football coach or make some dumbass crack about the Little Sisters of the Poor, they don’t support them. And they are accountable to no one. So how do you solve this problem?

EGG: As a president you do your homework. So many people accept a job without doing due diligence. I am a poster boy for that with my decision to go to Brown. You also need to get a clear understanding of the ground rules. Although I hate this, I do think a president needs to be represented by a good lawyer before accepting a job. Ambiguity is the enemy of a successful presidency. But, in the end, so many circumstances can derail a presidency which are beyond your control. When it is time to quit, exit with grace.

RST: Not always easy. I wish I could remind faculty colleagues that if we vote no confidence in a president (misguidedly thinking that will have any effect other than souring a relationship that needs to work), the next guy the board brings in is likely to be a lot worse.

EGG: I just had a great conversation with a distinguished president who has presided over both a big public and big private institution. We decided we are going to form a group of presidents called FNC (Faculty No Confidence) members. The popular idea of the moment for faculty to express their concerns is by votes of no confidence, but confident leaders view these often as marks of greatness. And they should if they are doing the right things. If they are being stupid, then they deserve such a vote and [to be] returned to their first love: teaching.

RST: Which would be a rude awakening, because even though being a tenured faculty member is the most privileged position in the country, the students of today are a horse of another color, and not easy to corral.

EGG: The cultural gap between the Millennials and the Z generation is huge. We tend to teach to the last generation instead of to the present, and that is one of the many reasons that higher education has lost so much trust. Meet the students where they are and not where we want them to be … back to the old problem of majors, which is a silly notion for so many present students.

RST: You are famous for sending handwritten notes to journalists (for the record, since I am not a journalist, I have never received one). What does the media get wrong about the presidency and/or higher ed?

EGG: Oh my. The press. I feel like I have had almost a daily colonoscopy from the press. With a few exceptions (and they know who they are), the press has little understanding of universities or the presidency. They come at it from a very progressive lens and listen to the voices who confirm what they want to hear. The old adage of “if it bleeds it leads” is accurate. If you can make the university president bleed, you are “brave”—and most often inaccurate, if not dishonest.

RST: When I first started The Sandbox, I had a former president of a big university who wanted to write a piece called “Why We Can’t All Be Gordon Gee.” When you first reached out to me, I told you that and said I had the sense that at times even you couldn’t be who we thought Gordon Gee was. You started your career working for Chief Justice Warren Burger, and now, for the first time in 45 years, finally, you have another boss who can teach you: me. Now let’s get to work on majors and departments.

EGG: Yes, ma’am.

International scholars represent a vital economic force in the United States, contributing an estimated $42.9 billion to the economy and supporting more than 355,000 jobs during the 2024–25 academic year. But navigating the U.S. immigration system as an international student or postdoctoral researcher can be a long and complex journey.

While everyone is subject to their individual situations, for many, the process begins with an F-1 student visa, which they hold as they complete a Ph.D. over five to six years. After graduation, they may choose to transition to Optional Practical Training (OPT), which provides a year of work authorization, with a two-year extension for STEM graduates. Some may then transition to a H-1B temporary work visa, which provides for three years of work authorization and is renewable for another three years.

Depending on their visa journey, after this period of potentially 10 to 15 years on a temporary visa, a scholar who decides they would like to seek permanent residency would have several pathways available to them. The EB-1A (extraordinary ability) category allows for self-petitioning without an employer. It’s often the fastest route if one meets the strict qualifications.

EB-1B is for outstanding professors or researchers and requires employer sponsorship. EB-2, another common path, is for individuals with advanced degrees such as Ph.D. holders; it often requires employment sponsorship and a labor certification (a process that certifies that the job offer will not adversely impact U.S. workers), unless one qualifies for a National Interest Waiver, which waives the job offer and labor certification requirement and allows for self-petitioning. Unfortunately, the green card timeline is also heavily influenced by one’s country of birth due to annual per-country limits.

As universities recognize the critical importance of international students and scholars to their academic communities and the broader economy, innovative programs have emerged to address the unique challenges faced by this population. Below, we highlight some commendable strategies implemented by leading universities to support international students beyond traditional academic services.

Career Development and Professional Preparedness

Universities can collaborate with private organizations like Beyond the Professoriate, which offers a PhD Career Conference addressing critical career-related topics. These career-focused initiatives are particularly valuable because they address the reality that many international students and scholars will pursue careers outside academia, yet traditional graduate programs often provide limited exposure to industry pathways.

Complementing these efforts, universities can implement career-readiness workshops tailored specifically for international scholars to address their unique professional development needs. The effectiveness of such programs lies in their practical approach to addressing real-world concerns such as navigating visa restrictions or OPT applications and securing employment that supports immigration status.

We recommend that institutions thoughtfully include entities that hire international students in their programming and create events that specifically connect employers and international scholars. Institutions should also help scholars explore job opportunities beyond the United States.

Mentorship Networks and Alumni Connections

Mentorship programs represent another cornerstone of effective international student support. Programs like the Graduate Alum Mentoring Program, Terrapins Connect, Alumni Mentoring Program and Conference Mentor Program serve as exemplary models. Successful programs take a systematic approach to matching mentors and mentees based on shared interests, career goals and often similar international backgrounds, creating authentic relationships that provide comprehensive support for scholars’ academic journeys and beyond. For international students and scholars unfamiliar with cultural norms around American professional networking, having a guide with a shared background transforms potentially overwhelming experiences into valuable opportunities for professional development.

Community Building and Recognition

Universities that successfully support international populations prioritize creating multiple touch points for community engagement and mutual support, from informal networking events to structured support groups that address specific challenges. Community engagement is critical to minimizing isolation and allows scholars to draw on support from a variety of sources. These touch points can include accessible initiatives such as Friendship Fridays, International Coffee Hour, the Global Peer-to-Peer Mentoring Program, International Student Support Circle, VISAS Cafe and International Friends Club.

Another strategy is systematically highlighting the accomplishments of international students, scholars and faculty, and staff members at the university level. Recognition programs can include features in university publications, special awards ceremonies, spotlight presentations, fellowships and social media campaigns showcasing international student achievements. These initiatives celebrate contributions, demonstrate the value of international diversity and provide positive role models while combating negative stereotypes.

Peer Support

Since they first emerged in the early 1900s, international student associations have been central to their members’ identity formation and have long enriched U.S. campuses and social life. In these challenging times, such organizations can help their members find the support they need. National organizations such the Graduate Students Association of Ghanaian Students in the USA (GRASAG-USA) or the North American Association of Indian Students (NAAIS), as well as local chapters of groups like the Indian Students Association, continue to be effective social and emotional support resources for international students.

Providing Support in Navigating Immigration Policy Changes

Given the lengthy and often uncertain nature of immigration processes, U.S. institutions play a vital role in offering both practical support and emotional reassurance to their international members. Some institutions offer free legal consultations with external immigration attorneys. Institutions may choose to provide internal immigration advice in addition to external consultations.

Institutions may also support foreign nationals by providing information through a weekly newsletter as well as offering up-to-date guidance on policies and policy changes in an easily understandable format. Institutions without these forms of support may choose to refer scholars to national organizations that collate policy analysis and resources.

Furthermore, universities can offer programs spotlighting lesser-known immigration options, such as the O-1 visa for individuals with extraordinary ability.

By providing clear information, legal support and proactive communication, institutions and organizations can alleviate much of the stress international scholars face.

The most effective approaches involve integrated systems that combine multiple strategies rather than relying on single interventions. Successful universities create comprehensive ecosystems addressing career development, mentorship, community building and recognition as interconnected elements of student success. When institutions act not just as employers or educators, but as advocates, they empower the international talent they have invested in and ensure that global knowledge continues to thrive.

The authors acknowledge Sonali Majumdar and Bénédicte Gnangnon for their valuable contributions toward this article.