Study abroad grapples with its future

As U.S.A. and other countries/areas of the world see improving conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, study abroad programs struggle with what to do. Core to the struggle about if and where to resume study abroad is balancing advice from the U.S.A. government against the resources available at various institutions. Those institutions with greater resources are able to make independent and nuanced decisions where lower-resourced institutions restrict themselves to State Department and CDC directives in order to be secure in their decisions.

The differential impact of COVID-19 on areas of the world "has also forced a shift away from Global South countries." The shift benefits Western Europe and parts of Asia, which have "advanced health-care systems and higher vaccination raters. Even before the pandemic, more than half of all students who studied abroad -- 55.7 percent in 2018-19 -- studied in Western Europe." International educators have increasingly encouraged students to go beyond the more comfortable and touristy locations of Europe with the intent of deeper dives into more diverse contexts; research confirms enhanced educational outcomes where greater cultural dissonance is encountered.

The flip side of the study abroad issue is the decline of international students coming to the U.S.A. Education leaders have begged Biden and his administration to intervene to help bring this critical group of learners and scholars back. Study visas are difficult to obtain for many international students as a result of the pandemic and resulting closures of consulates throughout the world. Early reports from campuses indicate that there is hope that international enrollment will increase in 2021.

UNC Chapel Hill first denies, then offers, tenure to "1619" journalist

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the Pulitzer Prize journalist and a creator of the NYT 1619 project, was denied tenure by the Board of Trustees of UNC Chapel Hill. Proposed and approved by faculty vote, the Board chose to offer her only a term contract with the opportunity to apply for tenure in 5 years. As a result of fallout from the decision, the Board of Trustees scheduled a meeting for June 30, 2021, to vote again and approved tenure for Hannah-Jones. Hannah-Jones first postponed her move to UNC and then finally rejected it, instead taking a position at Howard University. UNC missed both quality and reputational opportunity and Howard University is the better for it, having now combined Hannah-Jones appoint with that of fellow journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates.

The history behind Hannah-Jones offer, equivocation, and rejection is interesting to following. Students and professors from the beginning demanded justification for the Board's decision, but rationale and response to public demand were anything but clear. The UNC case demonstrates the problem of conservative control of UNC by the Board and university Boards in general. An AAUP Report found the governance of the UNC system seriously broken. Faculty assert that the UNC case reflects the political orientation of Board members and inappropriate intrusion in decisions related to academic merit, which was confirmed by correspondence of Board member, Walter Hussman, Jr. Inside Higher Education wrote, "The New York Times Magazine's '1619 Project,' which re-examines the role of race in the nation's founding, and which has been criticized by detractors including former president Trump as being unpatriotic. Hannah-Jones is Black, and some also believe that she's being held to a different standard than her white would-be peers."

UNC faculty urged the Board to act immediately to reconsider their denial. Expediting consideration is particularly important in the face of losing other scholars who are sympathetic with, or concerned about, Hannah Jones' cause. In fact, UNC and other North Carolina system institutions experienced turnover at rates double that of the past. The UNC Journalism program's accreditation was downgraded, an outcome that students and faculty blame on the poor handling of the Hannah-Jones' controversy.

Hannah-Jones said in a Twitter post, "I have been overwhelmed by all the support you all have shown me. It has truly fortified my spirit and my resolve. You all know that I will be OK. But this fight is bigger than me, and I will try my best not to let you down." At a time when deeper analyses of previous narratives of U.S.A. history are underway, the UNC case is likely only the beginning but it has become more prominent for the Hannah-Jones handling as well as other scholars who have documented UNC's history of racism and discrimination. Hannah-Jones agreed not to sue UNC for a relatively small settlement but the more important outcome included the acceleration of the "Carolina Next" initiative.

Subsequent denial by the Board of Trustees of Eric Muller, another prominent journalist, to its UNC Press Board threw the university more deeply into controversy. Muller had previously criticized the Board of Trustees over considerations related to removal of "Silent Sam," a sculpture celebrating the Confederacy era. Controversy at UNC emerged again when objections were raised about an art exhibition at its Stone Center. Cornell Watson was asked to make changes to his exhibit, resulting in questions of censorship.

Educators beyond UNC have raised concern about Hannah-Jones' tenure denial, including a letter from prominent Yale faculty and the AAUP. The letter warns of spreading conservative reaction by saying, "We call on all people of conscience to decry this growing wave of repression and to encourage a recommitment to the free exchange of ideas in our schools, workplaces, legislatures and communities." Ultimately, the AAUP launched and investigation into UNC System governance as a result of the Hannah-Jones case. The UNC System was ultimately censured for violation of good governance standards by the AAUP which serves as tragic confirmation of the long-term systemic racism built into the institution.

Investing in the future through education - Gates Foundation

A commitment to the welfare of broad numbers of Americans is an idea imbedded in democracy and romanticized in the "American Dream." Yet, obsession with protecting a competitive capitalist meritocracy is embraced by many Americans, both rich and poor. This obsession across class was graphically reinforced in the electoral base that supported Donald Trump's election and bid for election in 2020.

While political conservatism celebrates capitalism and the competitive spirit that supposedly supports it, many conservatives are skeptical of higher education. The recent survey of the Association of American Colleges & Universities and Bipartisan Policy Center found that "Seven in 10 Democrats say that a college degree is 'definitely' or 'probably' worth it, compared with only 53 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of independents." The survey results also reflected a sharp division related to the importance of a commitment to social justice, with 45% of Democrats, 28% of Independents, and 19% of Republicans endorsing social justice as part important to long-term career success. This division is an important backdrop to consider in relation to the Gates Foundation's Post-Secondary Value Commission report. The Commission report was "designed to catalyze an equitable value movement, which will help reshape the higher education system in the United States by combating access and completion barriers, sparking economic mobility, dismantling racist practices and structural inequalities, and building a more vibrant and just society." The Commission report raises question of individual, institutional, as well as governmental responsibility for correcting inequities that exist.

The Gates Foundation report is hailed as lifting up the long-held assertion of educators that access, equity, and completion of educational goals has to be a central goal of a democratic society. Why? Because informed and talented citizens pay off in numerous ways - responsible participation, innovation, service, and economic vitality. The cost of inequity is too significant to ignore and the solution isn't only gaining access to higher education but the role it plays in equalizing opportunity. Illustrating this point in the bellweather setting of LA, a recent report of Los Angeles County's public education system reveals some hope in the diversification of enrollment to include Black and LatinX students but persistent problems with degree and certificate completion.

It has long been clear that privileged Americans are taking care of themselves by preserving access and networks through elite higher education. The Gates Foundation seeks to highlight how investment to benefit those without this privilege can be achieved - by "providing stronger academic and wraparound supports - including better academic and career counseling and mental health services; more comprehensive assistance with personal and financial needs, including tuition, childcare, food and housing; and stronger transfer pathways - to ensure that these students can reach their educational goals." Gates Commission members Anthony Carnevale and Kathryn Peltier offer the sobering conclusion that "The chances of earning a college degree and finding a good job in young adulthood are often determined more by a student's family socioeconomic status than by early achievement - for American children, it's better to be rich than smart." This is evident in the unfulfilled promise of commensurate opportunity that many students face, especially those of lower socio-economic means.

At the center of equality of opportunity is the question of what it costs to get a college degree and, especially an assessment of the return on investment. Funding from significant financiers is driving inequality to greater levels as they fund private and elite institutions. The coffers of the Ivy League are so profoundly out of proportion to other institutions that the graduates of these institutions, regardless of their own families' economic status, graduate with less debt than students at all other types of institutions.

A companion to the Gate's Foundation Value Commission report is a tool to assess what students can expect to make after graduation in the Equitable Value Explorer. Unfortunately, numerous institutions offer degrees that incur debt far beyond students' ability to pay off loans they took out to attend. However, the director of the Center for Education and the Workplace said that "College typically pays off, but the return on investment varies by credential." The Center's analysis determined that lack of degree completion ends up with a net loss in economic return, the result of paying for education that ultimately did not lead to degree-based advancement.

When considering policy related to inequity in education, it's important to focus on the breadth of educational opportunity, not just the programs that prepare students for work. The balance between career preparation and life readiness is difficult to strike and perhaps is most evident in the focus of community colleges on workforce development. Karen Stout, president and CEO of an organization of over 300 community colleges, declared that the equity statement for Achieving the Dream calls members to pursue "institution-wide and transformational change that eliminates systemic barriers, addresses student needs, and increases social justice and equity," 

Steve Mintz' review of Montas's book, Rescuing Socrates: How the Great Books Changed My Life and Why They Matter for a New Generation, asserts, "I find it bitterly ironic that many of the staunchest advocates for a faster, cheaper education had, themselves, the benefits of a liberal education. Now, in the name of access, affordability, and credential attainment, too many call for a cheaper, faster, career-focused education, dismissing a liberal education for the masses as a fool's errand."

Adam Harris' book, The State Must Provide: Why America's Colleges Have Always Been Unequal - And How to Set Them Right, asserts that "From its inception, our higher education system was not built on equality or accessibility, but on educating -- and prioritizing -- white students." Drawing conclusions from Harris and other authors, Steve Mintz proposed seven issues that could help explain the failures of higher education in correcting racial disparities and wealth inequality.  The fact that elite institutions have consistently served as "inequality machines" is one of the most difficult barriers to overcome.

”It's abundantly clear that the United States has not created the equitable democracy that offers opportunity to all regardless of background. Abandoning the unsubstantiated assumption of competitive capitalism, without educational opportunity and talent development, appears to be a way forward for all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status. Advocating for change could, or should, be part of the economic recovery planning that the Biden administration has launched and both the individual and community impact of economic development should be recognized. John Macintosh asserted that the U.S. higher education system, with 125 years of decentralization, allows only incremental change, when "steps to better serve students by exploring things like shared services and infrastructure, joint academic offerings, even mergers or preplanned, well-funded teach-outs" are actually required.

Harper, Culver, & Keazar propose that the process of change and creating more equitable and justice-focused processes of design must be cultivated if higher education institutions are to make progress, but redesign is difficult when key systems are in place that thwart it. The idea is to apply design thinking to problems that colleges and universities face, striving to identify power differentials and inequities that impair the process of decision making that are used while the policies and systems are being critically examined.

The National Association of System Heads (NASH), begun in 1979 with 42 public systems in 29 states and designs to expand, has begun to look at how systems can improve their effectiveness. The "initiative will aim to improve credential completion and social mobility and to reduce student debt by tackling issues and efficiencies in five key areas of higher education: learning, talent, equity, investment and 'systmness,' or the practice of fostering cohesion over competition among different systems."

Levine and Van Pelt say that the transformation of higher education is already occurring at the margins and that this is where innovation is most likely to continue. In their view, the future will be more focused on outcomes, individualized, and low-cost, conditions that also drive expansion of online approaches that allow for learning any time and place. Higher Ed Dive reinforced the importance of these issues by identifying 7 trends that are likely to impact institutions on an ongoing basis. Other industries such as music, movies, and newspapers have innovated a future that prospective students now expect from education. Matt Read questioned the analogy to profit-driven industries (e.g. entertainment) versus the public responsibility of state-supported institutions by saying, "Although Levine and Van Pelt acknowledge the difference in passing, the fact that public higher education is nonprofit... suggests that it serves a mission other than its own growth... It serves a civic mission, based both on equity and on a notion of democratic citizenship."

European science cooperation

Aside from the education of undergraduate and graduate students, research productivity and advancing the boundaries of science is one of the most important outcomes of colleges and universities. Pursuit of research is achieved through support of individual faculty but it often involves cooperative ventures across institutions and even further cooperation across state jurisdictional and national boundaries.

Over 20 years ago, European educational leadership "envisaged an E.U. where 'people and knowledge can circulate more freely,' the integration of scientists in eastern and western Europe, and for countries to 'coordinate' what type of research they funded to avoid policy 'overlap.'" Reflections on this purpose now conclude that shared research across the E.U. is an unfinished project. The causes are many but some of it relates to the source of funding - 90% coming from nation-states and only 10% from the E.U. The newly created "European Universities" struggle to implement joint research due to differences in labor, tax, and social services across countries and many nation-state institutions hunker down to protect their own interests.

Students' views on racial justice

The 2021 Student Voice survey (conducted by Inside Higher Education) provided important guidance to educators about students' views of campus climate and action regarding racial justice. The update later in the year indicated that racial justice continued as a strong focus and added growing evidence of students' political advocacy as well as interest in career preparation. With 65% of all students either agreeing or strongly agreeing that higher education has a role to play in addressing racial justice and equality, educators have a clear mandate. This mandate is complicated by the fact that when the data is segregated by political inclination, 63% of students who lean Democratic and only 6% of those who lean Republican strongly agree with the mandate.

The survey (including 1,100 white and 800 students of color) found that most students either don't have a clear perception about what their institutions did to address racial issues or were somewhat disappointed. In particularly, students found the responses to police killing George Floyd "underwhelming." A common perspective was that there are lots of statements of sympathy and understanding but far fewer real actions to bring about change. The driver for social justice action is sometimes external to higher education institutions, with 44% of students reporting that community groups and media were their primary sources of information. Student activists can make a real difference in advocating racial justice and some institutions stand out in their effectiveness, demonstrating  that change is essentially a matter of institutional will.

Increased Fall 2021 enrollment at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) perhaps reflected Black students' view of campus climate. The increases could be the result of a variety of factors but one likely cause is that Black students see HBCUs as more responsive to their needs and more likely to address racial justice questions than predominantly White colleges and universities. HBCUs have achieved positive gains toward R-1 status, indicating their success in receiving grant funding. Greater research productivity and classification is often associated with perceived quality.

More Asian American students are now joining fellow Black students in recognizing and voicing concerns about the discrimination and aggressions they face. Interestingly enough, Asian American students were also the most likely to have participated in institutionally-sponsored racial justice initiatives. Sometimes sponsored by institutions and at other times just part of campus life, students indicate that race comes up more often as a topic of discussion. Nathan Reddy, a 2019 Cornell graduate, reinforced the importance of discussions about race, noting that they have raised consciousness, causing people to be "wary of committing microagressions, afraid of insulting someone because of their race." These discussions have created a safer space for exploration of race but one sometimes encumbered by the "need to express all the 'right' thoughts." Reddy called for "more openness to make mistakes and make candid statements."

Jeffrey Herbst, President of American Jewish University in Los Angeles, warned of the threat of rising anti-semitism on campuses in the wake and continuation of the May 2021 conflict between Israel and Hamas. There is clear evidence that anti-Israel groups add to the hostility by vilifying Jewish students. He reports that anti-semitism doubled since May of 2021 and that higher education institutions need to get out in front of what could be rising activism and another polarizing issue on campus. The American Jewish Committee issued recommendations for how campuses should preemptively intervene to address the rise in anti-semitism. The CUNY system partnered with Hillel to address the rise of anti-semitism on its campuses and added focus on Jewish students to its DEI initiatives. After criticism for not responding to complaints of anti-semitism, the University of Vermont issued a statement and launched a website to support Jewish student life. Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League was among the many who continued to express concern over anti-semitism on college campuses in the midst of the 2022-23 academic year. Cries for effective intervention seemed to have failed as anti-semitic incidents rose by 41% in 2022.

Seventy percent of openly Jewish students experienced some form of anti-Semitism during the last 120 days in a recently launched reporting site. Another survey by Hillel Foundation and the Anti-Defamation League documented that 43% of Jewish students either experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism in the last year, sometimes in the form of swastikas displayed at Queens University of Charlotte and other times in disparaging remarks or overt actions. The rise of anti-Semitism can be challenged legally, as evidenced by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights opening an investigation of Brooklyn College and on the rising number of members of Congress who advocate Education Department action. Even with these pressures to address rising anti-semitism, the Biden administration passed on defining exactly what it is. Jewish students have increasingly sought solidarity in the face of rising anti-semitism by joining Chabad communities on campuses throughout the U.S.A. Other Jewish students strive to promote dialogue about the persistent conflict between Israel and Palestine. A number of college and university presidents gathered in April 2022 to discuss the increases in anti-semitism that they observed on their campuses.

Reports of anti-semitism persisted into 2023 at George Washington University and Denver University. The GWU case was countered by other students who claimed anti-Palestinian bias, which highlighted the factioning that has emerged as Israel continues to occupy areas claimed as Palestinian territory. The Office of Civil Rights issued a plan to combat anti-semitism that includes "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" as discriminatory speech. Critics fear that including criticism of the State of Israel could encroach upon expression of sympathy for Palestinian. The inclusion of the book The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, and Disability in a Princeton syllabus drew criticism from pro-Israel faculty but support from others who see Israel as victimizing Palestine.

Faculty development focused on helping academics understand Jewish identity and its connection to the state of Israel might be a strategy that could help address the rising occurrences of anti-Semitism. This suggestion by the director of Improving the Campus Climate Initiative at the Academic Engagement Network was coupled with the assertion that Jewish cultural heritage should be included as a protected group in DEI statements and work. However, the idea that campus administrators see "... the denigration and vilification of Zionism as a political debate, rather than as a deeply hurtful attack on Jewish identity" reflects a bias of its own, one that does not recognize the plight of Palestine and its citizens.

The lingering impact of stereotyping and fear-mongering following 9-11-01 also contributes to a hostile climate for Muslim students. The Trump administration years saw significant increases in anti-Muslim sentiment in higher education and elsewhere. Particularly for Muslim students in the U.S.A, the Center for Education, Identity, and Social Justice recommended that institutions "invest and create a centralized mechanism to identify discrimination and hate directed at Muslim college students, investigate incidents of hate and discrimination, and follow through with actionable steps to address and resolve the issue." Competing ideology perhaps contributed to two Jewish faculty at City University of New York being targeted in negative course evaluations as a result of their advocacy for Jewish identify and Zionism.

Student views, which generally support social justice work, need to be understood and factored into clarifying the role for higher education in addressing racial justice as more campuses reopen in fall of 2021 with more in-person encounters. With over 80% of students reporting that racial inequality is a difficult subject to discuss but more than 50% saying that they self-censor in campus discourse, one barrier to racial justice appears to be simple - having conversations about it. In order to counter this self-censorship, institutions must inform students of their "rights to express their ideas, encourage the expression of controversial beliefs and discourage the idea of 'reporting' students with bad beliefs." Other educators warn that accepting self-censorship as an excuse for not engaging in relevant and challenging conversations should be discouraged. Clarity about the purpose and actions related to diversity, equity, and inclusion will be central to moving forward deliberately and effectively. Of immediate note is that Black faculty have had a lukewarm response to campus Juneteenth programs and observances, skeptical that window-dressing rather than substance may be the focus.

Some educators assert that nothing short of decolonizing the academy must be undertaken, a process that would include 1) revamping the curriculum, 2) reimagining our syllabi, 3) reimagining classroom dynamics, 4) rethinking our pedagogies, and 5) bringing all students to mastery. Opposition to critical theory has become a rallying point for conservatives but faculty report favorable responses from students and assert that advancing critical theory is central to quality and historically informed education.