Top 10 developments for higher education

There are some years where not much of note has signaled change but 2023 has been very different. Steve Mintz offered the top 10 developments for higher education, listing issues that will be familiar to most educators who pay attention. Higher education as a social and political dividing line, declining public trust, alternatives to college, an expanding governmental role, and hyperpoliticization are on the list.

As if to respond to the top 10 developments in 2024, Mintz' subsequent opinion suggested that it's time for institutions to think outside the box in their approaches to organization, curriculum, ways of teaching, and assessment. The first recommendation, one that will challenge student affairs educators, was to reconsider the bureaucratic divisions of academic and student affairs in order to better align cocurricular and extracurricular with academic goals, involve more faculty, and relate academic and career advising more purposefully. Recognizing the impediments to change that are part of the higher education scene, Mintz later offer 10 changes that colleges and universities need to implement and he followed that with the recommendation that whole student development be taken more seriously. The only problem with the last recommendation is that he characterized current student development programs as inconsequential for most current students, again challenging the role of student affairs educators.

The issue of public trust is one of the most important conditions that higher education leaders should tackle. Mintz' mid-2024 season top concern is rebuilding trust. The other five are controlling rising compensation costs, graduate education, changes in collegiate athletics, doubts about the value of education, and research misconduct.

Deloitte offered its 2024 higher education trends report, reinforcing some of the Mintz critique and recommendations. At the top of its list was addressing its credibility crisis, leadership turnover, changes in athletics programs, AI and disruptive innovation, and private-public partnerships.

Republicans plan to target affordability and accountability in the proposed College Cost Reduction Act. House Republicans are poised to reduce funding for the Education Department. Democrats' opposition of the sweeping measures included in the Act are reflected in their Roadmap to College success, which includes provisions for affordability, access, and supporting students.  Review of the Republican provisions provide fair warning for how they view higher education and how they see federal policy controlling it. Conservative efforts are progressing at a rapid pace with 84 bills in 28 states and at the federal level now being considered to put controls in place for higher education institutions.

With the highly controversial 2024 U.S. Presidential election underway, the politicization of higher education is becoming a major issue, with conservative candidates throughout the ballot claiming "wokeness" and violation of freedom of speech. The Trump Supreme Court has made decisions that change decades of precedents, the result being a highly unsettling and unpredictable legal environment. The questions higher education leaders would like to ask President Biden and former President Trump delve into highly critical issues. Campus responses to the Supreme Court reversal on affirmative action are likely to draw greater scrutiny and the risk of dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts is significant, which necessitates stronger defense if institutions are to be able to "create and advance structures in higher education that are just, equitable and inclusive." Democrats defended diversity initiatives during the U.S. House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee meeting. Education world wide may see changes as key elections take place across the globe in 2024.

It's difficult to determine if lack of confidence contributed to politicization or politicization led to lowered confidence. An article in the U.S. News and World Report related declining public confidence to politicization, cost of attendance, and access. Edge Research identified many of the same concerns noted in the U.S. News and World Report and attributed the negativity to news sources highlighting concerns rather than benefits of higher education achievement. It may not matter what or how the concerns emerged. The point is that higher education faces a barrage of challenges and negotiating them simultaneously will challenge educators of all types, ranks, and places.

Politicization is reflected in numerous legislative initiatives across the country, including challenging tenure, curricular control, DEI offices/programs, and accreditation. An Indiana legislative bill demanding "intellectual diversity" sounds reasonable, except that it mandates post-tenure review of faculty by governing boards, a move that could threaten the careers of faculty whose scholarship does not conform to the preferences of board members. Civil rights groups are pushing back on the Indiana legislation as well as numerous other anti-DEI measures in other states. On the other hand, whether or not President Biden's support of HBCUs will bring Black voters back to the Democratic party is yet to be determined.

Being humiliated in the public's eyes has frightening potential as higher education leaders navigate public scrutiny and regulatory whiplash. Some of the critique is based on questioning what proportion of young adults really need a college degree, especially since the return on investment has declined in recent years. As questions loom, it's not surprising that state higher education officials identified workforce preparation as the major concern for their institutions. Preparation for careers in a knowledge-based economy and improving return on investment of time and money indicators for higher education are integral to the workforce development focus and this is the benefit that students expect. With this in mind, research indicating that states' contribution to post-college outcomes are low is a clear vulnerability.

Addressing what students want and recognizing issues about which they have concern is essential. The faculty's focus is central to students' experience, with students and their families expecting teaching to be their core function. Yet this expectation is often not actualized in campus culture and rewards. If institutions want to be perceived as benefitting the public, they need to do more than post their commitment to teaching on the website. The headlines for higher education, with the number of issues educational leaders face, require attention to fulfilling "their mission as purveyors of a liberal education, producing students well-equipped to participate in today's unstable, uncertain, unpredictable and extraordinarily diverse global environment." And solutions will likely only come from reaching across entrenched political perspectives.

Elite higher education institutions are at the center of the scrutiny of higher education, which was demonstrated during the House Committee hearings on anti-semitism. Derek Bok's book, Attacking the Elites, is one of several critiques that warrant consideration of how elitism plays out in an era of populism. Steve Mintz equated elite higher education's dilemma to that of a Greek tragedy saying that privileged institutions need to "recenter themselves and to declare, quite boldly, that their purpose is to produce global citizens who serve the world... to ensure that those fortunate enough to attend or teach at an elite university are respectful and are able to interact civilly in a world of discord."

Although 2023 represented some return to stability after the 2020-21 pandemic, there are numerous issues that will challenge higher education leadership in 2024 and beyond. With the likelihood of continuing, and perhaps escalating, dissension about higher education, clearly asserting the values of a university will be paramount and support from Boards will be pivotal. Presidents serve many constituents as they navigate defining and communicating the education value proposition and helping oversight boards think strategically is critical. Dan Edelstein's opinion was that the essential values include that universities are places of learning, they are places to distinguish fact from fabrication, learning comes from interaction with others, and orthodoxy has no place here. Edelstein's advice might be useful to higher education Presidents who expressed confidence in their own institutions but uncertainty about higher education in general. The annual Provosts' survey identified the need for AI policy, concerns about free speech, DEI, and several other areas as their top concerns. 

International educators - please avoid missteps of U.S. higher education

One of the challenges international higher education faculty and staff face is determining what is transferrable in other national and cultural contexts. The dominance of U.S. higher education, and the assumption of its superiority, can result in unknowingly transporting an idea that clearly does not fit in other cultures, and perhaps is failing even in U.S. higher education. In the case where it is failing, U.S. institutions often have a very difficult time letting go.

One anachronistic element of U.S. higher education is Greek organizations - fraternities and sororities. The result of grass-roots student interest in the early 20th century, fraternities and sororities sprung up to provide enriching out-of-class experiences such as debate societies, sports, self-governance, and even lodging and food. As higher education embraced a wholistic philosophy, the things that fraternities and sororities offered were democratized - offering them more broadly to all students. As this happened, Greek organizations drifted to a focus on primarily what they offered in terms of social opportunity.

I was a member of an undergraduate fraternity, and my wife and daughters were also affiliated during their undergraduate years. I know Greek organizations and know that many are good and provide an important belonging place for their members. However, in regard to systemic relevance, they now stand as bastions of socio-economic and cultural separatism and sometimes contribute to anti-intellectual cultures. Such is the possibility at the University of Maryland, which just suspended all of its Greek organizations for conduct that "threatened the safety and well-being of members of the university community." Maryland reversed is broad suspension of all Greek organizations and retained only 5 for further investigation. Of course, the Fraternity Forward coalition issued a restraining order and plans to continue to pursue litigation against Maryland. Some of the national organizations that have affiliates at Maryland threaten legal action as well. When an institution has to act this broadly, something is wrong systemically. Federal anti-hazing legislation after decades of hand-ringing by Greek organizations and campuses is a clear indication that problems within these organizations are persistent and most likely unsolvable. The U.S. Congress approved the first nation-wide anti-hazing legislation in December 2024.

Right of association adherents will say that institutions cannot prohibit student associations such as Greek organizations. Case law demonstrates that they are correct. However, as far as I know, case law does not require an institution to support and provide resources to organizations that it does not officially recognize. Colleges and universities could choose to simply say "enough already" and push these organizations into an independent status and inform students to affiliate with them at their own risk.

A second example of anachronistic practice is competitive intercollegiate athletics. I have long been an advocate for U.S. higher education to stop pretending that athletic programs such as the University of Michigan and Ohio State University are "college teams." They haven't been for quite some time and continuing the fantasy is expensive and harmful to institutions that strive to compete with the likes of teams that are essentially semi-professional farm teams for the NFL and NBA.

The University of Michigan's former coach Harbaugh is an arrogant example of the problem of privileged semi-professional sports on college campuses. After coaching the NCAA winning football team in 2023 he was hired to coach the LA Chargers for $13 million per year. When the NCAA disciplined Harbaugh for rules violations and blatant disregard for its governance, his spokespeople commented, "today's COI decision is like being in your college and getting a letter from your high school saying you've been suspended because you didn't sign the yearbook."

The number of institutions that break even or make money from Division I NCAA competition is somewhere around 10%. In the other cases, students are charged to underwrite the deficit. Demonstrating how real intercollegiate athletics might work, some less competition institutions have used the creation of new athletic programs as a recruitment incentive.

Charlie Baker, Chief of the NCAA, finally announced a possible strategy to allow big-time athletic programs to compensate their players. Such a strategy would reward student work and that turned into the question of whether or not student athletes should be allowed to form unions. Baker's proposal would allow Division I athletic programs free rein in determining compensation related to athlete's names, images, and likenesses. For a mere $30,000 annual investment in athlete support, institutions would become part of a new subdivision with the highest revenue sources and the best records. These wealthy and successful programs have proposed the Baker model for years. Two institutions' faculty representatives expressed support for paradigm change in the NCAA, equating it to an opportunity to heal long-term problems.

By 2024, college athletes began reaping the reward from selling their names and conferences reorganized to further advantage institutions that win in the "big time athletics" competition. Then came the big idea of creating a super league that confirmed that many collegiate teams are really all about money. The super league would "infuse $5.3 billion in private capital - borrowed from future media revenues... to provide schools immediate cash during a three-year transition period, helping them buy out non-power opponents and supplementing their annual television distribution."

Moyen and Thelen's College Sports: A History summarizes the problem of "collegiate athletics" slipping into sport that has been driven toward commercialization. The review of the book poses the possibility that commercial interests were there all the time but few would deny that the money associated with star athletes selling their names and endorsements has taken commercialization to another level. Recommendations that student athletes meet admission requirements, attend class, and have limits on time spent in practice seem impotent in the face of athletes and athletic programs seeking financial gain.

There are numerous things that international higher education planners and leaders should avoid and these two anachronistic practices are among the most egregious.

Colonialism's other names

The 2024 Nobel prize in economics recognized three researchers who explored the long-term impact of colonialism. The difference between extractive colonialism where colonizers harvested natural resources versus colonialism that built capacity through inclusive organizations and rule of law is dramatic. Extractive colonialism results in reduction of economic prosperity while capacity building has the opposite impact.

With colonialism and decolonization becoming more common in academic and general conversation, Steve Mintz offers a list of different types of colonialism (citing Nancy Shoemaker) and advice on how social justice critiques in the humanities can be preserved as an analytical tool rather than used to politicize discourse. To avoid charges of politicizing the classroom, Mintz advises scholars to:

• Teach students how to analyze and critique ideas from multiple perspectives, rather than promoting a single political viewpoint.
• Actively include a wide range of perspectives in the curriculum, not just various political viewpoints but also diverse cultural, historical, and philosophical perspectives, ensuring that the curriculum is not dominated by any single ideology.
• Be transparent about the use of theory and methods, demonstrating that humanities research is grounded in rigorous scholarship rather than political bias.
• Ensure that classrooms and academic forums are spaces for open dialogue and debate and encourage intellectual diversity and mutual understanding.
• Reaffirm the fundamental objectives of the humanities: to foster empathy and cultural understanding and the complexity of human experience and to contextualize political issues within broader social, economic and cultural frameworks.

These commitments to teaching in the humanities are potentially buttressed by new global histories that are now available. It is critical to update previous characterizations that are the product of, and reinforce the goodness of, colonialist bias. The present age of economic globalism "needs a very different kind of history, a big-picture history that places the biggest issues of our time - colonialism and its legacies, the environment and climate, gender and sexuality, infectious diseases, migrations and diasporas, race and caste, revolutions and civil wars, and slavery and other forms of unfree labor."

International student enrollment surges

While there were mixed messages about overall 2023-24 enrollment throughout U.S. higher education, international 2022-23 student enrollment surged beyond pre-pandemic levels. The surge in applications may partially be attributable to fake applications, the result of prospects originating from the broader southeast Asian region. The eventual figures for 2023-24 will hopefully sustain the increasing number of international students, although the mix has shifted from China to India and Africa.

As the enrollment of international students from China slows, the number of Indian students seeking admission in U.S. institutions is replacing them. For Indian students and their families, enrollment in high quality U.S. programs is viewed as opening doors that would not have opened if they studied in India. Unfortunate delays in processing of visas for students from India may reduce the number who will actually enroll in 2024.

As an alternative strategy, the need for higher education opportunity may also be met by establishing international branch programs and campuses in India. The cooling of interest in branch initiatives may result in more select institutions' unwillingness to take the risk associated with these ventures.

A boon for U.S. institutions, international students' interest in study in Canada and Australia declined according to a recent survey. The "policy volatility in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom is unsettling international enrollments." Australia's decision to limit international student enrollment to 270,000 and Canada's move to limit international enrollment by 10% will make it much more competitive to study there, and likely reduce its desirability. The UK hopes to right its higher education ship with the naming of new ministers of education, which could bring changes attractiveness to international students. The projected decline in UK domestic students could drive even greater pressure to increase international student numbers.

Predictions were that the prospects of former President Trump returning to the Whitehouse could impact international students' interest. With 41% of all international graduates remaining in the U.S. from 2012-20, one of the most important factors is their OPT opportunities which could be at risk under another Trump administration. As post-election concerns swirled around Trump's return to the White House, institutions will need to focus on reassuring international students that they are welcome. International students can enhance their experience in multiple ways, especially by adopting different approaches to friendship and mentoring. Warning for international students to be back before Trump's January 20, 2025, inauguration could be unsettling.

Brown University's "need blind" admission of international students will likely result in more and increasingly well-qualified applicants. Time will tell if this turns into a trend as international students are increasingly seen as valuable not only for the tuition they pay, but the value they bring to the learning community. Analysts warn that increasing competition from higher education providers like Canada may erode gains in current enrollment due to complications in obtaining visas and rising costs. The decline in China's economy is almost sure to result in continued erosion of the number of Chinese students coming to the U.S.

On the other side, institutions need to make sure that international students are not characterized, or profiled, in ways that subjects them to assumptions, stereotypes, and targeting. An essay by an instructor of English offers a specific type of profiling in relation to AI at the University of Manitoba. Profiling of various sorts include language proficiency, privilege, and social engagement.

If U.S. institutions want to continue hosting international students, taking them seriously is of paramount importance. The release of Supporting International Students in U.S. Higher Education: A Theory-Based Approach (Roberts & Ammigan, 2024) could help education leaders improve the experience of international students, retaining those who are now in the U.S. and also contributing to positive experiences that translate to encouragement for others to follow.

Trump's plans and Project 2025

Although Trump has claimed he doesn't know where Project 2025 came from or who was involved in drafting it, his potential future administration is clearly the focus. How Project 2025 could impact U.S. higher education is speculative but raises very unsettling questions about the politicization of higher education through appointments to boards as well as intervention in hiring of campus administrators.

In addition to Project 2025, Trump has proposed revolutionizing higher education through a national on-line university. Skeptics say that, even if he is able to gain reelection, the proposed university will end up like "the wall" - a promise unfulfilled. The strategy to fund it is to use taxes on college and university endowments that are larger than $500,000 to redirect to the new higher education option.

Project 2025 and the national on-line university are designed to addresses multiple points of dissatisfaction that are expressed by his electoral base. The issues that are wrapped into them include: cost, recognizing prior learning, expanding access, replacing "radical left" accreditors (dismantling DEI), and uprooting "wokeness."

"I think it suggests frustration with the political direction of higher education. Trump thinks he can score political points by basically poking higher education and saying that they're too liberal and woke and that his university won't be like that," opined a professor at the University of Tennessee. Trump's choice of J.D. Vance as his VP running mate signals two things: 1) an attempt to reinforce the MAGA base in the Midwest, and 2) the critique of higher education and its role. The AAUP's new president labeled Vance a Fascist for his condemnation of U.S. higher education and calling professors "the enemy." A Trump 2nd term would assuredly result in increased pressure on higher education intensified by controversies that have unfolded during the Biden intermission.

Vice President Harris' selection of Tim Walz as her running mate in the 2024 election appears to be a direct counter to Trump's Project 2025. Walz' advocacy for education and policy positions are likely to be targets for Trump and Vance as they seek to take the U.S. Presidency from what they label as "dangerous liberalism."

The Hamas and Israel war added fuel to the fire of anti-wokeness with higher education institutions attempting to navigate the ground of allowing expression of different views in the face of attempts to silence any advocacy for Palestine as anti-semitic. It is easy to conclude that Trump might have observed DeSantis' attack on higher education in Florida as an indication that having a higher education strategy as part of his platform could pay dividends. DeSantis' assault has taken on many of the same issues that Trump champions.

Lack of purpose driving anxiety

A recent study of young adults (ages 18-25) conducted by Harvard's Graduate School of Education found approximately twice as many reporting anxiety and depression compared to the younger cohort of 14-17 years olds. The study found "... key drivers of young adults' emotional challenges, including finance (56 percent), pressure to achieve (51 percent) and a perception that the world is unraveling (45 percent). Social Media was lower on the list of influential factors; it only drove anxiety and depression among 28 percent of young adults." The authors of the report recommended helping students cultivate meaning and purpose through community service, developing deeper relationships, and focusing on more than their achievements.

Fostering hope and possibility has been advocated by others, including my own advocacy for Deeper Learning in Leadership in 2007. Leadership programs on college and university campuses have a critical responsibility to encourage students to pursue a life-long journey of discovering and focusing convictions in ways that make a difference for others while at the same time bringing meaning to their lives. The announcement of the Carnegie Elective Classification of Leadership for Public Purpose is an example of various types of institutions placing higher priority on encouraging students to seek purpose related to serving others. The Aspen Institute's CEO and President, Daniel Porterfield, joined the conversation by encouraging a focus on flexibility and persistence.

The 2020+ pandemic accelerated claims of PTSD-like symptoms, a complication that may be addressed by helping students focus on the journey toward purpose. Discovering purpose also has the potential to help students internalize their perception of achieving, which is a powerful alternative to the "never enough" feeling that can sometimes undermine positive mental health.  Ultimately, aren't the best antidotes to anxiety self-reflection and mindfulness, philosophical and spiritual inquiry, social engagement, and holistic learning.

Placing a priority on discovering purpose which in turn creates hope and possibility in students may sound as if it's something that higher education has been doing for ever, and it probably is. The problem is one of missing the forest for the trees; most institutions offer a breadth of opportunity in curriculum and cocurriculum that looks more like going to the grocery store without a menu or shopping list - just take anything and you can figure it out when you get home. The University of Minnesota provides personal coaching to help students find engagement opportunities that align with their personal goals. Engagement coaching focused on leadership as 'conviction in action' (the definition I proposed in 2007) involves simply starting with a flicker of interest, uses that to drive engagement, remains open to new possibilities, and deepens over a lifetime.

Finding a place to start can occur through personality assessment such as the MBTI and Strengths Quest. What's important to recognize is that these assessments reflect trend and compare patterns among students but they don't necessarily align with the passions a student might have. Using the search for purpose coupled with assessment could be powerfully used to both inform and inspire students in their search.

In addition to encouraging focus in student learning about leadership, institutions could impact students' experiences by being more intentional about what it cultivates in its leaders. When institutions contradict what they advocate in student learning by how they operate and model leadership, students see the hypocrisy. At the same time that institutions are well served to focus on students' leadership learning, they need to provide substantive leadership cultivation for its administrative and academic leaders as well.

The other important issue surfaced by the Harvard study was the importance of deepening relationships. Being engaged then becomes the path to belonging, which often involves barriers that are more present from students of diverse cultural backgrounds. The Surgeon General's "We are made to connect" campus tour is drawing attention to the loneliness and isolation that students can sometimes experience. This need to be part of something greater than oneself is universal across generations and the discovery of purpose is almost always explored with others and results in connecting with and making a difference for others.

Ultimately, students' pursuit of purpose has to be complemented by an effective career services strategy. A recent survey of students' use of the career or placement offices on campus provides important guidance on what students need, most of which is pretty transactional. However, the building blocks of exploring purpose are at the foundation of what will eventually be a positive launch when students graduate. Preparation for work that is aligned with students' interests is at the top of the list of state higher education leaders' priorities.

Professionalization in student affairs?

As student affairs perspectives and practices have spread across the world, those employed in student support positions have questioned how they should best prepare for their roles. The new edited collection of articles, Towards Professionalization of Student Affairs Across the Globe, raises questions about the purpose of professionalization and how it is unfolding in different regions. The Student Affairs Now podcast with the editors provides summary points from the book.

A repeated message throughout this collection is that professionalization has merits but must be pursued within the unique cultural context of each higher education institution. And, increasing professionalization is dependent on capacity building at the local level that draws educators into these roles instead of erecting barriers that exclude them. The essential questions of "for what purpose" and "to whose benefit" must be addressed in looking at a field that rests in the ambiguous "third space" of many institutional organization charts.

Steve Mintz' Inside Higher Education thinking outside the box piece reinforced the "third space" notion by asserting that organization divisions of academic and student affairs might be dismantled. Mintz identified the benefits of linking extracurricular activities to academics, increasing faculty involvement, and aligning academic and career advising to dismantling the bureaucracy of these divisions. Such a proposal challenges notions of expertise and professional preparation that may threaten some student affairs educators but it's actually consistent with the thinking of some early visionaries of student affairs work.

Understanding democratic decline

The warnings are accelerating that democracy is at risk around the world, and especially in the U.S.A. The Brookings Institute report, Understanding Democratic Decline in the United States, indicates that by multiple measures it has fallen out of "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" status.

Evidence of democratic decline is most alarming as a lead-up to the 2024 U.S. Presidential election. The recent PRRI and Brookings research indicates growing acceptance of violence as a tool of political change and agree that it may be necessary to break laws or norms in order to correct the drift of the country toward views that they oppose. Former President Trump appears to have a strangle-hold on the Republican nomination, a clear reflection of the anti-government mood that endorses lawlessness as a legitimate alternative.

Higher education has long claimed a role in cultivating citizenship and democratic practice. The hope is that this commitment can be renewed by adopting principles such as those recommended by the Constructive Dialogue Institute, which launched a Leadership Institute for presidents and higher education leaders to help them improve inclusion and belonging while advocating free expression.  Even while being threatened by conservative state leaders like Ron DeSantis, it's important to renew a commitment to foster open and free inquiry on campus. Fostering open dialogue open is central to democratic practice and student affairs educators play an important role in preparing students and student organizations to engage in fair processes of participation and engagement.

The scrutiny higher education leaders have faced in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel's months-long retaliation may cause institutions to cease public comment on highly-charged political issues. Criticism of slow, weak, or unpopular responses is presumably the rationale for Harvard University's interim President announcing that it will begin to refrain from comment.

Central to countering democratic decline is a commitment to embrace the true pluralism that exists throughout the U.S.A. Few enclaves can afford to remain closed to the diversity of culture, thought, faith, and politics that exists in their midst. Eboo Patel's essay ends with, "In this moment of extreme polarization, to serve the nation and improve themselves, campuses need to become laboratories and launching pads for pluralism." Zimmerman's Campus Politics was published 7 years ago but Mintz recommends it as a timely perspective as campuses are caught in the cross-hairs of ideological conflict.

One of the questions that must be asked is whether the ideals of democracy have ever worked for everyone in the U.S. and elsewhere. This question is addressed in the "Democracy Re/Designed" project which asserts from the start that it has not worked for many in the American context. This project and the explanation of its origins and purpose describes an aspirational democracy that is equitable, inclusive, and just. With voting an important of demonstration of democratic engagement, registering youth to participate in elections is critical. However, conservatives are actively discouraging voter registration efforts; Florida enacted penalties for in-person voter registration that has killed most of the state's higher education voter drives.

A core challenge to protecting democratic ideals and systems is the profusion of information from various media, including uncontrolled social media. Media of all types reflect specific philosophical and political views which warrant examination for both information and disinformation. Tamara Schwartz, author of Information Warfare, recommends teaching that highlights 1) the individual, 2) the information ecosystem, and 3) rivalry for power as important elements to judging the credibility of various information sources. Examining the psychological dynamics of technology and media can then reveal how the power of cults and propaganda lead to control of information and people.

House Republicans blamed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives for the rise in anti-Semitism that has accelerated in recent months. Perhaps those blaming higher education and DEI work should review the discord and dissension spurred during Trump's rise to the U.S. Presidency and sustained in his current bid to return to the White House. Trump's emergence as the favored US Presidential candidate of conservatives is coupled with a general shift toward authoritarianism as documented by the PRRI. Republicans in general, and especially those who support Trump, endorse authoritarian parenting, violence as a legitimate form of dissent, and see the US as a privileged enclave for formerly white Europeans to practice and protect their religious rights and culture. Three out of 10 Americans adhere to or sympathize with Christian nationalism. While partisanship and open conflict dominating the news is challenging, the current circumstances will become history and should be explored with a full understanding of how we got to a place where divisiveness seems to lurk everywhere.

Accelerating the attack on democratic practice in higher education, conservative activists issued the General Education Act as a way to dictate the content of higher education institutions. The legislation "would force public colleges to adopt a uniform general education curriculum devoted to conservative values, give a new dean near-total power to hire all faculty to teach these classes and then require the firing of many existing faculty members in the humanities and social sciences."

The Brookings report is not an opinion piece, but is supported by multiple indicators of decline in democratic institutions including a dysfunctional legislature, executive overreach, and an increasingly biased judiciary. The report also clearly indicates that the Trump presidency was not responsible for the decline but was more a wake-up call for the gradual erosion of democratic safeguards.

Supporting International Students in U.S. Higher Education - new book

Darbi L. Roberts and Ravichandran Ammigan saw a need for a resource for student affairs educators and they filled it with an impressive list of chapter contributors in their book, Supporting International Students in U.S. Higher Education: A Theory-Based Approach. Now available, the description reads, "The book explores practical and strategic implications of a more integrative approach to international student support both inside and outside of the classroom, while also utilizing a critical lens in applying models that were originally built for predominantly white institutions and US citizens."

The critical factors of 1) inclusive rather than exclusionary cultures and practices, 2) critical examination of theory and practice to respond to diverse cultural backgrounds of students, and 3) partnership among student affairs educators and international educators are artfully addressed in ways no authors have previously attempted. International students are a valuable resource and should be treasured for the perspective they bring to US institutions. It's time to move away from seeing them as "exceptional" or "other," a move that will enhance their US learning experiences as well as all those who fully engage them.

International students comprise a large proportion of graduate school enrollment in U.S. institutions and addressing how to better support them is included in Roberts and Ammigan's book. Roshni Rao of Johns Hopkins University offers complementary advice to international scholars which includes self-advocacy that highlights the value each brings to the institutions where they study and serve. Sherry Wang and Merab Mushfiq offered similar advice and added the importance of assisting international students with career advice. Deborah Saki recommended "decentering oneself" as international graduate students strive to connect with U.S. domestic students. Saki comments, "it simply argues for the recognition of the value and contributions of all students and genuine interest in everyone's capacity to advance teaching and learning goals."

This book couldn't be more timely after revelation that the U.S. News cut factors related to international students in their rankings. Doing so demonstrates a major point of Supporting International Students... that international students should not only be the responsibility of internationalists but that success results where institutions adopt a highly integrated approach.

Hamas and Israel

If you haven't studied-up on conflict, war, and the horrors that emerge from them, the urgency to do so grows each day. This is the message offered in October 2023 by Steve Mintz when he provided a list of books that have potential to inform us about how bad it can really become. As civilians hunkered down or fled to the south of Gaza and Israel positioned for and pursued their ground assault, campus demonstrations supporting the two sides erupted with one condemning Hamas for terrorist atrocities and the other encouraging Israel's restraint in victimizing Palestinian citizens. An early Generation Lab poll of 978 college students found that two-thirds saw Hamas' attack as terrorism while the blame for it was mixed.

The repercussions of Hamas attack and response by Israel has had many twists and turns that are summarized in this continuing post. What should be first understood is that the vast majority of student protests have been peaceful. However, it is very clear that U.S. higher education will continue to be impacted as the growing network of academic organizations that oppose the retaliation of Israel against Hamas and Gazan citizens stirs reactions among conservatives. Six months after the Hamas attack, the spread of protests on campuses increasingly resulted in punishments of students who were involved. The continuing protests in late April 2024 were met by changing policies witnessed at Indiana University and elsewhere, and Columbia University moved classes online striving for deescalation. Representative Foxx, chair of the House Education and Workforce committee, threatened Columbia's President by saying that she would be held accountable for any anti-Semitic conduct and House Speaker Mike Johnson called for her resignation. Foxx's House Education and Workforce committee later subpoenaed Columbia's records on anti-Semitism. Other campuses continued protests in solidarity with Columbia's protestors including Michigan, Maryland, Ohio State, NYU, and UT Austin. The tension between student pro-Palestine mobilization and conservative responses and the resulting dilemma of how to respond including escalation to police intervention, should be noted in preparation for the contentious Presidential election now underway.

Universities are caught in a trap of their own creation - they have not taught students about the background to the Israel v. Palestine conflict. The result is incomplete understanding and fractious declarations rather than constructive discourse. The NY Times indicated that previous restriction of speech that offended liberal-leaning students established a one-sided expectation. Two sides are now claiming hate speech by the other, with higher education leaders caught in the middle trying to determine if speech should be equally restricted or if students have to resign themselves to being uncomfortable hearing allegations that are repugnant to them. Assuming that the goal is to support free expression, educators need to help students discern the difference between ignorance and violence versus earnest expression of informed understanding. Adherence to First Amendment freedom of expression that favors no specific perspective is judged through the beholder's eye, which challenges educational leaders as well. For example, the attempt to establish a California-wide "viewpoint neutral" initiative on the Middle East resulted in the system's President being accused of bias.

University student organizations that support an independent Palestinian state and oppose the occupation and control of Israel in Gaza were quick to call out the long-standing subjugation of Palestinian's in Gaza and elsewhere in the region. Some of these statements started with condemnation of Hamas' actions and then moved to identifying the problem of injustices of the control of Gaza. Others went directly to blaming Israel for creating an environment of desperation that rationalized Hamas' cruelty. Universities were criticized for their slow response to the Hamas attack as well as to student organization statements. As an example, Harvard's new President was criticized for both not speaking up for Palestinian activists and for being slow and weak in condemning Hamas' attack. Research looking at 100 statements from a variety of universities documented that over half had to retract flawed statements.

Semester at Sea revised its itinerary to avoid the Red Sea, Oman, and Dubai after being warned of risks in the Middle East. Franciscan University of Ohio offered to welcome Jewish students who have been targeted with anti-Semitism. And the backlash to Palestinian student activism among university Boards and Alumni is putting greater pressure on institution leaders to handle dissent carefully, especially as donors act on belief that their opinions should be reflected in campus decisions. Donor influences on Presidential and institutional statements can be viewed as donor control or simply donor activism. Jewish students feared personal harm when a pro-Palestinian group assembled outside the library at Cooper Union while three students of Palestinian descent were accosted and shot at the University of Vermont. Columbia University suspended two pro-Palestine student groups and George Washington University suspended its Students for Justice in Palestine groups as well. Northwestern University students faced criminal charges for a parody front page to the student newspaper, a move opposed by many on campus. Some campuses, such as MIT, turned to suspending protestors from their campus residences.

The result of Israel's retaliation is the total destruction of higher education institutions in Gaza and the West Bank, which some strive to rebuild. The devastation has been labeled "educide" in Gaza, an outcome of Israel claiming universities were sheltering Hamas. In order to salvage anything from the current academic year, some educators proposed short-term courses or exchanges that would allow Palestinian students the opportunity to continue degree progress.

Demonstrations broke out at colleges and universities and continued while Israel retaliated, challenging administrators to find a balance between fostering debate among factions versus clearly condemning the brutality of Hamas. Harvard's debacle over student protests led it to reiterate guidelines for student protests. Having issued one set of protest guidelines soon after October 7, Columbia reissued the guidelines after input from faculty and students. Penn subsequently modified its protest policy to prohibit encampments, a strategy presumed to prevent one source of conflict. A Pro-Palestine student group disrupted the University of Michigan Honors Convocation, resulting in one administrator declaring that, "Disrupting speakers and events is not protected speech and is a clear violation of university policy." Smith College students occupied the administration building and held it for 12 days to demand divestment from weapons manufacturers that support Israel's attacks on Gaza. Even though officials claimed that it was simply a programmatic decision rather than a response to pro-Palestine activism, Pitzer College students celebrated the removal of a study abroad program in Israel but the College's President rejected a resolution to boycott all academic programs in Israel. The University of Southern California first cancelled the tradition of having a valedictory speech at graduation, saying the the having a Muslim student speak presented too many security risks, then it cancelled its main commencement all together.

Beyond clarifying rules for protest, the very definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism is under debate. The American College Personnel Association issued a statement on how to respond to competing student perspectives. The University of Michigan cancelled a student vote on Israel v. Palestine when pro-Palestinian activists allegedly attempted to influence the outcome. Calling for financial divestment is another way pro-Palestine students are registering their opposition to Israel's retaliation in Gaza. But students who staged a sit-in at on Vanderbilt's investments were arrested by police after officials deemed that it was not peaceful. "Pomona Divest from Apartheid" protestors were arrested and expelled for occupying the President's Office. Barnard students were suspended but later moved to probation for their sit-in.

Politicians intensified the challenges for higher education leaders with Virginia Foxx, the top Republican on the House Education Committee, saying that "Too many colleges require lock-step discipleship behind woke policies and politics." U.S. Presidential candidate, Tim Scott, took Foxx's criticism to another level when interviewed by CNN. The U.S. Education Department first placed six universities on a list to be investigated for civil rights violations based on anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim or anti-Arab incidents, later updated the list with six more. By March 7, 2024, the Education Department investigations grew to fifty. The Temple University investigation faulted administrators for not enforcing measures to protect Jewish students. Indiana University's faculty are pushing back on Congressman Jim Banks' allegation that the University has not dealt with anti-Semitism. The impact of demonization of higher is evident in declining confidence in higher education leaders since October 7.

While tracking hate and anti-semitism is important, investigations gone wrong could imperil first-amendment principles, including the often overlooked right of peaceful assembly. The lack of clarity about higher education's protection of the First Amendment has resulted in troubling variations in policy and crack-downs on some campuses. Adding to the confusion, U.S. House of Representatives called for anti-Semitism monitors on campus. A particular concern of some academics is the conflation of criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, which serves neither pro-Palestinian or Jewish students.

The scheduling of Presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT to speak before the House Education and Workforce Committee began with the hope that it would improve understanding of how institutions approach free versus threatening speech. The three Presidents instead faced Virginia Foxx starting off by saying that anti-Semitism was the "poisoned fruit" of their institutions' cultures. Reviews of the three Presidents' testimony was all over the place, some criticizing the House Committee for its hostility and others alleging evasion on the part of the Presidents. Liz Magill, President of Penn, faced backlash for her testimony as well as for campus events perceived to be anti-Semitic, which led to the Penn Board of Trustees seeking her resignation and she complied after being swept up in a flurry of criticisms. Penn's ex-President subsequently landed a position at Harvard. Harvard's President, Claudine Gay, confronted pressure and initially prevailed with the support of Harvard's Board. Foxx wasn't ready to let it go and initiated plans to investigate Harvard's handling of Gay's plagiarism allegations but Gay preempted it by resigning after only 6 months in her position. The controversy over Gay's plagiarism will likely lead to more conservative investigations of prominent academic figures. MIT's president announced new initiatives for a new year to address student discipline, free expression, and DEI. Banning a pro-Palestine magazine at MIT may have stretched a commitment to free expression. The House Committee agreed to investigate the "learning environment" of the three prestigious universities and issued a resolution condemning the Presidents' testimony. Investigations into institution's handling of anti-Semitism were expected to require significant time with potential removal of federal funds reserved only as the last resort. The first investigation of Harvard continued via a nine-page letter (with Harvard responding with over 1,000 pages of documentation) and another investigation was launched based on allegations that Arab and Muslim students have also been targeted. Harvard asserted that it fully complied with the House Committee's demands but faced a subpoena to provide more, which Foxx again declared was inadequate. Foxx criticized Harvard for not disciplining more students for protests and anti-Semitism. Penn's investigation began with a 14-page letter from representative Foxx. After its name appeared at the top of a list of institutions experiencing anti-Semitism, Stanford faced investigation by the House Committee. Preempting the investigations, House Republicans have already revealed publicly how they plan to punish universities after proving that they neglected to address anti-semitism. UCLA, Yale, and Michigan are the next targets to appear before the House Committee and Northwestern and Rutgers will follow. Representative Foxx's letter to the Northwestern president criticized him for negotiating with student protesters and threw in an investigation of contributions from Qatar for extra measure; the assertions of Qatar buying influence in the Northwestern partnership were quickly refuted. Occupation of Bard buildings ended when agreements were reached after negotiation between protesters and administrators. The Director of Academic Affairs for the American Jewish Committee echoed Foxx's criticism by saying that protestors should not be rewarded with concessions.

And taking down higher education institutions isn't the only target for Foxx. After an auditor for financial statements for the Education Department found irregularities, Foxx is set to investigate Secretary Cordona for failure to lead Education. On the flip side, Foxx demonstrated her bias in defending Liberty University after it agreed to a $14 million settlement with the Department of Education for Clery Act violations.

There are many lessons to be learned about confronting anti-Semitism from the House Committee hearing. One of the primary insights is that campus unrest on contentious issues should be anticipated as much as possible. Higher education leaders need to inculcate principles of expression of dissent and humane civic discourse in advance of controversy, including open fora where all can engage. One of the challenges of exploring different views is establishing clear and equitable parameters for the free expression of diverse perspectives. When potentially inflammatory moments occur, if statements are deemed helpful, they should be clear and should avoid placing legal issues as the priority. Regardless of the lessons that should have been learned from the 1960s, some institutions resorted to police intervention with both students and faculty involved in protests.

An example statement that the 3 university Presidents at the House Committee hearing might have used is included in an article on the growing public disgust with elite higher education institutions. It is clear in retrospect that the House Committee didn't only intend to investigate incidents of anti-Semitism on elite campuses but orchestrated the hearing to draw attention to perceived liberalism and intellectual equivocation on these campuses; Harvard's former President Gay reinforced this notion in an op-ed for the NYT. The aftermath of former President Gay's demise raises the question of who failed whom. Walter Kimbrough, a student affairs educator and former President of Dillard University, offered insight on how the "contextualizing" of the 3 university Presidents was defensible but failed in the "context" of deliberate bating by Representative Stefanik during the House Committee hearing. Continuing the crusade against higher education, Representative Foxx scheduled the Columbia University President and Board members before the House Committee in April 2024. Having avoided the original Ivy League tribunal, Columbia's President was likely face a strong rebuke by Foxx as evidenced by calling the meeting "Columbia in crisis..." President Shafik was more decisive in defining and calling out anti-semitism, an approach that seemed to satisfy Foxx's committee and played well with some other education leaders. Unfortunate for President Shafik and Columbia, accusations quickly emerged that she lied and threw faculty under the bus and 100 students were arrested in the wake of the testimony. President Shafik abruptly resigned in August 2024 and her successor, Katrina Armstrong, apologized to students who were harmed during the Spring 2024 demonstrations.

The continuation of attempts to unseat presidents of elite institutions, especially those led by women of diverse cultural backgrounds, is ominous. The President of the University of Maryland was accused of plagiarism, adding him to the last of leaders of minority backgrounds who have been targeted by conservatives. Criticism has spread beyond elite institutions and leaders should take note of the broad conservative agenda of discrediting higher education institutions in general. As the House Committee hearing demonstrated, clear purpose and carefully honed communication is essential in this era of intense scrutiny. In addition to focusing on free expression while protecting against acts of discrimination and threat, higher education needs to figure out how to defend itself from politicized attacks.

The five contenders included in the November 8, 2023, Republican U.S. Presidential debate, pushed the narrative that higher education must back Israel and prohibit pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Other political responses to the Hamas and Israel conflict include a bi-partisan U.S. Senate resolution condemning anti-Semitism on campuses while the House Judiciary Committee debated causes of rising anti-Semitism. A Senate bill to require reporting of anti-Semitism would result in better data about what's actually happening on campus. Florida banned Students for Justice in Palestine at its state institutions rationalizing the move based on the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. New College of Florida threatened to withhold diplomas for students who protested its commencement speaker and advocated "Free Palestine" in posters. Countering Florida's prohibition of Students for Justice in Palestine, the ACLU urged campuses to not investigate them. Governor Disantis invited students from other states who experience anti-Semitism to transfer to Florida schools.

Implications of the Hamas attack and Israel's response come in different forms and include increasing anti-Semitic and anti-Palestinian sentiments. One study found that 73% of Jewish students observed or were subject to anti-Semitism since the fall term began, while another study indicated that Jewish students' reports of anti-Semitism vary across campuses. Both Jewish and Palestine-sympathetic students fear retaliation for expressing their views. Different perspectives on specific phrases, such as "from the river to the sea," are central to their fears. A staff member at American University of Palestinian background was threatened in a note left in his mailbox. A Jewish student's report of a Stanford professor blaming the conflict on the Zionist movement is under investigation while anti-Semitic online posts threatened students at Cornell; 21-year old Cornell junior was charged with posting threats using inter-state communications. Calls to support Jewish faculty emerged as fallout from donors, alumni, and politicians intensified. Governor Abbott of Texas signed an executive order requiring all state institutions to update and increase enforcement of their anti-Semitism policies. However, UT officials subsequently dropped charges against pro-Palestine protestors.

Repercussions for academics expressing their opinions will challenge campus leaders and faculty attempting to hold steadfast to principles of freedom of expression. Faculty at NYU were arrested when they tried to protect student demonstrators and a tenured Jewish professor at Muehlenberg College was fired for expressing pro-Palestinian views. An Office of Civil Rights investigation of the Muehlenberg case overlapped and perhaps impacted the campus investigation.  Particularly at institutions where there are large numbers of Jewish students as well as those who advocate for Palestine like the University of Maryland, protests of speakers are contentious. Jeff Herbst, President of American Jewish University urges educators to defend free expression even when condemnation escalates, saying, "The antisemites will keep coming, and freedom of speech should not go anywhere. Addressing this climate in an intentional, forceful manner would be in the best tradition of the liberal arts." Recognizing the history of Jewish and Black awareness groups as allies, HBCUs launched an anti-Semitism initiative.

There is wide variation in how Presidents believe they should offer statements, reinforcing that care should be taken by institutional leaders. When the President of Colorado College resigned in order to return to a faculty position that allowed her to speak more freely, a colleague bemoaned the loss of her voice as an influential President. Restraint is likely the best strategy, starting with consideration of the centrality of any issue to a specific institution's mission. Urging Presidents to call for a cease fire, the President of Wesleyan said "Silence at a time of humanitarian catastrophe isn't neutrality; it's either cowardice or collaboration." Professing being exhilarated by the Hamas attack, a Cornell professor was rebuked by its President and Board and placed on leave but by Fall of 2024 returned to the classroom. As one group of college presidents issued a joint statement, others questioned the utility of these statements and still others said that statements should stop. The University of Pennsylvania adopted a policy of neutrality that discourages comment on issues except "those that have direct and significant bearing on University functions." Governor of Utah told university presidents to avoid political comment all together and the Governor of New York told state universities to prohibit calls for genocide. The accusation of evasiveness in statements could be averted by deploring hateful speech and asserting the importance of not selectively determining what can be said.

Academic departments making public statements in relation to the Hamas v. Israel war is also potentially inflammatory. California is considering banning departments and centers from making statements, a move that some faculty view as encroachment on academic freedom. It will be interesting to see if conflict between opposing sides so volatile that it required evacuation of faculty at San Jose State University will lead California to go further than just discouraging public statements. 

Some individual faculty are intimidated by the possible implications of speaking out and believe that any criticism of Israel is viewed as anti-Semitic, which some view as restricting free speech. The Faculty Council at the University of North Carolina declined to condemn a faculty member for comments made after the Hamas attack in October based on free speech considerations. The Faculty Council avoidance was sharply criticized by some UNC faculty. The National Communication Association told speakers not to use "genocide" in their speeches due to ambivalence about reactions but they later apologized for its decision. The American Studies Association drew criticism from its members in reaction to its statement. U.S. Department of Education urged institutions to make clear statements condemning anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia. Others, particularly those in faith-based organizations, are striving to foster respect and dialogue with the podcast "How can we engage in 'sacred witness?'" a wonderful example. Faculty who have expertise in Middle East history are stepping up with courses and students appear to be flocking to them.

Sometimes stepping up comes with repercussions such as the political science professor who helped a pro-Palestinian student group schedule a meeting at the University of Indiana. Other educators suggest that focusing on local concerns through research, engagement with public education and health institutions, and imbedding service learning would help. Two TAs at the University of Texas were dismissed for issuing a message to "acknowledge the mental health implications of the current escalation of violence in Gaza" and offering mental health resources for students in their class who were impacted by campus reactions to a Palestinian Solidarity Committee's teach-in. Further west from Austin, an assistant professor at Texas Tech was placed on leave after social media posts that were viewed as anti-Semitic. A DePaul University adjunct was dismissed for a student assignment that included "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," and "decolonized future" in the description. The faculty who were investigated in these incidents and others experienced legal prosecution, discontinued employment, deportation, and some returned after investigations into their conduct.

The reality is that the Hamas and Israel conflict is complicated by a very contentious history and the current circumstances change by the hour. This quagmire calls for higher education to help students by focusing on media literacy, critical thinking, and promoting the value of free exchange of ideas. Holocaust Museums have an important role to play by honoring the past and preserving memory, and especially promoting dialogue. Honest portrayal is particularly important when freedom of expression is being challenged. Expression can be limited in very subtle ways, as evidenced by the AAUP statement advocating freedom of expression that portrays critiques of Israel's retaliation as inherently anti-Semitic. AAUP eventually joined labor unions in calling for a cease-fire as the devastation of Gaza and loss of innocent lives was recognized. The American Sociological Association also called for a cease-fire. American University's examination of policies related to protests is repeated across many campuses as attempts are made to harmonize a commitment to fostering an inclusive campus climate with a commitment to freedom of expression. American University's ban on indoor protests resulted in probation for its Students for Justice in Palestine group.

In an already contentious political environment, U.S. institutions and perhaps colleges and universities around the world, will need to figure out how to have very difficult conversations, support the expression of opposing views, and avoid the devolution into chaos that some recall from their institutions in the 1960s. Berkeley, a center of the free speech movement in the 1960s, evacuated attendees when protesters became violent. That Berkeley would descend into violence over expression of diverse views reinforces the critical need to set standards for discourse and enforce them. While the 1960s is remembered for opening free speech, the more ominous realization is that public sentiment and political partisanship that targets higher education is beginning to look a lot like the dark days of McCarthyism of the 1950s. Some educators believe that the specter of McCarthyism and anti-intellectualism warrants strong push-back from college and university presidents.

College presidents and other leaders met for a summit to explore how to address anti-Semitism.  The meeting was convened by Hillel, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Council on Education and was not open to media. Reporting after the meeting, organizers claimed that it was "the largest-ever gathering of college and university presidents to discuss the topic of confronting antisemitism on campus."