Inside Higher Ed - News

Anti-Asian messages spread at Washington University in St. Louis

October 11, 2018 - 6:00pm

When Han Ju Seo, a senior at Washington University in St. Louis, first saw messages calling Asian students invaders of campus study spaces, she felt “immediate anger.”

“I’m not embarrassed to admit that I had a very visceral emotional reaction,” she said.

Seo is Korean American, and she said she wasn’t upset about what the messages said but about the racist connotations they carried. Anti-Asian racism is something that she and other Asian American students felt everyday.

The characterization of Asian students as "taking over" is common, and not just specific to Washington University, said Julie Park, an associate professor at the University of Maryland at College Park. In 2011, a student at the University of California, Los Angeles, posted a YouTube video that criticized Asian students for talking loudly in the library and having family members visit them.

"One manifestation of anti-Asian racism tends to be this theme that they're 'taking over' somehow, which is similar to what happened at Wash U," Park wrote in an email. "Another theme is the perpetual foreigner stereotype, where Asian Americans are perceived to be un-American or foreign, even when they're U.S.-born or don't have connections to Asia."

The messages were sent on Oct. 3 in a group chat among the residents of the first floor of a freshman dorm at Washington University. One of Seo’s friends sent her a screenshot.

“Why are Asians invading our study room,” the first messaged read. Several others chimed in: “It’s so annoying, they’re having movie night in our study room,” “Did you try asking them to leave,” “Fuck, there’s one in my room too.”

Seo posted the screenshot to Facebook.

“Thanks for the reminder that no matter my citizenship, the years I’ve spent in America, and my proficiency in English, I’m always going to [be] a foreigner,” she wrote alongside the screenshot. “No matter how much we excel in our careers, achieve incredible things, and work to the point of utter exhaustion we’re still unwanted. Go ahead and love my culture, love my food, and love my music; call me when I’m welcome. I’m tired.”

Several students filed bias incident reports with the university, although Seo didn’t know exactly how many. Both Lori White, vice chancellor for student affairs, and Emelyn dela Peña, associate vice chancellor for student affairs and dean of the center for diversity and inclusion, sent emails to students saying they’d been alerted to the messages.

“We recognize the messages can easily be interpreted as portraying Asians and Asian Americans as invaders and are a characterization of Asian people as forever foreign and generally not welcome in our community,” dela Peña wrote. “These messages are inconsistent with the university’s goal of creating an inclusive and diverse environment and are just one example of the broader bias and oppression that Asian and Asian American students experience.”

Dela Peña also provided details for two campus events, one to support students who had been affected by the messages and a workshop about the “racialization of Asians and Asian Americans.”

Seo was glad the university addressed the issue but was concerned that the response came across “a little bit more like damage control.”

She doesn’t know what she’d like to see the university do differently, and that, to her, is part of the problem.

“In terms of practical steps or actionable steps, it’s hard for me to formulate [what those would be], because Asian American issues aren’t something that’s really talked about,” she said.

To address underlying issues of racism and prejudice against Asian students, Park encourages universities to provide support for Asian American studies, promote ethnic student organizations and hire upper-level administrators who are comfortable talking about race.

In 2017, Asian students made up 17 percent of the student body at Washington University in St. Louis, which is double the percentage of other racial minorities on campus, yet Seo noticed that racism and microaggressions against Asian students seem to be discussed less often than those against other racial minorities.

"I'd actually say that it is talked about, but maybe less so in mainstream outlets," Park said. "Asian Americans are stereotyped as being more passive, which leads to the assumption that people can make these types of comments without Asian Americans pushing back, unfortunately." She added that she was proud of the students at Washington University for calling out the problematic comments.

Since Seo made her original Facebook post, one of the students involved in the message thread reached out to her to apologize.

“He was very, very intentional about the whole thing,” she said. “He was not making excuses.”

That student, who spoke to Inside Higher Ed but asked not to be identified, said that his message was an ill-advised joke and that he regretted his comment.

“I’m not trying to make an excuse,” he said. “I understand that I messed up and I’m very sorry that I did.”

Another student involved, who also asked not to be identified, said that “it was a very poor choice of words that was not meant in any way to be racially insensitive or derogatory, and right afterwards I realized that it did come across as racist.”

Washington University issued the following statement to Inside Higher Ed about the incident.

“We were disappointed to learn about the insensitive comments that were made in the group chat, which are not at all in line with our community values of diversity and inclusion. We have worked with all students involved to facilitate opportunities for constructive dialogue so we can hold one another accountable and work to prevent something like this from happening again,” the statement read. “This was an unfortunate incident, but one that we hope will give us an opportunity to listen, learn and become stronger as a community.”

Seo hopes that the post will spark a broader discussion about Asian American experiences and racism at Washington University and in America.

“We could sit there and talk about the post for ages, about what they said and what this means, but what I really want is consideration for the larger implications,” she said. “Yeah, this one post sucked, but there is such a bigger story behind it. My anger is not just directed towards those boys; it’s directed to the problem in general -- that we are not wanted in America.”

DiversityEditorial Tags: RaceIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Anti-Asian BigotryTrending order: 1College: Washington University in St. Louis
Categories: Higher Education News

University of Delaware will vet employers harder on Handshake after student fools system

October 11, 2018 - 6:00pm

It took Jennifer West less than two hours to create a fake company on Handshake, the fast-growing career-services platform, and then advertise a bogus social media internship at the University of Delaware, which she attends.

West, a senior at Delaware, wanted to test the system after earlier this fall she said she was duped into a sham internship that was posted on Handshake, which has spread to at least 700 campuses.

The incident illustrates that despite the convenience of Handshake, institutions, particularly large ones such as Delaware, have trouble tracking what opportunities are real. West’s experiment has prompted the institution to make stricter the vetting process for employers.

West was browsing Handshake over the summer when she stumbled on iConcept Media, which purported to be offering an unpaid internship in fashion journalism where she would work remotely.

She searched the company online and found a few lukewarm reviews on Glassdoor but decided to apply regardless. West went through a Skype interview (the interviewer told her that his camera was broken, but she was able to hear his voice) and later she was “hired.” As West understood the position, she would be writing about fashion brands, pieces that iConcept representatives implied would ultimately appear in high-profile publications with which they claimed to have relationships, West said.

In August, after submitting a few trial clips, West was granted access to a Google Doc, which she said looked sloppy and unprofessional, laden with typos. In that Google Doc were links where the pieces were published -- but they were a far cry from Vogue. The URLs looked similar to major fashion outlets, but were a “bit off.” For instance, instead of fashionme.com (a popular website), the iConcept Media version was “fashionmr.”

When West scrolled through the webpages, hardly any of the write-ups had bylines attached. She said that iConcept told her that if she did not fulfill a quota of stories and post daily to social media that her name would also be removed. West said she figured out the scammers were trying to generate clickbait, nothing more. She was also later told that iConcept Media had been flagged by the university as a fraudulent company.

West remained curious about how thoroughly the institution was evaluating the companies that used Handshake, which allows employers both big and small to advertise at colleges and universities across the country. Last year she set up a parody music review website called PorkSpork, where she and her friends would write for a laugh (one article is titled “John McCain dies before mixtape drop”).

When West interviewed Delaware’s Career Services Center for an article for the student newspaper about her fake internship experience, she was told that staffers there check for a legitimate email and phone number and a career-services page on a company website.

West already had an email and phone number associated with the PorkSpork website, and she was able to quickly add a webpage on the site advertising for interns, she said. She signed up with Handshake, seemingly without the company checking that PorkSpork was real, and then asked to advertise with Delaware.

The institution approved her and a “social media internship” ad with a vague description within two hours, West said. She discovered she could request students’ résumés, cover letters and university transcripts, which would reveal to her students’ personal information, including grades. Shocked at the level of information she could access, West nixed the post. (Handshake has come under fire for privacy issues before, with some students unaware they had even shared their information, such as a grade point average.)

“I think there needs to be any sort of service by the university to check if anything is legitimate. I didn’t get a call or an email -- I didn’t even get a phone call to check if it was a real phone number,” West said.

The university will now check the businesses licenses for every employer that wants to use Handshake, said Nathan Elton, the Career Services Center director. This may slow down the process of approving them, but Elton said the trust of students is “ultimately No. 1.”

The university has used Handshake for about three years, and since then, the number of employers and postings on the platform has skyrocketed, Elton said. About 16,500 employers have signed up to use Delaware’s Handshake service and posted a little fewer than 40,000 positions within the last year. Two academic years ago, the university handled only about 18,500 postings, Elton said.

Only one staff member on the center’s employment relations and engagement team is charged with reviewing Handshake posts, with others assigned as necessary during the periods where more postings roll in -- such as during the late summer or early fall, Elton said. Delaware enrolls more than 24,000 students.

In the case of West’s false company, Elton said that the university fields many requests from small start-ups, and a social media intern is a common position. With the completeness of having a webpage, email and more, PorkSpork slipped through the university’s screening. Per Handshake’s policies, it also would not have flagged West’s company because she had created a unique email, website and branding to go with it -- instead, it would be up to individual institutions to remove it.

Despite the new requirement of checking business licenses, Elton said that the center will maintain its disclaimer on fraudulent jobs and internships.

Posted to the Career Services Center website, it reads:

The university does not endorse or recommend employers, and a posting does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. The university explicitly makes no representations or guarantees about job listings or the accuracy of the information provided by the employer. The university is not responsible for safety, wages, working conditions, or any other aspect of off-campus employment without limitation. It is the responsibility of students to perform due diligence in researching employers when applying for or accepting private, off-campus employment and to thoroughly research the facts and reputation of each organization to which they are applying. Students should be prudent and use common sense and caution when applying for or accepting any position.

West said she was unaware of the disclaimer until this week, though university officials said it is prominently promoted.

Many institutions publish this type of warning about fake positions, including Boston University; the University of California, Berkeley; Rutgers University and Rider University. George Mason University in May published a statement about a job scam on its career platform, HireMason.

Handshake has developed its own metric for judging the legitimacy of employers, called a “trust score,” which is visible on the platform. It takes into account whether employers have been deemed fraudulent by another institution, how long they’ve been using Handshake, their level of activity on Handshake and whether they have a valid web address and matching email, among other factors.

Last year, about 200,000 employers advertised with institutions on Handshake, and about 0.4 percent of them were flagged as fraudulent.

Handshake provided a statement to Inside Higher Ed:

“More than 300,000 employers are engaging with the Handshake community each year, from the Fortune 500 to local small businesses and nonprofits. Our fraud rates are far below industry norms, because we have built a strong set of security protections and work closely with our university partners. But we are always working to make the network more secure, and we continue to take steps with our university partners to ensure every student can find a job or internship that will help them launch a meaningful career.”

Is this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Fake InternshipTrending order: 2College: George Mason UniversityUniversity of Delaware
Categories: Higher Education News

Senator Brian Schatz wants college access for students with criminal histories

October 11, 2018 - 6:00pm

A college education typically is out of reach for people who are in prison, and even formerly incarcerated students often face questions about their past in the admissions process.

Senator Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, wants to remove those restrictions for students who have been involved with the criminal justice system. He is spearheading bills that would restore Pell Grants for incarcerated students and encourage colleges to drop admissions questions about applicants’ criminal histories.

“If we’re really committed to allowing people after they pay their debt to society to become productive members of their communities, we have to allow them to pursue their education,” he said in an interview with Inside Higher Ed.

For the last quarter century, federal law has barred incarcerated students from receiving Pell Grants. And many colleges and universities ask about students’ criminal convictions or disciplinary records -- policies that critics have said can perpetuate discrimination against students from minority groups, and which are being targeted for removal by a national “ban the box” movement.

Schatz made a foray into the college affordability debate this year with legislation that would make higher education debt-free, a more ambitious plan than even the free college proposal offered by Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent. He said the criminal justice legislation is a related push.

“The overall goal is to increase access to higher education,” he said. “And that’s got to include people who are currently and formerly incarcerated.”

Public policy has made it difficult or impossible, Schatz said, for those students to earn a postsecondary degree either behind bars or after being released -- a relic of the tough-on-crime era of the 1990s that produced numerous laws restricting government benefits to individuals with criminal convictions.

In February, Schatz introduced the REAL Act to restore Pell eligibility for students who are behind bars. And he followed that up last month with the Beyond the Box for Higher Education Act. Both bills count among their Democratic co-sponsors potential 2020 presidential contenders like Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders. (House lawmakers have introduced corresponding legislation for both bills.)

Noticeably absent from the bills' co-sponsors are any Republican lawmakers. But Schatz sees signs of bipartisan momentum behind policies to make college more accessible for students who are caught up in the criminal justice system.

The U.S. Department of Education says it’s committed to continuing the Second Chance Pell experiment, which launched in 2016 and allows students at a limited number of correctional institutions to receive the grants. Major conservative donors like the Koch family also have thrown their support behind efforts to reform the broader criminal justice system -- a rare policy goal shared by some right-wing activists and progressive organizers.

Tiffany Jones, director of higher education policy at the Education Trust, said the new federal proposals follow the efforts of activists who have been working for years to tackle the consequences of the school-to-prison pipeline and mass incarceration.

“We talk about this as something that is a natural evolution of the momentum we’ve seen to address mass incarceration and the challenges it’s created for society as a whole,” she said.

Higher education is a natural part of that organizing because postsecondary credentials increasingly have become required for decent-paying jobs.

“That’s why you see so many states adopting attainment goals,” Jones said. “That’s why you see us talking nationally about the need to address degree completion.”

Going Beyond the Box

Schatz is making the case to colleagues in Congress that higher education programs for incarcerated students benefit society and taxpayers by lowering the chances an individual ends up back behind bars.

"One of the best ways to reduce recidivism is to allow people to get educated," he said. "It’s as simple as that."

The national recidivism rate is 43.3 percent within three years of release. But Schatz’s office cites a study from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which found that the recidivism rate falls to 13.7 percent for formerly incarcerated students who earned an associate’s degree, 5.6 percent for those who earned a four-year degree and less than 1 percent for those who complete a master’s degree.

The benefits of a college education have helped the REAL Act get endorsements from groups like correctional officers' unions. While that bill would simply overturn the 1994 ban on Pell Grants for incarcerated students, Schatz’s ban-the-box proposal would give discretion to colleges to determine how they ask about criminal histories, if at all.

For example, it would recommend that they re-examine those policies and assess whether they are necessary for admission decisions. And it calls on the Education Department to issue guidance to colleges on how they can alter their admissions practices.

Syrita Steib-Martin, the founder and executive director of Operation Restoration, said the group had hoped the legislation would direct institutions to no longer ask questions about students' criminal backgrounds.

“It’s not relevant,” she said. “We don’t ask people their sexual orientation, what trauma they’ve been through. We don’t ask those questions ahead of time.”

And data indicate that information is not a good predictor of future crime on campus, she said.

Operation Restoration worked with lawmakers in Louisiana and Maryland to pass state-level ban-the-box legislation. While she said the Schatz bill should go further, Steib-Martin said federal legislation could encourage even more states to pass similar laws.

Jones said her group understands the urge to allow some discretion on the question -- she said some campus presidents have said they want to offer targeted servicers to formerly incarcerated students but sometimes don’t know who they are.

“It’s complicated,” she said. “We have to be paying attention to outcomes intended and unintended.”

She said the group’s biggest goal is to reduce the chance that students are discriminated against based on criminal histories.

Even before introducing the beyond-the-box legislation, Schatz was pushing higher ed to take on the issue. In February he sent a letter signed by 17 other Democratic senators to higher ed associations that asked them to ban the box.

“Passing a bill takes a long time. Even really good bipartisan ideas can take a couple of years at a minimum,” Schatz said. “I try to use whatever influence my office has to advance this cause.”

That pressure has shown some results. The Association of American Colleges and Universities wrote to its 1,400 member colleges in May urging them to drop questions about criminal justice histories from their applications for admission. And the Common App said in August it would drop a question about criminal histories, although individual colleges who use the app may still ask themselves, and a question about disciplinary records remains.

Schatz is under no illusion that his debt-free college plan will garner Republican support -- he talks about that proposal as an attempt to move the Democratic Party on college affordability as much as anything else.

But to the extent possible, he wants to keep the push for college opportunity for students with criminal histories from becoming a partisan fight. That approach recognizes the role both Republicans and Democrats played in enacting “tough on crime” policies and the real chances he sees for winning broader support for removing those barriers.

“Whether you’re the Koch brothers or the ACLU, you realize the architecture of our criminal justice system -- which includes how we treat people who are incarcerated and formerly incarcerated and includes our attitude toward their educational attainment -- is preposterous, and inhumane, and terribly expensive,” Schatz said.

Student Aid and LoansEditorial Tags: Federal policyImage Source: Getty ImagesImage Caption: Senator Brian Schatz (center), a Hawaii DemocratIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 
Categories: Higher Education News

Authors discuss book about how they see colleges as media organizations as much as educational institutions

October 11, 2018 - 6:00pm

Most people think of colleges and universities as primarily educational institutions. But a new book says that, for a long time, they have been "media institutions," focused on appealing to different audiences. The book extends this view far beyond traditional public relations operations or even new media strategies, but says that the idea of colleges as media institutions is much more ingrained than people typically see. The book is Media U: How the Need to Win Audiences Has Shaped Higher Education (Columbia University Press). The authors are Mark Garrett Cooper, professor of film and media studies at the University of South Carolina, and John Marx, professor of English at the University of California, Davis. They responded via email to questions about their book.

Q: What first gave you the idea of looking at colleges and universities as media institutions? What is a media institution?

A: The idea came out of our frustration with repeated declarations of a crisis in the humanities. Crisis talk so often assumes that a declining audience rightfully belongs to “us” while also revealing a stubborn narrowness when it comes to defining who “us” is, exactly. With sad predictability, essays defending “the humanities” turn out to be all about the aggrieved writer’s home discipline. Nostalgia plus navel-gazing equals paralysis. We wanted another option. We craved a more capacious account of the university, one that would allow us to understand how it has grown, and how it has attracted audiences of all sorts. We quickly noticed that higher ed was competing and collaborating with other audience-seeking enterprises.

To pick just one example: in the early years of PBS precursor National Educational Television, Boston universities worked with their local station to put professors on the air. In 1957, WGBH thought Harvard’s I. A. Richards might compete for viewers with NBC’s hit Dragnet, with which the English professor shared a Thursday evening time slot. Nothing we had learned about the rise and fall of “the humanities” would help us understand such phenomena. But the idea that the university was a media institution did. A media institution succeeds by producing and consuming media (books, movies, radio, television, databases, what have you). Universities make and use all those formats, and many studies describe how. But no one has explained how central producing media is to the university’s core mission of connecting on-campus constituents (administrators, faculty, students) and off-campus ones (football fans, taxpayers, government and corporate scientists).

Q: Have colleges and universities been successful as media institutions (at least until recently)?

A: They’ve only succeeded to the extent that they do behave as media institutions. Undergraduate degrees and peer-reviewed publications have worth because people agree that they have worth. Degrees are more like the medium of paper money than they are a commodity like rice or steel. People value credentials to the extent that institutions of higher education (among other media institutions) have been effective in associating them with careers, self-fulfillment, public service and the pleasures of campus life. There’s a reason that universities in the U.S. started to think about public relations even before that term had become common parlance. In 1894, the University of Wisconsin’s legendary defense of academic freedom, its “Magna Carta,” also cannily advertised the university. “Incidentally if not inadvertently the report contains a résumé of the good work done at the university ever since the civil war,” observed the State Journal. “This handsome advertisement has been telegraphed all over the country.”

Much later, efforts like Clark Kerr’s successful 1960s rebranding of the contemporary university as a multifaceted enterprise made the need to address diverse external audiences explicit. As described in his 1963 book, The Uses of the University, Kerr’s “multiversity” had “fuzzy” edges and a tendency to reach “out to alumni, legislators, farmers, businessmen, who are all related to one or more … internal communities.” This was such an effective way of simultaneously conceptualizing the university and promoting its services that today schools like Arizona State explicitly claim its mantle.

Of course, Berkeley in the ’60s was the site of another equally important, student-led feat of redefinition, which made the campus an emblem of activism. The university's FSM 50 (Free Speech Movement at 50) website indicates the extent to which generations of protesters filling Sproul Plaza have helped Berkeley remain Berkeley. In the last two years, in fact, Chancellor Carol Christ has made Berkeley’s free speech legacy central to her efforts to get ahead of right-wing campaigns that frame higher ed as intolerant of dissent. She’s right to argue that without such an intervention and the media to disseminate it, neither Berkeley nor any other institution of higher learning is likely to get the students and support it wants and needs.

Q: While many Americans continue to revere their own alma maters or state flagships (even if sometimes for football more than intellectual contributions), the image of higher ed has taken a beating of late. Why do you think that is?

A: It’s true that Yalies talk less about football today than they did a century ago, when their team was top of the heap, but they remain fixated on wider public perception. The fallout from the Kavanaugh hearings has led to headlines featuring Yale students, faculty and grads concerned about the school’s elite reputation, which quickly bleeds over into questioning the status of meritocracy more generally. Ross Douthat had a provocative column in The New York Times about this in which he observed that many of the pundits weighing in on embattled nominee had the same kind of education that Kavanaugh had. This recognition, he argues, puts pressure on the whole “meritocratic game, which depends on a reproduction of privilege that pretends to be something else, something fair and open and all about hard work and just deserts.” Douthat’s argument strikes us as very much of the moment. Many are finding it harder to separate the merit that universities certify from inherited privilege.

This is a profound problem, because Americans have historically expected their universities to underwrite social leveling by lending opportunity to individual merit, regardless of station. Our universities have been propelled by this contradictory directive to flatten social hierarchy and reproduce it at the same time. Lately the system can seem to be failing on both counts: it struggles to make college accessible and cannot convincingly distinguish merit from preferential treatment. When we look to a near-future college-age population that will be notably smaller, poorer and less white than prior generations, the need to renew the compact seems crystal clear. There’s no single point of failure.

Taxpayer commitments, state and federal policies, disparities in K-12 preparation, and political polarization are among many factors affecting how universities conduct themselves as well as how they are perceived. Accordingly, to improve faith in the university will not be a matter of messaging merely, although that will be critical. Rather, a wide array of actors will need to recommit to the proposition that higher ed can and must identify, nurture and certify talent possessed by people not already presumed to have it.

Q: How have the culture wars changed the media landscape for higher education?

A: We call our chapter about this “Bad English.” It seemed bizarre to us that 1980s partisans on all sides agreed to cast the English department as the villain. National Endowment for the Humanities head William Bennett and his ilk chastised literature scholars for failing to teach Western classics. Leftist English profs lambasted their departments for clinging to the canon. Cranky scientists attacked the discipline for spreading the relativist theory menace. Meanwhile, largely out of public view, English became objectively less prominent as a component of the undergraduate experience. It was not alone. A steady proliferation of new majors in new fields meant a declining share of students for each one.

On the pages of national newspapers, the struggle to shape student minds through English ranked with other wedge issues, like the controversy over so-called welfare queens. On campuses, the idea that massive numbers of students could be swayed by means of the English curriculum looked increasingly preposterous. At many colleges, students would find it possible to avoid the discipline altogether. This dynamic of polarization on the one hand and fragmentation on the other continues to characterize new battles in the seemingly endless culture war. Even as certain issues create high energy us-them distinctions, a more fundamental fragmentation into niche audiences is altering social life. It’s not just that left and right have always already agreed to disagree ferociously about “culture.” It’s that physicists, historians and sociologists who happen to share concerns will find it a challenge to find a common audience that might act on those concerns.

Q: How has the era of new media changed the landscape for higher education?

A: Not nearly as much as most people think. Endless repetition of the tall tale in which today’s “new media” promise (or threaten) to disrupt staid lecture halls only encourages misrecognition of our past and present. For at least a century, universities in the U.S. have leaped to exploit new media to engage audiences at a distance and innovate in the classroom. Universities were early adopters of radio, film and television. And let’s not forget the affordances of the U.S. Postal Service, which helped make correspondence courses big business for land-grant universities and private for-profits alike in the late 19th century. Concern with how best to use new media is a perennial theme in the history of higher ed, as is the hyperbole that accompanies appraisals of its hazards and potentialities.

Which is to say that the internet changes some things, but hardly everything. Most interestingly, digital-media audiences provide a limitless array of data points and can be disaggregated and reaggregated in infinite combinations, while the masses addressed by movies, radio and television “talked back” mainly in information-poor forms like ticket sales and Nielsen surveys. Accordingly, digital crowds and digital classrooms seem collectively “smarter.” They also revise expectations about responsiveness, trustworthiness and privacy. But there’s no assessing these kinds of differences without a more attentive media history than the one in which the internet ends the long 19th century of print and marks the start of a new epoch.

It is important to note another constant: the university’s adoption of new media formats inevitably expands its division of labor and often requires extramural partnerships, as new types of experts are almost always necessary to make new media effective. Much of the apprehension (and enthusiasm) around “new media” comes from a perception that established patterns of work and authority may change. We do better to confront that issue head-on, to talk about the kinds of work involved and who orchestrates it, than we do to imagine that new media present an inherent threat to the status quo.

Q: If you could advise colleges' presidents or marketing strategists on how to improve their images and that of higher ed, what are two or three things you would suggest?

A: Well, obviously, they should buy the book! It will confirm that presidents are right to foreground collaboration when it comes to marketing their schools and promoting higher education in general. We offer a slew of historical examples: the Tuskegee Institute’s often overlooked international programs; the University of Chicago’s partnership with Encyclopedia Britannica Films; the hydra-headed midcentury study of mass communications in which diverse scholarly, governmental and political interests converged; the implementation of “STEM” as a category linking K-12 math and science to a broad array of university disciplines; and many others.

The book also underscores the importance of attending to the medium as much as the message. In our last chapter, we observe with some concern the extent to which Twitter now dominates approaches to crisis management. The platform did dramatically change the scale and speed of messaging. But obviously there are messages that cannot be sent or received in this form, and tweeting is hardly only way to create or manage a crisis. We compare Missouri’s #ConcernedStudent1950 Twitter campaign with a 14-page letter signed by some 700 Oberlin College students, which ramified through the national press in 2016. The Twitter campaign had greater reach than the Oberlin story and certainly had more dramatic consequences for its institution’s president. But the letter -- with the slower, more deliberative institutional response it provoked -- arguably had more durable consequences for diversity and inclusion at Oberlin.

Finally, your question touches on a new idea we’ve been playing around with: universities may have underappreciated the Netflix business model. That model, for those not paying attention, goes well beyond the video on demand approach that we see adapted in MOOCs, with their broadcast-era emphasis on “massive” scale. As Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos explains to the academic editors of Distribution Revolution, his aim is not to put butts in seats but to ensure that people “love” everything they watch. “We are trying to match tastes,” he says, “and tastes are really specific -- even in your own household. So imagine trying to do it across the whole country. We have to have a lot of titles to produce the content our customers want.”

Netflix invested in taste-based algorithms to predict what viewers will like but might not think to pick themselves. At the same time, it vastly expanded the scope and variety of program content available. Greater specificity about what viewers might love required a larger array of options from which to choose, with correspondingly smaller audiences for many individual programs. Obviously, marketing programs of study is not the same thing as marketing television programs. Still, there are lessons to be had in the shift away from emphasis on the audience size for any specific program. By charting the long-term tendency of higher education to offer ever-wider options for students, our book explains why the Netflix approach would be more applicable than, for instance, Governor Jerry Brown’s promotion of a fast-casual “limited menu” model.

New Books About Higher EducationEditorial Tags: BooksIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 
Categories: Higher Education News

Academics in Brazil worry about rise of right

October 11, 2018 - 6:00pm

It was destined to be a presidential election campaign of dramatic outcomes. Celebrating 30 years of democracy, Brazilians took to the polls this week in their millions. But set against a background of economic crisis, mass unemployment and political scandal -- not to mention anger, which culminated in the front-runner being stabbed -- the results of the first round of voting left the Brazilian population more divided than ever.

Right-wing candidate Jair Bolsonaro -- who continued the last month of his campaign from his hospital bed after being attacked while campaigning Sept. 6 -- took 46 percent of the vote in the first round on Oct. 7 and is the favorite to take the presidency ahead of left-winger Fernando Haddad in the second round on Oct. 28.

A former paratrooper and a self-professed admirer of Donald Trump, Bolsonaro has gained followers for his strong stance on tackling crime and corruption, which he says have “swamped” Brazil. But his failure to give much attention to science or universities in his campaign has left academics reeling -- and preparing for the worst.

Adriana Marotti de Mello, professor of business at the University of São Paulo, said that the current funding situation for Brazilian research was critical. “This year’s budget for National Research Council [Brazil’s major public funding body, known as CNPq] was the lowest in 13 years,” she explained. “Science, technology and education are historically neglected in Brazil, but since 2016 the situation has become dangerous.”

The reason so many in the sector are particularly fearful of a Bolsonaro presidency, Marotti de Mello continued, comes from an agreement made by his party’s finance spokesman to continue to freeze spending -- intensifying the real-terms cuts that are already causing research institutions to close.

According to Fabio Zicker, a specialist in science, technology and innovation in global health at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, a biological sciences research institute in Rio de Janeiro, the outlook for science and higher education could be bleak regardless of who wins. There is “not much detail from either of the two leading candidates,” he explained.

While Bolsonaro’s Social Liberal Party has made reference to stimulating entrepreneurship and privatizing public-sector organizations, including universities, his competitor has made equally vague promises to “recover the level of funding to education and other sectors … by being more efficient,” he said.

But for many, the problems run deeper than financial hardship; Bolsonaro’s lack of commitment to science and research may be concerning, but it is the other policies he has thrown weight behind that raise more questions.

The Schools Without Political Party initiative -- known as the “gag law” by its opponents -- was drafted as legislation in 2016 in response to fear that teachers were abusing their teaching freedoms by spreading political views. The Institute for Development and Human Rights -- a nongovernmental organization with United Nations consultative status -- said at the time that the initiative “attacks basic human rights,” namely the “right to freedom of expression and thought.”

According to Marotti de Mello, Aléssio Ribeiro Souto, the Social Liberal Party’s education adviser and another former military man, last year said that he would censor books that did not tell the “truth” about Brazil’s former military regime. The drafted law is currently being considered in the federal government’s Legislative Assembly and, according to one academic who asked not to be named on account of “what might happen in the next few years,” there is strong consensus that the initiative could be expanded to university-level teaching.

“This is a conservative project with a goal to remove any kind of teaching they consider left leaning, whether it truly is or not,” he said.

Those who remember the country under military dictatorship might be forgiven for feeling paranoid about a return to dictatorship values. But younger generations appear equally worried. Frederico Dourado Morais, professor of pedagogy at the State University of Goiás, said a right-wing presidency would signal not only a “step backwards” in terms of progress, but present barriers to those wishing to access higher education in a country where the social mobility gap is particularly high.

“Higher education in Brazil is still an exclusive and elitist space … Bolsonaro’s government plan, his proposals and his speeches in public spaces show total ignorance of this reality. He represents a backwards step, both in terms of access, retention and graduation [of students] as well as the quality of scientific production in the country,” Dourado said.

For some, the academic career prospects in the country have simply become too bleak. “It is very sad, but I do not see any positive future for Brazil,” said Marotti de Mello. “I have a tenured position, but many students, especially postgraduates, are facing unemployment or looking for jobs below their qualification.”

She added, “I am talking to lots of friends in academic areas who have plans to leave Brazil if Bolsonaro wins and successfully implements his plan. I am myself looking for research projects in Europe.”

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

New presidents or provosts: Asheville CQUniversity DuPage Highlands KSU Louisville Pacific Northwest Shenandoah USF

October 11, 2018 - 6:00pm
  • Adrienne G. Bloss, vice president for academic affairs at Shenandoah University, in Virginia, has been named provost as well.
  • Beth Boehm, dean of the school of interdisciplinary and graduate studies at the University of Louisville, has been promoted to executive vice president and university provost there.
  • Nancy J. Cable, president of the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, in Florida, has been named chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Asheville.
  • Mark Curtis-Chávez, special assistant to the president of Lone Star College-CyFair, in Texas, has been selected as provost of the College of DuPage, in Illinois.
  • Nick Klomp, deputy vice chancellor academic at the University of Canberra, in Australia, has been appointed vice chancellor and president of CQUniversity, in Australia.
  • Michael J. Lawler, dean and professor of the School of Health Sciences at the University of South Dakota, has been chosen as president of Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences, in Washington.
  • Dana Nichols, vice president for academic affairs at Chattanooga State Community College, in Tennessee, has been named vice president for academic affairs at Georgia Highlands College.
  • Charles Taber, vice provost for graduate and professional education and dean of the Graduate School at Stony Brook University, part of the State University of New York system, has been selected as provost and executive vice president of Kansas State University.
  • Martin Tadlock, interim chancellor of the University of South Florida's St. Petersburg campus, has been appointed to the job on a permanent basis.
Editorial Tags: College administrationNew presidentsIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: College: Georgia Highlands CollegeKansas State UniversityShenandoah UniversityUniversity of LouisvilleUniversity of North Carolina at AshevilleUniversity of South Florida-St Petersburg
Categories: Higher Education News

Paper proposes new, multipronged approach to thinking about gender diversity in the sciences

October 10, 2018 - 6:00pm

Gender diversity in the sciences is often discussed in terms of numbers: build research teams with more women on them and innovation will come. That may be true; research suggests it probably is. But a new paper seeks to push science’s gender diversity conversation beyond just composition of teams, to research methods and research questions -- along with how to manage each in different disciplinary and organizational settings. It also suggests that in paying more attention to research methods and questions, research teams might diversify as a result.

“To realize its full potential, gender diversity needs to be supported by careful stewardship and management techniques across four interdependent domains -- from research teams to the broader disciplines in which they are embedded to research organizations and ultimately to the larger societies that shape them through specific gender norms and policies,” reads the study, published in Nature: Human Behavior. “Understanding how these domains interact -- i.e., how policies and practices in one domain shape developments in the other domains -- is crucial to maximizing the benefits of diversity for science.”

Londa Schiebinger, John L. Hinds Professor of History of Science at Stanford University, and the paper’s senior author, said this week that “we in North America and Western Europe have not been entirely successful increasing the numbers of women in science, despite our many efforts.” And one reason for that is the limited focus on issues of participation, she said, at the expense of considering “how science is done.”

Speaking for herself and her colleagues, Schiebinger said it’s “our hypothesis that attending to diversity in research methods and diversity in questions asked may also lead to greater diversity in research teams.”

She noted that in a separate analysis of 1.5 million medical papers, she and colleagues saw a link between diversity in participation and methods, specifically between author gender and attention to gender- and sex-specific analysis of phenomena. Causality could not be established, Schiebinger said, but her team is now launching a large empirical study to understand relationships between diversity and creativity and innovation.

Numbers Still Count

The new paper does not suggest ignoring team composition, which it says has important implications for scientific diversity by virtue of cognitive diversity -- which research, in turn, suggests can heighten creativity and the search for new solutions. Indeed, more science-specific research on this topic is needed, the paper argues, and those few studies focusing on science tend to count citation rates, publication productivity and patents, as opposed to other measures of impact. Namely, the paper suggests societal relevance, which the National Science Foundation already considers in funding proposals.

Another reason that this kind of gender diversity shouldn’t be ignored, the paper says, is that gender-diverse teams may encounter higher levels of conflict than more homogenous teams, and that should be carefully managed.

Methods

Still, approaching gender diversity through diversifying research methods, including through research and analysis that considers effects by specific genders or sex, referred to as "GSA," merits more attention, the researcher argue. Schiebinger’s Gendered Innovations project, which includes such case studies as breaking the female postmenopausal paradigm, is one example.

“Integrating GSA into research design can lead to new insights that enhance the external validity and precision of scientific research with human outcomes,” the paper argues. Beyond osteoporosis, which also affects many men, well-known examples of GSA include heart disease in women, pregnant crash-test dummies, machine translation, genetics of sex determination and water infrastructure for sustainable development.

As to evaluating how gendered methodological approaches might influence research outcomes, the paper argues that granting agencies’ polices can be examined to see whether GSA is a funding criterion. Peer-reviewed publications can be analyzed for GSA, as well, the paper suggests, noting that the European Commission has evaluated publications for GSA by scientific field and country. Between 2010 and 2013, the highest proportion was found in the social sciences (7 percent of publications), health sciences (4 percent) and humanities (3 percent) with the natural sciences and engineering showing 0 percent. The Nordic countries, which are recognized as global leaders with respect to societal gender equality, were top performers.

Future research might also develop methods to evaluate the value of GSA to society, in terms of human well-being and economic impact, the paper says, since “Doing research wrong costs lives and money.” The researchers note that between 1997 and 2000, 10 drugs were withdrawn from the U.S. market because of life-threatening health effects, eight of which posed greater health risks for women than for men.

Research Questions

A third approach to gender diversity concerns diversity in research questions, the paper says, evaluated by how the “entrance of new actors into scientific disciplines -- whether women into traditionally male disciplines, such as biomedicine, or men into traditionally female disciplines, such as nursing -- influences research priorities and agendas,” or vice versa.

“This approach measures links between changing gender demographics and changes in research questions and priorities,” the researcher add. “It rests on the assumption that social norms and expectations cultivate variations in the interests and perspectives of women, men, and gender-diverse individuals, and that increased variation in interests and perspectives can broaden agendas and discoveries.”

No prior research has considered such a link, the paper says. And, to be sure, any such research would require “careful attention to confounding factors, such as changing societal gender ideologies, changing funding priorities, the role played by social movements in altering scholarly agendas, and differences in the social and intellectual organization of disciplines.”

Yet historical examples do suggest that women’s headway into traditionally male-dominated disciplines has coincided with expanding research agendas, the paper says. As surge in women entered medical schools in the 1980s and 1990s, attention to traditionally underresearched areas of women’s health, such as heart disease, breast cancer, urology and autoimmune disease, increased. More women entering primatology in the 1970s and 1980s also coincided with breakthroughs debunking traditional "sex-based stereotypes about primate behavior," according to the paper. Social science and history have their own examples.

Which came first, the openness of disciplines to new questions or the increase of women in these fields, the paper asks, recalling Schiebinger’s hypothesis that questions and methods might influence team composition. The answer: influence presumably flows in both directions. But “we need carefully designed longitudinal studies, comparing stepwise developments over time, to resolve these questions empirically,” the paper says. “Recent advances in computational text analysis show great promise in quantifying the effects of gender diversity on research questions.”

Context Matters

Beyond those three questions, context also matters, according to the paper, which looks at management of each within four distinct but interdependent realms: research teams, disciplines, research organizations and societies at large.

Regarding teams and reducing potential conflict, the article says research suggests that members’ beliefs about the potential benefits of gender diversity are “crucial for positive performance outcomes.” One experimental study found, for example, that gender-diverse teams persuaded to believe in the benefits of group diversity were better at solving complex problems based on heterogeneous information than gender-diverse teams persuaded to believe in the benefits of group homogeneity. Beyond openness to diversity as a condition for success, the paper says that teams also should be encouraged to collaborate based on members’ expertise, and to follow processes that turn “individuals into team players.”

Four processes in particular have been shown to mitigate potential conflicts in gender-diverse groups, the paper says: team identification, or members’ compliance with team norms and conventions; transparent team processes, or teamwork characterized by clear coordination and communication; team efficacy, or team members’ belief in their combined collaborative ability to solve a given problem; and openness to experience.

Disciplines

Research teams function within “larger disciplines, each with unique norms and cultures,” the paper says. And encouraging gender integration in male-dominated disciplines “may reduce tokenism and negative stereotypes that lead to in-group and out-group biases,” so increasing the likelihood of seeing positive effects of team diversity. To that point, the paper cites a study of 52 scientific research collaborations at a U.S. university, which found that women researchers were more productive and likely to contribute toward team goals in disciplines where women were better represented. Similarly, “ghettoization,” where women are grouped into lower-ranked jobs or less prestigious subfields, must be avoided. In medicine, for example, it says, “men dominate general surgery, neurosurgery and orthopedics, while women dominate gynecology, pediatrics and family medicine. This underlines how horizontal stratification can hinder realizing the benefits of gender diversity for research outcomes.”

Ensuring good career and funding opportunities in both male- and female-dominated subareas and recognizing the “value of non-mainstream perspectives may help to reduce such ghettoization effects.”

Research Organizations and Scholarly Societies

Organizations may support gender diversity by cultivating inclusive research climates, such as by promoting equality with respect to salaries, promotion and workloads. Diversity flourishes in work settings where employees “feel free to openly express aspects of their social identities, whether this be sexual orientation or diverse gender identities,” the paper says, and diversity can be supported “through democratic approaches to decision-making that encourage wide-ranging insights and viewpoints.” Organizational leaders also need to devise practical strategies to introduce researchers to relevant GSA, the paper underscores. It should be part of the core scientific curriculum. And evaluation practices that consider metrics beyond citation counts and other bibliometrics can help.

Societies also can help promote a more nuanced sense of gender diversity by developing gender norms that promote equality and by developing policies linking team diversity, GSA and diversity in research questions to funding success.

Observational studies focusing on the Scandinavian countries, for instance, found that policies favoring large research grants, such as “centers of excellence,” reinforce gender inequalities by reallocating resources to “prestigious mega-projects with few women,” the paper says, addressing that last criterion. Instead, to fully harness the potential benefits of diversity, funding agencies should share resources across numerous projects and focus areas rather than concentrating them on a few large-scale grants, the paper argues.

‘About Excellence in Science’

Some critics of team composition-based gender diversity initiatives argue that science should be an absolute meritocracy, and that such initiatives are therefore meaningless and may even hurt science. The new multipronged approach makes that position harder to defend, since it makes an extremely explicit argument as to how gender diversity -- beyond numbers or, more pejoratively, quotas -- benefits science.

“Integrating sex and gender into research design is about excellence in science,” as has been demonstrated in areas including biomedicine, Schiebinger reiterated. The National Institutes of Health require that all publicly funded research consider sex as a biological variable, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have similar policies, and the European Commission encourages sex and gender analysis across all fields of research, where relevant, she said.

So these issues go well beyond diversity, in that “using excellent research methodologies -- which include attending to sex and gender analysis, where relevant -- is about creating the best possible science.”

Anita Williams Woolley, associate professor of organizational behavior and theory at Carnegie Mellon University, in her own research has found that gender diversity in terms of composition of teams increases group problem-solving ability. She said she “absolutely” agreed with the new paper’s conclusions, since research on problem solving, “in science and otherwise, underscores the importance of diversity for innovation.”

In business settings, she said, “we always advise that the diversity of [a] team engaging in innovation needs to mirror the diversity of the population they seek to serve.” And because science is “supposed to be trying to solve the problems faced by society, when scientific teams lack the diversity present in society, their perspective on which problems to solve or how to solve them is going to be narrower than it should be.”

Woolley said that goes for gender, as well as other types of diversity.

Diversity in composition doesn’t guarantee diversity in questions or methods, she added, but it does raise probability of success in achieving other forms of scientific diversity, “since diverse team members are much more likely to bring the different perspectives that open the team up to different approaches.”

Musa Al-Gharbi, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Columbia University and a core member of Heterodox Academy, which seeks to increase viewpoint diversity in academe, said Schiebinger’s and her colleagues’ paper highlights one of the “key ideas undergirding” his group -- namely that “one's identity commitments inform research at a fundamental level, influencing what lines of research people are drawn to, how social problems are defined, the methods used to understand a given phenomenon, the ways data are interpreted and how any conclusions are ultimately communicated.”

There is no single objectively "right" way to make any of those determinations, he said, “but rather, an undefined range of legitimate approaches. A researcher's positionality inevitably mediates this decision-making process.”

When everyone in a field shares the same background, values or commitments, he said, that field will suffer from “significant biases, blind spots and distortions.” And that’s just as true in fields such as physics or biology as it is in sociology or political science, he said.

It’s “just a feature of social cognition.”

The American Geophysical Union is among the disciplinary organizations that have addressed gender diversity in the sciences, including by updating its ethics policy to include harassment as a kind of research misconduct. Eric Davidson, president, declined to comment on any specific research study but said that the union “firmly and enthusiastically believes that science improves, and science’s ability to serve society improves, when it is supported by a diverse and inclusive work force.”

He added, “The questions we ask and the ways we attempt to answer them are enriched by a diverse community of researchers. The challenges our global society faces in the future cannot be solved if we don’t have a diverse and inclusive community of researchers ready to lead the way.”

For Mathias Wullum Nielsen, assistant professor of political science at Aarhus University in Denmark and the paper’s lead author, “gender diversity is already an important characteristic of science” in that “women, men and gender-diverse people already share labs, work spaces and equipment in most disciplines.” So his paper is more about “understanding how to best support the possible benefits of gender diversity for science,” he said. And the three-pronged approach he and his team propose has the “potential to drive scientific discovery and innovation,” with each piece likely reinforcing the others.

Nielsen said he hoped that the context-based framework also will assist research leaders, universities, funding agencies, industries and governments “in realizing the possible benefits associated with diversity.”

GenderFacultyEditorial Tags: Sciences/Tech/Engineering/MathScience policyGraduate educationImage Source: Getty ImagesIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Gender and ResearchTrending order: 1
Categories: Higher Education News

E-scooters are causing safety and accessibility headaches on campuses

October 10, 2018 - 6:00pm

Dockless electric scooters are filling a transportation gap for students, who have quickly taken to using the app-based, pay-as-you-ride scooters to get around many campuses. A happy medium between bicycle and car, the new technology has brought convenience to students as well as confusion for college officials, who are figuring out how best to accommodate the scooters while addressing potential safety and accessibility issues.

“The interesting thing about electric scooters is that they’re similar to other types of transportation in many ways,” said Melanie Bennett, risk management counsel at United Educators, “but unlike bicycles and skateboards, because the scooters are propelled, they can reach speeds up to 20 miles an hour. However, unlike other forms of motorized transportation, they don’t surpass those speeds.”

So, where is it appropriate to ride them? And because they are dockless, where should they be parked?

Miami University in Ohio is working to answer these questions after hundreds of scooters from Bird and Lime, two popular e-scooter companies, debuted in Oxford, Ohio, this fall. In July, the university banned the scooters from campus, and David Creamer, senior vice president for finance and business services at Miami, wrote a letter to the City of Oxford and to Bird Rides Inc. to stress that the university would not be liable for any scooter misuse on campus.

“The university will not assume and expressly denies any responsibility or liability for any damage to e-scooters that may be present on university property. Similarly, the university will not assume and expressly denies any responsibility for any property damage, injuries or deaths caused by e-scooters,” Creamer wrote. “Since it appears the city is encouraging the use of e-scooters by Miami University students and employees, we expect the city and Bird Rides Inc. are fully prepared to accept all legal and financial responsibility for the use or misuse of e-scooters.”

Samantha Brunn, a student at Miami University who has written about the e-scooter debate for the Miami Student, said that students were upset about the ban.

“When the initial policy was passed in July, most well-connected student on campus, like those on the student newspaper or student government, were really upset … because students weren’t on campus to have a say in that decision,” she said.

Soon after Bird debuted its 100-scooter fleet in Oxford, the university amended its Use of Bicycles and Transportation Devices policy to allow e-scooters on campus under a series of conditions, including that riders must walk the scooters on sidewalks, ride them in campus bike lanes and park them at bike racks.

“The City of Oxford contracted with two electric scooter vendors, so they’re here,” said Claire Wagner, director of university news and communication. “But we, out of concern for safety, put out rules about where they could or could not be used on campus.”

Indiana University at Bloomington also requires e-scooters to be parked in bike racks. Michigan State University prohibits it and requires that students park their e-scooter in a metered parking space or obtain a moped parking permit.

But students don’t always follow those rules, which results in many scooters spending days (or weeks) in the slammer. Miami University has impounded more than 25 scooters from Bird’s relatively small fleet. Indiana University has impounded more than 150 scooters in the past 20 days, and Michigan State University impounded 176 scooters. Of those impounded at Michigan State, only nine have been released. The University of Texas and the University of Georgia are also impounding scooters.

The scooter company can retrieve the scooters for a fee, which varies from campus to campus and based on where the scooter was parked. At Indiana University, a scooter found left in landscaping could cost $40-$50 to retrieve, while a scooter parked in a pathway or ramp mandated by the Americans With Disabilities Act could cost upwards of $100 to get back. To collect hundreds of impounded scooters could cost a company thousands.

Bird and Lime, as well as the universities, offer safety guidelines for riders, but students are not so good at following them.

“People were concerned that students wouldn’t be wearing helmets or wearing heavy backpacks,” Brunn said. “I haven’t seen a single person wear a helmet while riding it. I have seen multiple kids wearing backpacks, but that’s to be expected on a university campus where students are riding them to class.”

She also expressed some concern that students would ride the scooters drunk, which could land them with an OVI -- “operating a vehicle while intoxicated” charge -- but the scooters shut off at 9 p.m. each night to be collected and charged, well before most students typically head to the bars.

Bennett, of United Educators, recommends that universities have some kind of transportation policy.

“If you don’t have a policy in place and you’re starting to see the traffic on campus, it’s a good time to put a policy in place just to create parameters around e-scooter use,” she said. That policy should detail where the scooters can and can't be used, where they should be parked, and if there are any speed limits or safety requirements.

Editorial Tags: College administrationImage Source: Getty ImagesIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Scooters and Campus RulesTrending order: 3College: Indiana University-BloomingtonMiami UniversityMichigan State University
Categories: Higher Education News

Second professor at University of Michigan declines to write recommendation letter for student to study in Israel

October 10, 2018 - 6:00pm

In the second such case this academic year, an instructor at the University of Michigan declined to write a recommendation letter for a student to study in Israel due to the instructor's support for the boycott of Israeli universities. And an associate professor who similarly refused to write a letter has been disciplined. 

The news of  the refusal and the sanction comes as Israel is facing scrutiny for detaining an American student and ordering her deportation for her alleged support of the boycott movement. An amendment to an Israeli law passed in 2017 bars foreign supporters of boycotts of Israel from entering the country. While Israel has previously applied the law to bar the entry of at least one American academic, this is the first publicized case of it blocking a student.

The two cases highlight how study abroad has become an expanded front in the academic boycott battles surrounding Israel. Some criticize the instructors for letting personal politics affect the decision of whether to write a letter in support of a student and suggest there could be something anti-Semitic in what they see as a singular focus on Israel as deserving of an academic boycott. Others argue that professors are right not to lend their support to study abroad in Israel, which they argue is not open to all U.S. students by virtue either of their ethnic background or their involvement in boycott-related activism.

Case No. 1: A Second Instructor Refuses to Write a Recommendation

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that a graduate teaching assistant, Lucy Peterson, declined to write a letter for Jake Seckler, a junior whom she’d taught in an introductory political theory course, after initially indicating she would be “delighted” to write a recommendation for him to study abroad.

The Post reported that after learning that Seckler planned to study at Tel Aviv University, Peterson replied, “I’m so sorry that I didn’t ask before agreeing to write your recommendation letter, but I regrettably will not be able to write on your behalf. Along with numerous other academics in the U.S. and elsewhere, I have pledged myself to a boycott of Israeli institutions as a way of showing solidarity with Palestine.”

“Please know that this decision is not about you as a student or a person, and I would be happy to write a recommendation for you if you end up applying to other programs,” Peterson wrote to Seckler. Seckler's father is Israeli, and Seckler has been to Israel five times.

Neither Seckler nor Peterson responded to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed. The Post reported that after Peterson's refusal, Seckler met with an associate dean for the social sciences in Michigan’s College of Literature, Science and the Arts to discuss the matter. The associate dean reportedly offered to write him a recommendation herself.

This is the second such case reported case at Michigan this fall. In September, an associate professor in Michigan's American Culture department, John Cheney-Lippold, declined to write a letter for a student to study abroad in Israel because of his support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

Michigan’s public affairs office declined to comment on the newest case Tuesday. "Based on the story in The Washington Post, this second instance involved a graduate student instructor and an undergraduate student. Since both a[re] students, the university is precluded from sharing information without written consent from the students," said a spokesman, Rick Fitzgerald.

As for the first case, Fitzgerald said the university was taking "appropriate steps" but that it does not "publicly discuss personnel matters." But The Detroit News reported late Tuesday night that Cheney-Lippold had been disciplined. Specifically, he will not get a merit raise during the 2018-19 academic year and will not be able to go on an upcoming sabbatical in January or on another sabbatical for two years.

In a statement published in Michigan's University Record email this morning, Mark S. Schlissel, Michigan's president, and Martin A. Philbert, the provost, had strong words.

"Withholding letters of recommendation based on personal views does not meet our university’s expectations for supporting the academic aspirations of our students. Conduct that violates this expectation and harms students will not be tolerated and will be addressed with serious consequences. Such actions interfere with our students’ opportunities, violate their academic freedom and betray our university’s educational mission," they wrote. 

The head of the Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday called on Michigan to “take immediate steps to ensure that students are not denied an opportunity to participate in an accredited overseas program because of their professors’ political views.”

“Boycotts such as these, refusing to recommend a worthy student solely because she intended to study in Israel, have a chilling effect on Jewish and pro-Israel students on campus, who may feel isolated and vulnerable when authority figures or campus groups express hostility or shun them based on their views and associations,” Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, said in a statement.

“We are strong supporters of academic freedom. Certainly everyone, including professors, has a right to openly express their views of the policies of the elected Israeli government. But this should not be at the expense of students seeking to broaden their academic experiences.”

“These professors indicated they had no problem writing recommendations for students who might study in any other country in the world. Singling out Israel alone among all the nations of the world as worthy of boycott, according to the State Department working definition, potentially crosses the line from criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism,” Greenblatt said.

In an interview last month with Inside Higher Ed, Cheney-Lippold defended the appropriateness of professors allowing their own ethical and political stances to inform their choices of whether and when to write letters on their students’ behalf. He said that he refused to write a letter for one of his students to study in Israel because he stands against inequality, oppression and occupation, and apartheid.

“A professor should have a decision on how their words will be taken and where their words will go,” Cheney-Lippold said. He added, “I have extraordinary political and ethical conflict lending my name to helping that student go to that place.”

Cheney-Lippold did not respond to an email request for comment late Tuesday afternoon. He was criticized by many -- including implicitly by his university president -- for letting his personal politics affect his decision of whether to write a letter in support of a student’s academic goals. But his supporters defended his decision on the grounds that study abroad to Israel is discriminatory and not open to all students.

A statement of support for Cheney-Lippold from the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, which advocates for boycotting study abroad in Israel, said, “Prof. Cheney-Lippold’s decision is grounded in significant evidence that Israel study abroad programs are not equally accessible to all students attending U.S. universities. Some students, specifically students of Palestinian, Middle Eastern, and Muslim background, who attempt to travel to Israel and the Palestinian territories may be denied visas to Israel or would be denied entry into the country by Israeli customs and immigrations officials as stated in the U.S. State Department travel advisory.

“In addition, the Israeli government has declared its intent to deny entry to members of pro-BDS organizations, such as Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. Many students on U.S. campuses are members of these organizations and would be barred from entering Israel. Consequently, study abroad programs in Israel exclude certain students on the grounds of national, ethnic or religious identity and political viewpoint, and are contrary to the basic principle of equality of educational opportunity.”

Case No. 2: An American Student Is Detained in Israel

Last week, Israel ordered the deportation of Lara Alqasem, an American student who received a student visa at the Israeli consulate in Miami to pursue a master’s degree at Hebrew University of Jerusalem -- but who was refused entry to Israel upon arrival at the airport in Tel Aviv nevertheless. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Alqasem, who has Palestinian grandparents, remained in detention as she appealed the order to deport her for her alleged support for the boycott movement. Israeli officials cited her role as the former chapter president of the University of Florida’s Students for Justice in Palestine group and said that during her tenure as president, the group advocated for a boycott of an Israeli brand of hummus, Sabra.

“Lara served as president of a chapter of one of the most extreme and hate-filled anti-Israel BDS groups in the U.S.,” Israel’s strategic affairs minister, Gilad Erdan, said, according to the Associated Press. Erdan suggested that he might reconsider the order to deport Alqasem if she apologized and renounced her support for BDS.

Malini Johar Schueller, a professor of English and the faculty adviser for the Students for Justice in Palestine group at Florida, said via email that she is “extremely bothered by the way SJP is being portrayed as a hate group. This is a legitimate student organization with chapters in many campuses across the country. Their website states that 'Students for Justice in Palestine is founded at the University of Florida to promote public awareness and activism for Palestinians under Israeli occupation.' Since when have historical awareness and activism become reprehensible?”

Schueller shared a statement signed by 27 faculty, including herself, calling for Alqasem to be immediately released and describing her detention as "a violation of her human rights, her academic freedom and freedom of movement. The detention clearly shows that Israel discriminates against Arab American students, who because of their cultural and familial connections to Palestine … are regularly turned back when they seek to enter Israel."

Hebrew University has joined Alqasem's appeal of her deportation, according to the Israeli publication Haaretz. The University Senate there on Monday passed a resolution describing the university as "a place that does not shy from disagreements and is pleased to hear multiple voices. The minister’s decision not to permit the student’s entry solely because of her views constitutes a threat to what the institution of the university represents." The resolution also said that Alqasem's decision to study in Israel "attests foremost to her reservations about the boycott. As does the testimony of researchers who know her. The minister’s move -- which raises questions about the independence that Israeli academia is given by government policy -- actually has the effect of bolstering any such boycott."

Haaretz also reported that the Association of University Heads of Israel sent a letter to the strategic affairs minister, Erdan, warning of the damage to Israeli academia of barring students like Alqasem and calling on the ministry to consult with host universities before issuing deportation orders.

"The damage caused to Israel and Israeli academia as a whole, to the Israeli universities and particularly to Israeli scientists and researchers abroad by decisions of this kind could well exceed the potential damage, if any, of permitting her to enter Israel," the association's head, Tel Aviv University president Joseph Klafter​, wrote in the letter.

GlobalStudy AbroadEditorial Tags: Academic freedomIsraelInternational higher educationStudy abroadIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 
Categories: Higher Education News

California students take on publishers legislatively to reduce textbook costs

October 10, 2018 - 6:00pm

Students in a political science class at California Polytechnic State University embarked on an unusual challenge last year. They drafted legislation to see if they could get it passed by the state Legislature.

The bill became law this past summer. In the process, the students learned how lawmaking works and got invaluable experience on using the political process to push for change -- even if it's only incremental change -- on a higher ed issue close to their hearts.

The students in the California Bill Project class set out to write a bill that would benefit fellow California students but not cost the state any money.

The undergraduate course was introduced at the San Luis Obispo campus in fall 2017 at the suggestion of former State Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, who was also a volunteer instructor and adviser to the class.

The students’ first idea was to write a bill compelling university administrators to disclose exactly how student fees are spent. But the class quickly established this idea wouldn’t work, said Chris Den Hartog, the professor who teaches the class.

“Staffers in the Assembly told me the Legislature is very wary of getting involved in the inner workings of universities,” he said.

Plan B was to tackle another issue -- the exorbitant cost of textbooks.

Although many universities have initiatives to reduce textbook costs -- either through inclusive-access programs, textbook rental programs or the development and adoption of open educational resources -- Cal Poly students still had some professors who assigned the latest edition of expensive textbooks for their classes.

Students can save money by buying older editions of textbooks. But Den Hartog said many of his students consider buying old editions risky.

“I had one student tell me they had almost failed a math class because they picked up an older version of a textbook. It was the same except that the problems at the end of the chapters had been reordered,” he said. “They did the wrong problems for an assignment.”

Initially, the students wanted to write legislation that would prevent publishers from publishing new editions of textbooks unless they genuinely contained new material. But their proposal would have been “controversial” and “difficult to pass,” said Den Hartog. Publishers would have used their considerable lobbying clout and fiercely opposed it, he said.

The class decided instead to draft a bill requiring publishers to specify the differences between textbook editions and to do so prominently on their websites. Their proposal would be an update to an existing bill that urges publishers to take steps to reduce costs for students.

After getting pushback from publishers and lawmakers, the class agreed to change the language of the bill so that it only urged, but did not compel, publishers to provide this information.

Jordan Cunningham, a Republican state assemblyman representing the 35th District -- covering San Luis Obispo County and portions of Santa Barbara County -- sponsored the measure and described it in a Facebook post as "an important bill to help make higher education more affordable."

Assembly Bill 2385 was unanimously approved by the State Legislature in early August and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Aug. 27.

Den Hartog acknowledges the bill is weak because compliance is voluntary, but he said the process was “not all compromise.”

“The publishers were asking for amendments that would have watered the bill down even more,” he said.

His students pushed back. “They felt the amendments went too far; they would have made it completely meaningless.”

The goal of the class was not to pass a bill at any cost, but to give students hands-on experience in writing legislation. He's proud that his students were able to get state lawmakers to pass a bill.

“It’s hard to pass a bill -- there are so many ways for a bill to die. It’s never a sure thing that it’s going to get through,” he said. “There was a lot of pessimism from my contacts that we would be able to do it.”

Den Hartog thinks the impact of the bill will likely be small because there are no legal consequences for publishers if they don’t comply.

​“But it does lay out some best practices for publishers,” he noted. “There are many instances where they could do more.”

While some publishers already publicly share information about the differences between textbook editions, Den Hertog said the sectorwide picture “is a complete patchwork.”

He hopes the bill will at least nudge publishers toward greater transparency.

“There are millions of students in California, even if this only helps a tiny proportion of those students -- it’s still a large number of students,” he said.

Victoria Tonikian, a student who took the California Bill Project class in 2017 and graduated last December, said despite numerous revisions to the bill, she was happy with the final language.

"I think it was very representative of our original goal," she said.

James Curry, assistant professor of political science at the University of Utah, said more students need get hands-on legislative experiences like the California Bill Project. At Utah, Curry runs a course called the Capital Encounter Program, where students develop policy proposals and then go to Washington to advocate for them.

“This is the kind of class that teaches students how to be politically engaged and active citizens,” said Curry. “Given how low voter turnout is among young people, we should be doing more to help students learn how to become involved in political processes.”

Tonikian said prior to taking the class she had "a very vague understanding of what the California state legislative process looked like or how it worked." Now she understands "what our elected officials do on a daily basis."

"As a recent college graduate, having an experience such as this one on my résumé has been a great asset and conversation starter," she said. "I don't think many individuals, whether in college or beyond, can say that they've assisted in writing and passing a law."

It's still an open question whether publishers will start volunteering more information about textbook editions when the bill goes into effect in January 2019.

“We have not seen any indication from the publishers one way or another, though we hope they comply,” said Nick Mirman, chief of staff for Assemblyman Cunningham.

Scott Overland, director of media relations for Pearson, said the company's policy on highlighting changes between textbook editions meets the requirements of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, which requires publishers to disclose the difference between textbook editions when marketing them to professors.

“As a matter of policy, we also outline updated content in the preface of new editions,” said Overland. He said Pearson would be reviewing the California bill.

Publishers Cengage and Wiley also issued statements saying that they are reviewing the bill and looking for ways to ensure students have easy access to information about textbook editions.

“We understand the students’ desire for this information and applaud them for championing this bill,” said Lauren Andrich, senior manager of global communications and media for Wiley.

Kaitlyn Vitez, director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group’s Campaign to Save Student Aid, praised the Cal Poly students for their work but said she would rather see more effort "put into developing more open and accessible course materials."

Mike Hale, vice president of education for North America at digital content provider VitalSource, said publishers did “compress” edition cycles in the past in order to boost print textbook sales.

But many publishers are shifting from print to digital business models and focusing more on digital subscription models and inclusive-access offers.

“The publishers don’t want to be wedded to an edition-based world. They want to keep pushing their digital business,” said Hale.

Still, he doesn't believe publishers will volunteer information that could potentially limit the sale of new textbook editions.

“I don’t think they’ll do it, unless there’s a downside to not doing it,” he said.

Editorial Tags: TextbooksImage Source: Justin Wellner, courtesy of Chris Den HartogImage Caption: Students pose in the State Capitol after taking part in a committee hearing. Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham can be seen in the center. On the far right is former Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, and next to him, Professor Chris Den Hartog.Is this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 
Categories: Higher Education News

Unsolved murder of black student at Humboldt State raises many questions

October 5, 2018 - 5:00pm

It’s been 17 months since David Josiah Lawson, a black student at Humboldt State University, was killed at an off-campus party in the mostly white town of Arcata in Northern California. Since then, local police have arrested and released one suspect. The investigation has stalled. Press attention, which was minimal outside of Arcata to begin with, has languished. Lawson’s mother, Charmaine Lawson, continues to push the Arcata Police Department and the university to solve her son’s murder, but she’s fighting an uphill battle.

“I say I’m living a parent’s worst nightmare, to receive a call in the early hours telling me that my son has been stabbed and taken to the hospital,” Charmaine Lawson said. “There’s still so many unanswered questions -- 17 months and still no justice for my son, and it’s frustrating.”

When Mollie Tibbetts, a student at the University of Iowa, disappeared in July, the public and police response was swift and thorough. National media broadcast the tragedy far and wide. A multistate investigation led police to Cristhian Bahena Rivera, who confessed to her killing and was charged with first-degree murder in August. Fox News and other conservative news outlets covered Tibbetts's case with a renewed vigor after it was revealed that Rivera was an undocumented immigrant.

The circumstances of their deaths were different, and every murder of a college student is a tragedy, but the lack of public attention led some wonder if Josiah Lawson's case was ignored because he was black.

"If it were a white kid, I think we would probably know what happened in this case," said Michael Harriot, a staff writer for The Root, an Afrocentric online magazine. "I think that the local outcry and more of a national outcry would put more pressure on the local authorities to look into this case."

The murder has “opened up a can of worms,” as Charmaine Lawson puts it, at Humboldt State. She wonders why the university would recruit black students to an unsafe city. Students of color wonder if it could have been them.

Lawson, who went by his middle name, wasn’t murdered on campus but in the surrounding town, and university officials say they’re doing everything they can to help the police investigation. But to some, it’s not enough.

No one can agree on exactly what happened the night Josiah Lawson was killed. Archived police scanner audio revealed that police responded to reports of a “large, aggressive crowd” around 3 a.m. on April 15, 2017, at an off-campus house party. When they arrived at the scene, Josiah Lawson had been stabbed, and his friend and fellow student Elijah Chandler was performing CPR.

A police report notes that officers "immediately began lifesaving efforts" when they arrived, but Chandler disputes that. He told a crowd of Humboldt faculty, students and staff during a prayer service that he administered CPR to Josiah Lawson for 15 minutes before an ambulance arrived and told the Mad River Union, a local Arcata newspaper, that EMTs and officers at the scene were hesitant and passive.

Rick Ehle, the interim Arcata police chief, who joined the department in June, denied these allegations and noted that in times of distress, the response time of emergency medical services can feel longer than it actually is.

Chandler also told the Union that he overheard two white women wishing for Josiah Lawson’s death.

“They were saying, ‘I really wish that [N-word] does die. I really hope that [N-word] dies.’ They just kept repeating it, and I heard this as I am giving Josiah compressions to fight for his life,” Chandler told the Union.

Lawson was transferred to Mad River Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

Kyle Zoellner, a 24-year-old man from Mckinleyville, a city just five miles north of Arcata, was arrested as the primary suspect. A knife was found at the scene but had no usable fingerprints.

A Stale Investigation

A preliminary hearing was conducted in May 2017. Zoellner admitted to fighting with Lawson but denied stabbing him. After five days of testimony, Dale Reinholtsen, Humboldt County Superior Court judge, ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence for Zoellner to stand trial for murder.

Lisa Rossbacher, Humboldt State University president, said she and other university officials were present for all five days of the hearing. After Reinholtsen’s decision, the university issued a statement expressing its disappointment.

“It is difficult to be patient, but sometimes necessary in the pursuit of justice,” the statement read. “This is not over. The investigation is continuing, and the university will continue providing assistance to local law enforcement.”

One university police officer from Humboldt State's 15-member force, Sergeant Chance Carpenter, has been assigned to work with the Arcata police on Lawson’s case, and Rossbacher said she’s had a number of private conversations with city officials about continuing the investigation.

“One way in which the university has been involved in [the case] is encouraging the city to continue to invest resources in the case, which they have done recently. They’ve significantly increased the number of investigators on the case,” Rossbacher said. “It’s their investigation, and it would be inappropriate and perhaps damaging to the outcome if we were to insert ourselves more in that process.”

Charmaine Lawson organized regular public forums and vigils in the months following her son’s death to update students on the case. The updates quickly became fewer and farther between.

“Students were so angry, because they were hearing the same thing about Josiah’s case, which was no real updates,” said Tina Sampay, a Humboldt State graduate who has been in close contact with Charmaine Lawson and has written about the case on her news blog, Slauson Girl.

Rossbacher said she attended several of the public forums but “by no means all of them.” After a while, the forums ended.

“There was nothing new to report, and this is my theory: the reaction to having nothing new to report was so negative that the process of continuing the updates when there was nothing new to report was more disruptive than it was helpful,” Rossbacher said.

Students didn’t think that was the right call, Sampay said. She called the university’s decision “chess moves” and felt officials were ignoring student input.

“They’re not really understanding what the hell [we’re angry about]. They’re looking at it like it’s just students yelling,” she said.

She also noticed that Humboldt State faculty remained silent on the matter.

“There was no support from the faculty at HSU,” Sampay said. “The way I saw it, there was a lot of theory without practice. All of the teachers who taught me this stuff, the reason that I’m out here being able to pinpoint institutional racism, they were nowhere to be found.”

Stephanie Burkhalter, general faculty president at Humboldt State, wrote in an email that faculty were "deeply affected" by Josiah Lawson's murder.

"While I am not aware of a formally organized response by faculty to the murder and to the issues that persist in the criminal case, individual faculty members have been active in different ways," she wrote. "For example, immediately after the murder I encouraged students in my classes to provide the police with any information they had about what happened, explaining to the students that information and witness testimony were critical to the early stages of a criminal case. I regularly follow news about the case, and I belong to the Justice for Josiah Facebook group. I have attended rallies on campus to show my support for the movement, and I have spoken with the Arcata mayor about what the city can do to facilitate a successful investigation."

Police officers have made little progress on the investigation since Zoellner’s release. Tom Parker, a former FBI agent who was consulting on the case pro bono, terminated his contract with the city due to a “lack of cooperation.” Karen Diemer, Arcata city manager, told the North Coast Journal that Chapman was "unaware" of Parker's final decision when he announced his own resignation. Ehle, interim chief, said he has pushed hard to move the investigation forward.

“We’re optimistic, we’re getting there,” Ehle said. “We’re still waiting on evidence and we’ve been collecting additional evidence. Most of what we’re doing is elimination. We’re reaching out to everybody by last name, first name and nickname.”

He hopes to have a resolution in six to eight weeks.

A Divided Path Forward

What Humboldt State should do next is contested. Student activists are calling for greater accountability on behalf of the university. So is Charmaine Lawson.

She discounts officials' references to the murder occurring off campus. “So what? It happened in the same city where he was attending school,” she said. “I think they’re just trying to not be held accountable, and for me, I hold them accountable. They knew the type of environment where my son was going to school, and yet they recruited him. They recruited many students of color knowing that Arcata isn’t a safe town.”

After serving as president for four years, Rossbacher announced her retirement Monday, effective on June 30, 2019.

Addressing Charmaine Lawson's recruitment concerns, Frank Whitlatch, a spokesman for Humboldt State, said the university is working to better address student safety and life in the local community.

“We know that HSU and the North Coast need to do more to support equity and inclusion,” he wrote in an email. “As a country, we struggle with a history of racism and racial inequality on the national and local levels, and we need to find ways to make a positive difference. We take very seriously our recent affirmation of accreditation letter from [WASC Senior College and University Commission]. One of the commendations was ‘Student recruitment efforts, particularly in the Los Angeles region, are an appropriate response to the increasing diversity in California.’”

Among the numerous equity and inclusion initiatives, Sampay is worried about keeping Josiah Lawson’s memory alive.

“Josiah’s name doesn’t really come up anymore,” she said. “It’s like a forbidden word.”

Her concerns aren’t for nothing. Until Lawson’s death, she had never heard about Corey Clark, a black student at Humboldt State who was shot and killed in 2001.

"How could I come to this school eight years later, and there’s no trace of it?” she said.

Clark's case was never solved. Cheryl Johnson, executive director for diversity, equity and inclusion, said that she’s been trying to keep Clark’s name in the discussions about potential memorials on campus.

“In different contexts and meetings -- because there was talk of the university creating a memorial grove with a plaque for Josiah and other students we’ve lost -- I said don’t forget Corey. I just want to keep his name in the discussion,” she said.

Much of Humboldt State’s efforts are directed toward Equity Arcata, a joint initiative with the city. Johnson serves as point person for the project.

“Complex social problems cannot be solved by one institution -- it has to be a collective effort,” Johnson said. Equity Arcata’s efforts are divided into seven subgroups focused on police and student safety, communication, housing equity, creating welcoming businesses, training and learning, the development of a bias reporting tool, and community building.

Charmaine Lawson has also been urging the California State University Board of Trustees to get involved in her son’s case. When she spoke before the board in July, a police officer loomed behind her with his hand on his weapon.

“We were not surprised that when David Josiah Lawson's mother came to the Board of Trustees, she was treated more like a criminal than as a righteous, grieving mother,” Sharon Elise, associate vice president for affirmative action at the California Faculty Association, said. “When his mother got up to the mike to speak with her daughter, a uniformed police officer moved towards her with his hand on his weapon.”

Charmaine Lawson returned to the board in September, this time with Elise and other members of the CFA to once again implore the board to get involved at Humboldt State. She has yet to receive a formal response from the board but does plan to accompany Adam Day, chair of the board, to Humboldt State during his first visit this year.

“I’m going to continue even after my son’s case is solved and the person who took his life is held accountable for his death,” Charmaine Lawson said. “I want to continue reaching out to the trustees and reaching out to the university and to the parents … Changes have to be made. If it starts with me, then it starts with me."

DiversityEditorial Tags: Student lifeImage Caption: David Josiah LawsonIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Murder of a Black StudentTrending order: 1College: Humboldt State University
Categories: Higher Education News

Colgate offers statement on campus speech, arguing that it's not just what you say, it's how you say it

October 5, 2018 - 5:00pm

When it comes to campus speech, can a middle ground between freedom of expression and inclusion really be reached? Colgate University thinks it has struck such a balance in a report from its Task Force on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression. The document already has been endorsed by Colgate’s faculty, student government and Board of Trustees, and it’s being released for general consideration today.

Those involved in the project describe it as both a reiteration of and counterpoint to the University of Chicago’s much-cited statement on free expression, published in 2015 to the delight of free speech purists.

While both the Chicago and new Colgate statements offer “a strong defense of the free exchange of ideas, and of its necessity,” said Colgate president Brian W. Casey, Colgate’s report also speaks to “the values of humility and empathy, and the practice of careful listening. It calls for members of the community to exercise their rights to free speech in full awareness of context.”

Those ideals are essential tenets of a liberal arts education, Casey said, and thinking about their interplay in “difficult discussions” should help serve to “reinforce an atmosphere of inquiry on the campus.”

Casey added, “If Colgate is to contribute to and to shape the national discourse, we must create an atmosphere on this campus that relies on rigorous inquiry and respectful debate. This is an essential thing we must instill in all of our students.”

Not In Opposition

Some have long argued that rigorous inquiry and respectful debate do not stand in opposition. Indeed, the American Council on Education, backed by survey data, has stressed the importance of not “pitting” inclusion and speech against each other. Yet many if not most conversations about campus speech still revolve around two poles: absolute freedom of expression and the importance of creating an inclusive environment.

Seeking input on how Colgate might balance and even make complementary these notions, not just for its campus but as a possible model for others, Casey last summer charged a task force with what he described at the time as “reviewing the history of academic freedom and freedom of expression policies and developments at Colgate and drafting a statement on academic freedom and the freedom of expression as it relates to all sectors of the university’s community.”

The 13-member task force included faculty members from across disciplines, a science librarian, trustees who are also alumni and an associate dean. Members met regularly for a year in a process that was careful and -- by all accounts -- at times contentious. Ultimately, they concluded that Colgate “should affirm its commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and academic freedom as essential to fulfilling its mission and goals.”

But to that end, they wrote, Colgate -- as a liberal arts institution -- should support “the rights of all community members to voice their views, even if unpopular, while helping them to likewise cultivate the habits of mind and skills necessary to respond effectively to views that they may find wrong or offensive.”

Colgate should endeavor to establish and maintain a “culture and community that will inspire its members to pursue knowledge with rigor and curiosity, speak and listen with care, and work so that even the quietest or most underrepresented voices among us are heard,” the committee wrote. And the university should educate all its members about its goals and values, in addition to “the importance of exercising our right of freedom of expression in a manner” that furthers those goals and values, “remembering that the exercise of intellectual freedom without consideration of these other values may cause needless harm to our community.”

Faculty, administrators, staff and students also should be encouraged to “model the civic behavior that forms the basis for the exercise of freedom of expression” within Colgate’s community. Consistent with the emphasis on free expression, the report doesn't call for those who lack in civility or respect to be punished.

The task force wrote that it kept three broad goals for Colgate in mind as it worked: growing in knowledge, becoming effective communicators and learning from multiple and diverse perspectives.

Considered separately, the goals are admirable, the report says. Considered together, “they aggregate to form a much loftier ambition: to share knowledge and foster understanding within a complex, rapidly changing and diverse world.”

Such an ambition requires a commitment to both a set of community values and principles of academic expression and academic freedom, the task force wrote. Supporting pillars include “shared values” of the Colgate community, such as empathy, curiosity, warmth of spirit, concern for others and pride in community. Another value is diversity, not just out of basic respect but also because “we recognize how much we need one another in order to consider new perspectives and extend the limits of our understanding.”

Colgate’s mission “requires an open mind and a spirit of toleration, even for positions we might abhor,” the committee wrote. “It likewise requires the courage to question what many might think unquestionable, to insist on clarity and rigor of thought, to seek out the strongest arguments on all sides of an issue, and to recognize that such arguments might be found in the quietest or most marginalized of voices.”

Another pillar, as articulated by the task force, is “commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom.” Such freedom is not only a “crucial means for the pursuit of knowledge, but a constitutive part of it; propositions learned by rote, protected from challenge, do not further our pursuit of knowledge or our attainment of understanding,” the report says. Accordingly, the university should support a “climate of debate and deliberation that is open and robust, and must not suppress ideas because some consider them wrong, immoral or offensive.”

Not Without Boundaries

At the same time, freedom of expression and academic freedom are “not without boundaries,” the committee wrote. “There are certain forms of expression that stand outside the law, constitute no part of the search for truth and, accordingly, find no shelter here.” Such expressions include defamation, real threats of harassment, substantial invasions of privacy or inciting “lawless action.”

To promote and protect the free exchange of ideas, Colgate may adopt “content-neutral rules concerning time, manner and place of expression,” according to the committee. But such rules “must never be used as a pretext for the university to suppress disfavored opinions or compromise the principle of intellectual freedom.”

Crucially, the report urges Colgate to “be guided by the principles of the First Amendment and, within reason, to err on the side of permitting expression and inquiry without concern of punishment.”

Under the pillar of “flourishing” free inquiry, the task force wrote that the university’s commitment to freedom of expression and inquiry may occasionally come into conflict with certain shared values. And when that happens, freedom of expression should not be stifled in service of other values, the committee wrote. Still, these other values should be cultivated by example.

Another pillar, “consideration of exclusionary behavior, privilege and historical perspective,” says that Colgate, like broader society, has in the past practiced exclusion. But its commitment to freedom of expression provides “an important means of mitigating the negative impacts of exclusionary practices by giving voice to marginalized views,” the report says.

Spencer Kelly, task force chair and a professor of psychological and brain sciences, said that both Colgate’s and Chicago’s statements affirm academic freedom and freedom of expression as “foundational” for achieving the educational mission.

The key difference between the two documents, Kelly continued, is that “we recognize that while these principles are essential, they are not sufficient by themselves. They need help.”

A “healthy educational community” embraces the values of humility, good listening, empathy, curiosity and tolerance, Kelly said. And “we believe these values encourage speakers to think critically about what they say -- and how they say it -- in a way that ultimately encourages a more robust, insightful and productive discourse.”

Kelly said the following became something of a “mantra” to the task force: “With the freedom to express comes the responsibility to listen.”

The most effective communicators “don’t just open their mouths and haphazardly spill out whatever is on their minds,” he added. “They carefully listen to, or do their best to imagine, where their audience is coming from before they start speaking.”

Kelly said that “extra effort” actually benefits the speaker in that the speech better “hits its mark.” And the long-term community benefit is that in developing the habits of listening and perspective taking, “people would gradually all become more receptive to what others say.”

Casey said that the report “ultimately makes a statement about the behavior that is expected of those who live in an academic community.” Citing actual language in the report, he said it's “a model of civic behavior.”

In Our Time

“Needless to say,” he added, “this is desperately needed in our time.”

Nancy Ries, a professor of anthropology and peace and conflict studies and Russia expert who worked on the report with Kelly, said the broader political moment lent a “sharpness, an urgency and a realness” to their task. That’s even though committee members’ political positions and “diagnoses” varied widely, she said.

The timing “helped us to realize that freedom of expression is not a dusty nicety, it is our essential atmosphere -- it is the oxygen that can sustain us in our roles as thinkers, scholars, teachers, citizens,” she said. “My sense is we all knew that going into our meeting rooms, but the urgency and importance of our work helped to keep us going even when we got very mad at each other, which happened.”

Regarding the group’s own diversity, politically and otherwise, Ries said it provided an opportunity to consider what is “legally essential” to free speech and academic freedom -- namely, the First Amendment and various professional standards and statements -- but also “how discourse, conversation and public speech are profoundly social activities, processes through which communities of all kinds are both constituted and injured.”

The “strange thing,” Ries said, is that the task force recognized its “grounding and commitment” by observing “the hurt we could cause each other during pitched arguments in our meetings.” Members realized, gradually over the year, that they needed to be not just “clearheaded, outspoken, honest and brave” in their analyses and arguments, but also “watchful, aware, informed and compassionate” in their communication.

In the end, she said, the group recognized that it would wed “the uncompromising force” of a Chicago-style statement “with a projection of values we discovered ourselves to share, even across stark differences and diverse perspectives.”

Asked about process, Kelly was blunt, calling it “very slow and arduous.” Members approached the topic from “every possible perspective,” he said, resulting in disagreements and vigorous debate.

However, the "shared values" of humility, good listening, empathy, tolerance and curiosity articulated in the statement were agreed upon relatively earn on. Having that “foundation of trust,” and keeping the university’s mission in mind, helped the group move through challenges, he said.

Kelly added, “We believe that if 13 people with such strong and diverse views can come to consensus on such a difficult issue, there is hope that it can happen with our entire university community.”

In the Classroom

As to how the statement might impact Kelly’s teaching, he said the document captures what teachers do naturally: “carefully consider their audience before they speak” and “always try to meet students where they are.”

Yet the document will encourage Kelly to continue to re-evaluate how he attempts to engage students, he said.

Not so long ago, “I would try to get students’ attention by occasionally saying things that were intentionally a bit controversial or edgy.” Now, Kelly said, he’s much more careful, as he’d already noticed that the pedagogical practice worked well for some students but not for others.

Kelly’s “learning to pay more attention to where all students are coming from” and then trying to “say things more effectively to reach a wider range of them. It’s a lot harder to teach this way but, in the end, it's worth it.”

Derek Baker, the lone student on the task force, said the report emphasizes "listening as an essential component of free speech," which he described as "a compelling argument rarely discussed when the topic of freedom of speech is addressed."

Echoing his collaborators, Baker said, "Never before has the need for listeners been more necessary than it is today. This document reflects this growing need, giving ample recognition to both who is listening and who is speaking during civil discourse." That should resonate "with all student voices desiring to be heard," he said.

On Balance

Geoffrey Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at Chicago, chaired the committee that wrote the Chicago statement. He said this week that his initial read of the Colgate statement was that it is “quite consistent” with his own institution’s. Colgate’s “spends more time discussing the need for civility and mutual respect,” he granted, but he pointed out that the Chicago statement addresses those values, too.

For reference, the Chicago statement says, in part, that the university “greatly values civility” and that “all members of the university community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect.” Yet it asserts that “concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”

On balance, Stone said, “I see it as essentially adopting the core principles of the Chicago statement, with just a bit more discussion of civility and mutual respect as important values -- but as values that cannot justify the restriction of speech.”

Kelly reiterated that the statements are similar in their embrace of freedom of expression. But he noted that his committee intentionally avoided references to civility because the word is “often used by majority groups to suppress marginalized voices.” It instead outlined “community values,” to promote civility “organically, from the bottom up,” he said. Free speech is not just a market of competing ideas, but also “a way for a community to act cooperatively to accomplish shared goals.”

Colgate’s task force also acknowledged the “dangers of unfettered free speech,” Kelly said, in that historically marginalized groups may not have equal access to it, and “speech that harms is different than speech that offends.”

Editorial Tags: Academic freedomFacultyStudent lifeTeachingImage Source: Colgate UniversityIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Free SpeechTrending order: 2
Categories: Higher Education News

Auburn professor sues, alleging retaliation after he revealed athletics scandal

October 5, 2018 - 5:00pm

An Auburn University economics professor is suing his institution, accusing officials of removing him as a department chair and limiting his raises after he helped reveal that the institution’s public administration major was overwhelmingly stacked with athletes.

Tensions between administrators and Michael Stern, who was removed as economics department chair in May, extend back to 2008, when he served as a source for a local news report about the university’s ties to the Charles Koch Foundation, as detailed in his lawsuit filed last month. Stern is suing for violations of his First Amendment rights. He is demanding that officials reinstate him as chair and provide him back pay he sacrificed after being dismissed from the position.

The bad blood came to the fore in 2014, when Stern first started to question the composition of the public administration program. In the years following, Stern continually clashed with officials, he said. They gave him smaller raises than his colleagues and confronted him when he publicly pointed out the athletics department’s interference with the major. In one case, Stern said in the complaint, an administrator stopped him in a parking lot and screamed in his face about speaking with reporters.

In a statement, Auburn spokesman Mike Clardy said the university “consistently demonstrates its support of the free speech rights of its students, faculty, and staff. There is more to this story than has been made public to this point, and each of Dr. Stern’s allegations will be addressed in the appropriate forum, which is the court. Auburn will vigorously defend this matter.”

The larger conflict over the public administration program began when a faculty committee recommended the major be cut because of falling enrollment and questions over whether it benefited students. But athletics officials lobbied hard to keep the program alive, even offering to subsidize it at one point -- and ultimately top administrators ignored the committee’s proposal. Public administration was saved.

The decision may have gone unchallenged if not for Stern, who began pressing officials about the major in 2014 at a University Senate meeting, where an athletics representative was making a presentation. He asked about the saturation of football players in the program. The next day, Joseph Aistrup, then the College of Liberal Arts dean, emailed Stern, chastised him for a lack of diplomacy and pressed him to apologize to public administration faculty.

Aistrup allegedly suggested the next month that Stern step aside as chairman, which Stern refused to do. In December 2014, John Urschel, a former professional football player, mathematician and blogger, published an analysis of the majors football players had selected -- he found that 23 of the 48 upperclassmen players picked public administration, though only 88 of more than 11,400 upperclassmen in the entire university were enrolled in the program. Over all, that represents 48 percent of upperclassmen on the football team, but just 0.8 percent of all upperclassmen.

Stern used public records he had obtained and worked with The Wall Street Journal to eventually publish an article in August 2015 that made public the faculty committee’s recommendation to discontinue public administration and athletics’ attempts to save it. Stern said that despite later positive performance reviews, he received only a 1 percent salary bump and 1 percent merit bonus, which he viewed as retaliatory for being a source for the Wall Street Journal report. Comparatively small raises were also given to him in 2016, he alleges.

Stern met with the former president Jay Gogue in 2017 to share his concerns, and while he and the now retired president developed a plan to shift the economics department out of the College of Liberal Arts, leaving Stern to report to less hostile administrators, he said the move never happened.

Still frustrated, Stern contacted The Chronicle of Higher Education in late 2017 about the athletics department and public administration major, which in February led to another expansive piece that revealed administrators’ attempts to rescue the major -- the enrollment of which eventually plummeted -- and the extent of Stern’s whistle-blowing.

In May, Stern presented to the Faculty Senate about how the public administration scandal may have affected the academic performance of athletes -- to the chagrin of the new athletics representative, the lawsuit states. Weeks later, Stern was kicked out as chairman, locked out of his office and kicked off the computer system, he alleges.

In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Stern said administrators have left him undisturbed since filing his lawsuit last month. He continues to teach.

“There’s been no direct contact,” Stern said. “But there’s obviously a problem here.”

Editorial Tags: AthleticsIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: College: Auburn University
Categories: Higher Education News

Colleges turn to wellness app to address student mental health

October 5, 2018 - 5:00pm

There are students who struggle with issues such as anxiety and depression on every college campus.

Some students will seek help on their own and find a mental health counselor or other health-care professional.

But reaching students who are reluctant to come forward, or who don't realize they need help, is another story. This is a challenge that Colorado State University and many other colleges are trying to address while balancing increasing demand from students who already use mental health services.

Three years ago, Colorado State approached a company called Grit Digital Health about working together to build a technology to reach those students who might never speak out – particularly those at risk of harming themselves or others. The campus had experienced a handful of student suicides and was looking for new ways to reach students who might need help.

The college and the tech company developed YOU at College, a platform that gives students information on how to recognize mental health issues and access resources on campus that might help them. The platform doesn’t put mental health front and center, however, and it's not marketed to students as a “mental health” tool. Instead, the platform addresses mental health as just one part of academic success and well-being.

“It’s kind of like hiding the vegetables,” said Janelle Patrias, manager of mental health initiatives at Colorado State.

Students might not visit the platform thinking they have a mental health issue, said Patrias. They might just be having trouble sleeping, for example. But by searching for advice on how to get better sleep, users will find information about stress and anxiety and be directed to resources on campus that can help.

YOU at College Overview Video from Grit Digital Health on Vimeo.

Since YOU at College was launched at Colorado State, 20 other U.S. universities have launched the platform, and five more are planning to launch soon, said Nathaan Demers, vice president and director of clinical programs for YOU at College. Each platform is tailored so that students see information relevant to their own campus. The cost to institutions ranges from $0.75 to $3.00 per student per year, depending on campus enrollment and the level of customization they require, said Demers.

Kevin Kruger, president of NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, said many colleges are thinking more intentionally about how to promote wellness on campus and are encouraging students to eat right, sleep well and exercise regularly, as happy and healthy students are more likely to graduate.

“The context of all of this is that there has been a year-on-year increase in the number of students who present with mental health issues,” said Kruger. He said over the last seven years, colleges have been increasing mental health staff, “But there’s an acknowledgment that you can’t hire enough counselors. That’s why there’s interest in taking a sort of public health approach -- looking at what you can do to proactively address wellness issues in a broader way.”

There are a number of digital tools that explicitly address mental health issues, such as Talkspace, SAM, PTSD coach, CBT-I Coach, Operation Reach Out and Optimism. However, Amy Galley, director of well-being and accessibility at Western Wyoming Community College, said that the YOU at College platform was different because it takes a holistic approach to students’ overall health and academic success. She also “loved the ease and look” of the platform, which was partially inspired by Pinterest -- a popular virtual pin board for saving and sharing links and images.

YOU at College contains a wide variety of short articles, fact sheets and tips covering three broad areas – academic success, personal growth and overall physical and mental well-being. The platform encourages users to take surveys called “Reality Checks” in each of these three areas to determine where they might have room for improvement. The results of these surveys can be used as a benchmark for students to set goals.

When students log into the platform using their institutional ID, they see a lineup of content that is personalized to them based on the results of their Reality Checks. The content can also be tailored based on personal demographic information that students provide (if they choose to) such as gender, age, ethnicity and other details such as whether or not they have served in the military.

Although students log in to the platform with their institutional IDs, all their activities on the platform are anonymized to protect their privacy. Students wouldn't likely use the platform if they knew they were being surveilled by administrators, said Demers. Institutions can see pooled data such as the most popular topics students are viewing.

Though YOU is designed with students in mind, it can be used by anyone on campus -- including faculty and staff, said Demers. Patrias sees YOU as a hub for campus information. The platform links students to resources on campus such as career advising and mental health services, as well as to student clubs and support groups that might be of interest to them. Although inspired by social media, the platform doesn’t contain any messaging function.

Patrias said that YOU@CSU has been “really positive for our campus” and “a good way to deliver information” to students, particularly about mental health. She was pleased to see that many Colorado State students are looking at the platform before they even arrive on campus -- proactively reading about how to succeed academically and manage stress, as well as checking out what clubs and social activities are available on campus. More than 5,000 new students registered to use the platform this summer, she said.

Patrias has a student staff member working with her 15 hours a week to make sure the content, all of which she personally reviews, is relevant to students. Colorado State and Grit Digital Health recently won an award from the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies for their work on YOU at College. The WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Awards recognize initiatives that apply innovative technology-based solutions to problems facing students.

Colorado State has seen good student engagement with the platform, said Patrias. Between February 2016 and September 2018, YOU@CSU had over 56,000 users. Around 20 percent of users used the platform more than once. Colorado State’s total student enrollment is around 33,000.

More than 10,000 students have completed the Reality Check screenings in the platform, said Patrias. Survey results found that 75 percent of students said using the portal helped them better manage their stress. Among first-year students, 98 percent said they learned new skills to support their academic success through YOU@CSU.

“This isn’t the kind of resource students need every day,” said Patrias. “We want it to be the place they go to look first when they have an issue.”

In a recent promotional video created by Colorado State and Grit Digital Health, Colorado State students said they liked that the platform was accessible at any time and described how they used it to look up study tips and articles on mindfulness during final exams.

Kiera Butler is an applied psychology student at CSU, and vice-president of the campus chapter of Active Minds – a national non-profit organization that ends to help end the stigma surrounding mental health and connect students to resources. She thinks YOU at College is effective because it’s “applicable to everyone and anyone.”

“Even if you don’t believe you need to change in a certain area, YOU can provide articles or resources that can spark an interest and expand that person’s knowledge,” she said.  

Mental health counselors at Colorado State have seen increased demand since YOU@CSU was introduced, but it’s difficult to know whether this is because more students have become aware of counseling services through the platform, said Patrias. Colorado State and Grit Digital Health are planning to conduct more research to determine the impact of the platform on student success.

“We don’t really have anything to benchmark the efficacy of this with,” said Patrias. “But we feel encouraged to see engagement grow from year to year.” She noted that the platform is “still pretty early in its development” but has “so much potential to reach students in different ways.”

At Western Wyoming Community College, initial engagement numbers are promising, said Galley. The college has a total enrollment of around 3,600 students, and 600 students signed up over the summer before classes started. Galley hopes that three-quarters of full-time students will register over time. She is excited about what the institution can learn from the analytics the platform collects (example dashboard pictured below); the articles that students read could guide what initiatives the college launches.

Western Wyoming previously sent students an e-magazine addressing wellness issues called Student Health 101, but it has discontinued this subscription in favor of YOU at College.

“We liked the content in the newsletter,” said Galley. But YOU at College felt “fresher, offered easier access and is more campus orientated.”

She said the platform is costly but college administrators believe it's worth it for students to have a “place to go to 24-7 to get information about the campus, wellness and mental health, plus emergency contacts and all of those things.”

Connecticut College also rolled out the YOU at College platform this year but doesn't yet have any data on engagement. Sarah Cardwell, associate dean, said she looked into the platform after hearing about Colorado's success with it. The platform fit in well with Connecticut's strategic plan to “educate students on the relationship between health, well-being and success,” she said.

“What particularly struck a note with us is that the platform is designed to meet students where they’re at, which is online,” said Cardwell.

Tina Hardy, disability services coordinator at Illinois Valley Community College, said she applied for a grant to bring YOU at College to her institution last year, and the college budgeted money this year to keep the platform going.

“Engagement has been excellent since the inception,” said Hardy. “To date, we’ve had almost 900 student account registrations and 80 faculty staff registrations.” The college has a total enrollment of around 3,700 students.

Users are spending seven minutes on average on the platform and are most frequently searching for information about anxiety, study skills, prioritizing their time and how to connect with clubs and activities, she said.

“We are using this information to build opportunities and resources for students in the areas we know they need help with,” said Hardy. “I would say that IVCC has found YOU to be worthwhile.”

Still, the anonymity of the platform comes with a big drawback. College administrators aren't alerted when a student indicates they are at risk of hurting themselves or others. Whether keeping students anonymous under these circumstances is advisable is “something we wrestled with,” said Demers.

The company built in features that will enable students to get immediate access to support when they need it -- with pop-ups advising students on whom to contact on campus in a crisis, and referrals to outside services such as suicide prevention hotlines with 24-7 messaging services.

Janelle Johnson, senior mental health counselor at Santa Fe Community College and president of the American College Counseling Association, believes there should be some way to contact students “if it is clear they are in danger of suicide or harming others.”

Apps and platforms can help students access information, but they “don’t replace the human connection” many students need, she said. “Assessments of mental health concerns must still be done by trained professionals.”

“I think that colleges see the use of tech as a way for students to explore and communicate about difficulties they may be experiencing, and to normalize the student experience,” said Johnson. But apps and other technology “cannot replace services provided by licensed counselors and mental health professionals.”

“While these apps have become more prevalent, we also see more colleges coming up with additional funding to increase staffing in their counseling centers,” said Johnson.

Santa Fe Community College does not offer YOU at College, but it did offer an app that “students never really adopted,” said Johnson. “Oftentimes it seems that the technology of the apps is not impressive to students who are very tech savvy,” she said.

Lynn Linde, senior director of the Center for Counseling Practice, Policy and Research at the American Counseling Association, said while investing in student well-being is a good thing, platforms such as YOU at College and a growing number of other platforms and apps for college counseling -- including chat bots powered by artificial intelligence -- should be seen as a supplement, not a replacement for in-person counseling services.

“This is a huge market,” she said. “Institutions need to make sure that companies have the best interests of students in mind. We need to ask questions about who is developing these products.”

Image Source: YOU at CollegeIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: College: Colorado State University-Fort CollinsConnecticut CollegeSanta Fe Community College
Categories: Higher Education News

Questions raised about role of Roman Catholic Church in study of abusers in Germany

October 5, 2018 - 5:00pm

It took four years and a trawl of more than 38,000 documents dating back to 1946. And the results of a huge research project into sexual abuse of minors by clergy in the German Roman Catholic church, conducted by a consortium of psychiatrists and criminologists from four universities and research institutes, were truly shocking.

Close to one in 20 clergy between 1946 and 2014 were suspected to have committed sexual abuse, with the researchers finding evidence of 1,670 potential abusers and nearly 4,000 victims. The findings have led to outpourings of contrition from the German bishops who commissioned the study, and rekindled the debate on celibacy within the Catholic church.

Yet the results have also sparked a parallel debate in Germany about how the study should have been conducted in the first place. For some critics, the church took too much control of the process, leaving many questions about the scale of abuse and the responsibility of individual bishops unanswered.

The results have only revealed “the tip of the iceberg” in terms of abuse, acknowledged Hans-Joachim Salize, part of the consortium of researchers and a professor of psychiatric epidemiology at the Central Institute of Mental Health, in Mannheim.

In order to comb through the career records of clergy for signs of abuse -- complaints from parents, or unexplained actions, for example -- the researchers had to recruit teams of four to five people for each of Germany’s 27 dioceses. If they found “hints” of sexual abuse, they fed these findings back to the researchers through anonymous questionnaires.

Controversially, these teams were made up of employees of the dioceses themselves, headed by a judge or someone with a legal background.

“This is a source of bias, of course,” said Salize. “There were dioceses that were eager by themselves to find out what had happened, and there were some dioceses that were more reluctant.”

Others have been more blunt. Using church employees to scour their own records is a “joke,” said Christian Pfeiffer, a prominent criminologist and Saxony’s former justice minister, because it allows the accused “to produce the data.”

Pfeiffer has been outspoken in the German media about the constraints imposed by the church on the study. However, he was at pains to stress that he was not criticizing the researchers involved and thought that the project was still worth proceeding with despite the limitations.

He was originally in talks to lead the inquiry, which he said would have employed its own record checkers, but he pulled out after he alleged that the church tried to ensure that it would be able to impose “censorship” on any final report. He also complained that the final study only reports national-level data, making it impossible to identify bishops who failed to punish abusive priests or compensate victims.

“We do not cover up these limitations,” said Harald Dressing, the consortium leader, and a forensic psychiatrist, also based at the Central Institute of Mental Health. “This is one of the first sentences in our report. Is a glass of water half-full, or half-empty?”

The study’s aim was never -- by itself -- to bring individual clergy to justice. “The research project did not pursue a legal or criminalistic approach, but a retrospective-descriptive and epidemiological one,” it says.

Also complicating the investigation were strict German legal protections of the data of the “95 percent” of priests who are innocent, Dressing said.

The church could easily have blocked even this anonymous investigation under data-protection laws, but it was forced to buckle under public pressure, he said.

If the researchers made one mistake, it was not using public pressure to force the church into a more open stance, said Pfeiffer.

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

After probe of president, Boston architecture college personnel wonder: What next?

October 4, 2018 - 5:00pm

Professors and other employees at a small private architectural and design college in Boston say they are bewildered -- and in a few cases angered -- by the mystery surrounding a recent investigation of their president.

Glen S. LeRoy (at right), president of Boston Architectural College, remains on the job despite being investigated over the summer at the direction of the college’s Board of Trustees. Several sources familiar with the investigation said it concerned allegations of gender discrimination, workplace retaliation and racist, sexist or homophobic language. In a subsequent message to college employees, the board’s chairman, Richard Martini, said the college would “redouble our efforts” to train personnel in “communication, respect, diversity, discrimination, and sexual harassment.”

On Wednesday, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination said an employee in BAC's advancement office had filed a complaint against the college. A commission spokesman confirmed that Andrew Putnam, an executive assistant in the college's Office of Institutional Advancement, filed the complaint Sept. 19. Putnam on Wednesday said he did not want to comment, and neither Martini nor LeRoy immediately responded to requests for comment.

If the commission finds that discrimination took place, it can assess damages and mandate training; if applicable, it can also mandate job reinstatement or back pay, among other remedies.

The college's investigation -- and the board’s reaction to it -- may also have led two board members to resign last month, one source said. Neither Martini nor the board members responded to repeated requests for comment, but the college this week has removed from its website the names and photos of Felice Silverman of Silverman Trykowski Associates, a Boston architecture and interior design studio, and Steven F. McDonald, president of Erland Construction Inc., a Burlington, Mass., firm.

In an interview last month, Martini told Inside Higher Ed that parents of BAC students should not be concerned about the allegations addressed by the investigation. “There is nothing regarding the education, the safety or the well-being of anyone at the college,” he said, noting that the set of accusations leveled against LeRoy “doesn’t have the merit to be a story.”

An anonymous letter sent last summer to college trustees triggered the outside investigation, several sources said.

Martini said its results are confidential, but the findings did not merit dismissing LeRoy, who spent several days off campus during the investigation. He has not faced dismissal, according to Martini, who said the investigation has “been completed and the president is working.”

He said the board met twice in executive session to discuss the findings. The board “considers the investigation related to these complaints closed,” he said. Martini this week would not say whether the investigation had definitively cleared LeRoy.

In the interview last month, Martini said the board “feels very comfortable that we did our due diligence. And honestly we believe it’s mainly a personnel matter. That doesn’t mean we’re not going to make changes in the normal course of business.”

College officials did not respond to several requests for comment on the investigation, but in a Sept. 17 all-staff email, a copy of which was obtained by Inside Higher Ed, Martini said that as a result of the investigation, BAC will expand training and education covering, among other topics, “communication, respect, diversity, discrimination, and sexual harassment. Most of those areas are covered by policies that the BAC has in place, but we need to redouble our efforts to ensure they are followed by every member of the BAC community,” he wrote.

Martini wrote that the board is working with LeRoy and his staff “to ensure the BAC continues to have a solid financial footing, has adequate and appropriate enrollment growth, and that we all fulfill our roles and responsibilities in educating the next generation of design and community leaders.”

He also asked staffers not to talk to the media. “This is nobody’s business other than the individuals directly involved. Reputations and careers can be irreparably harmed based solely on rumors or perceptions, rather than facts.”

Martini told staffers that LeRoy “fully cooperated” with the investigation, conducted by a Boston law firm.

But several sources who hold or who have held significant roles at the college said they were mystified by the lack of transparency surrounding the investigation, which began in July and ended a few weeks later, sources said, when Martini briefly addressed the college with a short statement. One source, a college employee, said nearly a dozen people, including several top college officials, came forward to speak to investigators in the closely guarded probe.

All of the sources asked to remain anonymous for fear of being fired or retaliated against for speaking out. One source, another college employee, said LeRoy’s comments, witnessed in a few cases by faculty and staff, were “some of the most disturbing jokes that you’ve ever heard regarding females, regarding LGBT people, regarding people of different national origins. It’s just so disturbing.”

Asked to comment on this report, both the board chair and the college declined to do so.

Another source, a midlevel college employee, told Inside Higher Ed that LeRoy had been under investigation for “harassment, discrimination and creating a hostile work environment.”

“Staff have been treated horribly by the president. Faculty have been treated horribly by the president,” the source said.

A “significant portion” of employees had left the college because of LeRoy’s alleged behavior, the source said -- perhaps 20 to 30 in each of the three years LeRoy had been on the job. A few left to find higher-paying and more prestigious positions, but “a really large chunk of them” left because of mistreatment, the source said.

Martini did not respond to a request to confirm the departures, but the college's latest IRS filings show that between the 2015 and 2017 fiscal years, BAC reported that it had reduced its number of employees from 715 to 593, or by 17 percent.

Opened in 1889 in Boston’s Back Bay area, the nonprofit college enrolls about 600, nearly equally divided between graduate and undergraduate students. It has the capacity for about twice as many but has seen declining enrollment in recent years. The open-enrollment college has always prioritized diversity, sources said -- its students hail from more than 40 countries.

“People love the school,” one source said. “They love what we do and what we stand for.” But this person said BAC had become a hostile work environment.

The institution, which relies heavily on part-time adjuncts, is so small that it has no Faculty Senate, which might play a meaningful role in shared governance.

Employees are also afraid of coming forward with formal complaints, several people at the college said. “I think everyone is too scared to put their pen to paper,” one source said. “We don’t know what to do because we don’t want to lose our jobs.”

The source was present at an incident in which LeRoy appeared to publicly offend then provost Diana Ramirez-Jasso at an event last spring: he asked her why she was late in arriving and Ramirez-Jasso responded that she was meeting with students from Mexico, to which, according to the source, LeRoy responded, “What did the students have to do to get there, climb over a wall?”

The source said the joke upset staff as well as students. “We literally cringe, because he says very uncomfortable things.”

Ramirez-Jasso left the provost's job in June and moved back into teaching and academic research. She did not respond to several requests for comment.

In another instance, the source was present when LeRoy told staff about a small enrollment drop and said he wanted them to know that the college was not at risk of closing, unlike nearby Mount Ida College, which announced in April that it would close, its campus becoming part of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

LeRoy took the opportunity to take a jab at the doomed college, the source said: “He basically was like, ‘I wonder if the Mount Ida staff are getting the same information I’m giving you? Oh, they don’t have a job.’ If he talks about other colleges like this, what does he say about us when we’re not in the room?”

The source added that BAC employees “breathe a sigh of relief” when LeRoy leaves campus. “The moment he’s back on campus, everything tenses up.”

Two sources said LeRoy had recently handed out bonuses to most staff, but that the dozen or so employees who spoke to investigators or who complained to human resources about LeRoy and other officials got smaller bonuses.

Another source, a midlevel employee, said that in the past 18 to 20 months, as many as 35 people had left the college. As a result, most departments are understaffed and morale is low. This person knew of as many as 10 colleagues who are actively seeking jobs elsewhere.

The investigation, the source said, has been “the icing on the cake.”

Last week, in a notice sent to the college, a copy of which was obtained by Inside Higher Ed, LeRoy announced that he was conducting “small group Listening Sessions” among faculty, staff and students. “The goal is to increase communication, develop a shared understanding of opportunities and potential constraints, and seek ideas about the future of the college.”

LeRoy also said he would immediately begin scheduling Monday and Thursday afternoon office hours to enable employees to “drop in and give an opinion, raise an issue, or express a concern.”

LeRoy arrived at BAC from the College of Architecture and Design at Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, Mich., where he was dean for 10 years, according to his biography. He was previously a principal at the architectural and design firm Gould Evans Associates.

The college’s latest IRS filings noted that LeRoy earned $253,148 in base salary, an average sum for the leader of a small college.

Editorial Tags: GenderRace and ethnicityPresidentsImage Caption: Boston Architectural CollegeIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Questions on a PresidentTrending order: 2
Categories: Higher Education News

Education Department misses deadline for its overhaul of student loan rules

October 4, 2018 - 5:00pm

The U.S. Department of Education will blow a key deadline next month in its bid to overhaul two Obama-era student loan rules.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is seeking to issue a more restrictive version of a loan-forgiveness rule known as borrower defense and to entirely repeal an accountability rule for career education programs, known as gainful employment. Rolling back both regulations has been the Trump administration’s top higher education priority.

The missed deadline means the earliest date for either outcome is now July 2020 -- a year later than the department had planned.

Bloomberg Government first reported the development, which throws into doubt whether the administration will be able to continue to delay enforcement of either rule for another 21 months.

A federal district court is currently weighing whether the 2016 Obama borrower-defense rule should take effect after it ruled that DeVos last year illegally delayed the regulation.

Consumer groups that are suing the administration have argued that key provisions from the rule -- banning mandatory arbitration in enrollment agreements and allowing for automatic group discharge -- should go into effect immediately. The government had argued that sudden implementation of the rule would be a logistical nightmare.

Student advocates called the department's admission of missing the deadline a win for borrowers and the public.

"Betsy DeVos’ proposed rule would gut protections for borrowers and leave taxpayers footing the bill for predatory schools’ risky conduct,” Julie Murray, a lawyer with Public Citizen, said in a written statement. “It’s high time for the secretary to stop making excuses and put the Obama-era rule in place, as it should have been for more than a year now.”

The lobby group representing for-profit colleges also took the department to task for failing to finish the rules by Nov. 1.

“This is simply unacceptable! This delay will only invite more litigation, more legal confrontation, and more uncertainty and chaos in the operation of our schools,” said Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities, in a written statement.

Bureaucratic Hurdles

In a court filing Tuesday, the Education Department cited as a reason for the delay the large number of public comments -- more than 38,000 -- it was required to consider before issuing a final rule. But Gunderson noted the Obama administration also reviewed thousands of comments before issuing a final rule in 2016. He said the failure was directly related to understaffing at the department.

“This is a classic example of being penny-wise and pound foolish,” Gunderson said. “They pride themselves in not fully staffing the department. Unfortunately, as a result of understaffing, students and career schools suffer.”

An Inside Higher Ed analysis found that by April, the overall staffing at the department was down by 13 percent since the beginning of the Trump administration. And Gunderson noted the department was understaffed in key offices involved in rule making, such as the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development and the Office of the Under Secretary.

Clare McCann, deputy director for federal higher education policy at New America and a former department official in the Obama administration, said the Trump administration appeared to have bitten off more than it could chew by rewriting both rules with many key positions unfilled.

“They need manpower if they’re going to try to do something that’s this ambitious,” she said.

Nate Bailey, a spokesman for the department, said the goal is to have strong regulations that treat students and taxpayers fairly, rather than meeting a deadline.

"We are thoughtfully addressing all of the comments received, including the responses to the directed questions we posed, which provided useful feedback," he said. "The department will publish final regulations when they are completed."

Both the borrower-defense and gainful-employment rules had been opposed for years by the for-profit sector and congressional Republicans. The borrower-defense rule was written to provide a single federal standard for loan forgiveness claims by defrauded students after the collapse of Corinthian Colleges. Gainful employment was crafted to try to ensure that career education and for-profit programs aren’t producing graduates with more debt than they can repay.

Months into her tenure, DeVos announced that she would block the borrower-defense rule from going into effect and would undertake a rewrite of both regulations through a process known as negotiated rule making, to better take into account the concerns of institutions. On borrower defense, colleges have complained the Obama borrower-defense rule in particular would substantially broaden instances of misrepresentation that could be the subject of loan-relief claims.

The department in July released a new proposed borrower-defense rule that would make loan forgiveness more restrictive. And in August it proposed repealing gainful employment entirely. That left little time to review tens of thousands of public comments it received on both rules before issuing final orders. Many of the comments were basically form letters. But others raised serious technical questions about the department’s actions -- the kind that could arise in a lawsuit.

Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and the ranking member on the Senate education committee, in a statement credited students and their families with stopping DeVos and President Trump from “ramming through their harmful plans to deny debt relief for cheated student loan borrowers and roll back student protections against predatory career training programs.”

But Dennis Cariello, a former department official and lawyer, said delays clearing the rule at the Office of Management and Budget were partly to blame for the department missing the November deadline. And he argued that the Trump administration had pursued a thoughtful course-negotiating process for crafting new student loan rules that incorporated a range of different opinions.

Student Aid and LoansEditorial Tags: Federal policyFinancial aidFor-profit collegesImage Caption: Education Secretary Betsy DeVosAd Keyword: Student loansIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 
Categories: Higher Education News

Conservative professor under fire for comparing -- facetiously, he says -- Judge Brett Kavanaugh's alleged actions to "spin the bottle"

October 4, 2018 - 5:00pm

Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor of business at City University of New York’s Brooklyn College with a self-professed “taste for controversy,” has long raged against what he sees as the liberal academic machine. But when he raged against the opposition to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination by comparing what Kavanaugh is accused of to “spin the bottle,” Langbert got more than taste of blowback.

Students and other observers are calling for Langbert’s termination, online and on campus, and they’ve organized a protest against him set for later today at the college.

Late last week, following Christine Blasey Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Langbert wrote a short post on his personal blog saying that if “someone did not commit sexual assault in high school, then he is not a member of the male sex.”

Democrats “have discovered that 15-year-olds play spin-the-bottle and they have jumped on a series of supposed spin-the-bottle crimes during Kavanaugh's minority, which they characterize as rape,” he wrote, “although no one complained or reported any crime for 40 years.”

Langbert continued: “Democrats have become a party of tutu-wearing pansies, totalitarian sissies who lack virility, a sense of decency, or the masculine judgment that has characterized the greatest civilizations: classical Athens, republican Rome, 18th century Britain and the 19th century U.S. They use anonymity and defamation in their tireless search for coercive power.”

Calling the Kavanaugh hearing a “travesty,” Langbert concluded that if congressional Republicans are going to allow “the sissy party” to use it to stop conservatism, “then it is time found [sic] a new political party.” He added that “having committed sexual assault in high school ought to be a prerequisite for all appointments, judicial and political.”

Students have spoken out against Langbert's words as irresponsible and even dangerous.

“His statements are genuinely dangerous," Corrinne Greene, a college senior and leader of the campus Young Progressives of America chapter, told The New York Post. "They clearly advocate for participating in violent crimes, and generally in discrimination against women, who are already in serious danger, statistically, on college campuses and in broader society."

Langbert said this week that his blog typically gets about 20 hits per week. So he didn’t expect this post to get much attention -- until it did. Emailed physical threats and harassment ensued, he said, and he’s since added to his blog what he said shouldn’t have been necessary: a disclaimer that the post was a satire, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s "A Modest Proposal." The classic piece calls for poor Irish people to sell their children for food.

“I was surprised to learn that some readers took me literally, claiming that I advocate rape,” Langbert wrote in his updated post. “Given that it is unclear that Kavanaugh did a thing, the defamation that he has suffered at the hands of the media is a disgrace. Intolerance of and defamation of anyone who does not toe the big government line are ongoing threats to freedom. The humiliation that Judge Kavanaugh has suffered is a disgrace.”

He added, “Perhaps more time should be spent on Horace and Swift, and less time on political indoctrination in college.”

Again raising the specter of political indoctrination, Langbert told Inside Higher Ed that it’s ironic how certain words today -- in this case, his -- are deemed violent but that actual physical threats against him are somehow acceptable. That argument is not original. Many conservatives had levied it against students and more liberal faculty members in the era of trigger warnings and campus protests. But asked how that notion squared with the fact that the allegations against Kavanaugh involve violence -- specifically that he pinned Blasey Ford to a bed and covered her mouth, making her worry he'd accidentally smother her -- Langbert said in an interview that he hadn't been following the case as closely as some.

“I’ll admit that it probably wasn’t all that well written,” he said of his original post. “But what I’m getting at here, first of all, is that the accusations against Kavanaugh are, in my opinion, not true. And I think that there are certain words in the English language that have been misused … There’s an acceleration of this, in how terms like ‘sexual assault’ take on a life of their own.”

As to whether he thought Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh were false, or if they simply didn’t qualify as assault, Langbert said, “If he forced her to do something, that’s wrong. But if he tried to touch or kiss her, while it’s wrong, it’s not something that is of any consequence to a Supreme Court nomination. As to what the facts are, I don’t think anyone knows.”

Langbert added that his initial reaction Blasey Ford’s decades-old claims is that they were “a put-up job by the Democrats.”

The college referred a request for comment to an all-campus memo from Anne Lopes, provost, which says that an unnamed faculty member “blogged a gender-biased and homophobic post that advocates sexual assault.”

Lopes said the post was “offensive, obviously abhorrent and contravening the fundamental values and practices of our community.” Yet the First Amendment “protects even speech that many experience as offensive,” she said.

The college hopes that students and others “will respond to abhorrent speech with persuasion and join in the conversation” via a reflection submission link, Lopes said. Details about a related forum are forthcoming.

Langbert denied that his post was homophobic or advocated assault. But he said that he appreciated the implication that his speech was protected.

Asked if he had faith that the college would continue to hold his speech as protected, Langbert said he’d already retained a lawyer. “I really don’t know what they’ll do.”

Editorial Tags: Academic freedomFacultyImage Caption: Mitchell LangbertIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: Anger Over Professor's CommentsTrending order: 3College: CUNY Brooklyn College
Categories: Higher Education News

Publishers accuse ResearchGate of mass copyright infringement

October 4, 2018 - 5:00pm

ResearchGate, a popular for-profit academic social network that makes it easy to find and download research papers, is facing increasing pressure from publishers to change the way it operates.

On Tuesday, the American Chemical Society and Elsevier, two large academic publishers, launched a second legal battle against the Berlin-based social networking site -- this time not in Europe, but in the U.S.

The publishers accuse ResearchGate of “massive infringement of peer-reviewed, published journal articles.” They say that the networking site is illegally obtaining and distributing research papers protected by copyright law. They also suggest that the site is deliberately tricking researchers into uploading protected content. A spokesperson for ResearchGate declined to comment on the accusations.

The court documents, obtained by Inside Higher Ed from the U.S. District Court in Maryland, include an “illustrative” but “not exhaustive list” of 3,143 research articles the publishers say were shared by ResearchGate in breach of copyright protections. The publishers suggest they could be entitled to up to $150,000 for each infringed work -- a possible total of more than $470 million.

This latest legal challenge is the second that the publishers have filed against ResearchGate in the last year. The first lawsuit, filed in Germany in October 2017, is ongoing. Inside Higher Ed was unable to review court documents for the European lawsuit.

The U.S. lawsuit is the latest development in a long and increasingly complex dispute between some academic publishers and the networking site.

ACS, Elsevier and a handful of other publishers formed an organization called the Coalition for Responsible Sharing last year because they were dissatisfied with ResearchGate's response to copyright infringement claims. The coalition has grown to include more than a dozen academic publishers in the last year and has the sole aim to “remedy the illicit hosting of millions of subscription articles on the ResearchGate site.”

James Milne, senior vice president of ACS Publications and spokesman for the Coalition for Responsible Sharing, said the group wants ResearchGate to take responsibility for the content it shares. Rather than sharing copyrighted articles and waiting for notices from publishers to take them down, Milne wants ResearchGate to check that it can legally share the articles before it does so.

Milne said the coalition has developed a tool that would allow ResearchGate to automatically distinguish which papers can or can’t legally be shared.

“They rejected that solution,” said Milne.

Although academic publishers are united in their desire to ensure that ResearchGate shares copyrighted materials responsibly, the publishers are not united in their approach to resolving this issue. Earlier this year, Springer Nature, Cambridge University Press and Thieme announced they were working with ResearchGate to find a solution. The coalition maintains that it was left with “no other choice” but to pursue legal action after attempts to find a joint solution broke down.

Milne stressed that the publishers are not holding authors responsible for unlawfully sharing their work on the site, adding, "Our case is against ResearchGate, not against researchers." Researchers who are unsure about whether they can share their work on ResearchGate can easily check using a website called www.howcanishareit.com, said Milne.

Generally speaking, authors who publish with ACS or Elsevier are allowed to share earlier, non-peer-reviewed versions of research articles. But sharing of final, peer-reviewed articles is restricted. These "versions of record" may be used in classroom teaching or presented at meetings and conferences. They can also be shared privately between colleagues via email. They cannot be uploaded to third-party commercial websites such as ResearchGate.

“ResearchGate is not the passive host of a forum where infringement just happens to occur,” the publishers said in the court document. They suggest that not only is ResearchGate uploading and making copies of journal articles that it locates by scraping the internet, it is also tricking authors into uploading copyrighted content.

Lisa Hinchliffe, professor and coordinator of information literacy services at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said she has never personally been asked to approve a research article that she did not upload to ResearchGate herself. She added that when researchers do upload articles to ResearchGate, they are asked to affirm that they are authorized to do so.

“While some authors may be intentionally affirming that they can legally upload the file even though they know this is not true, I would speculate that many authors believe that they are sharing their work legally,” said Hinchliffe.

She added that it can “come as a shock” to many authors that they “do not have the right to share their work as they choose to due to their publishing agreements.”

Many authors do not realize that they transfer their copyright to publishers as part of the manuscript submission process.

“I’ve heard more than one author say that they were ‘tricked’ by a publisher,” she said.

Editorial Tags: Sciences/Tech/Engineering/MathIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: 
Categories: Higher Education News

Institutional change is required to better serve first-generation students, report finds

October 4, 2018 - 5:00pm

First-generation students make up a third of all college students. Yet only 27 percent of this group graduates within four years, according to a new report released today. And while an increasing number of colleges recognize a need for student support services aimed at first-generation students, the report identified a notable lack of guidance about what those services should look like and how to scale them effectively.

Sarah Whitley, co-author of the report and senior director of the Center for First Generation Student Success at NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, hopes the new paper will help fill those gaps. Put together by the center in partnership with Entangled Solutions, a higher education consulting agency, the report outlines the current state of programs for first-generation students and presents concrete suggestions, backed by data, to improve their success.

“As I started this process, I said I thought I’d be able to find a good number of institutions who are doing this work, and it seems like the number has exploded … so many campuses are turning their attention [toward first-generation students],” Whitley said.

Eighty percent of the institutions surveyed now identify first-generation status at the point of admission, according to the report. Yet only 61 percent track outcomes for those students. And although programs targeting first-generation students are growing, the report said they tend to lack depth.

To give the programs more impact and greater reach, it emphasizes a focus on intersectionality -- that institutions must consider how students’ first-generation status intersects with other aspects of their identity. The report refers to these subgroups as “first-gen plus.” Focusing on students' whole identity is important, according to the report, because assuming that first-generation students are all the same -- that they are all low income or members of minority groups -- can leave those who don't fit that picture without support.

Survey data revealed that 75 percent of first-generation student programs are housed in student affairs, 48 percent in academic affairs and 43 percent in student success. Some colleges, Whitley said, choose to route their first-generation student services through the campus multicultural office or to tie it to a financial aid program. But first-generation students who wouldn’t otherwise visit that office or use that program could then miss out on those critical services.

The report employed a “mixed-method” research strategy that was split in two phases. The first was a series of qualitative interviews with 78 faculty members, administrators and leaders from 45 four-year institutions, 15 leaders from 12 nonprofits focused on student success, and 40 first-generation students, which were conducted through focus groups at eight four-year institutions. The second phase was a survey of 371 faculty members and administrators across 273 four-year institutions.

Another recommendation from the report was that institutions must shift from focusing on whether a student is "college ready" to whether or not the college is "student ready." In other words, college leadership should reflect on and change policies and procedures that might inhibit student success. Necessary changes could be as small as clarifying college lingo, which can be trickier for first-generation students to decipher if they haven't heard it before.

“I talked to some students during this study who said, ‘I just don’t get what add/drop is and why do we call it that?’ Whitley said, adding that Wichita State University "made a decision to shift the term ‘office hours’ to ‘student hours,’ because some first-gen students were saying they didn’t know what office hours meant."

First-generation students also shouldn't be penalized for juggling additional responsibilities, she said, such as having a job or caring for family members. The perspectives and experiences of first-generation students should be an asset, not a shortcoming.

“It is OK for you to be a full-time college student and also have this job or be part of your family,” Whitley said. “[Colleges] should not see that as you not being engaged in the classroom, or you not wanting to be here or not belonging here.”

Two-year institutions, where first-generation students make up a majority of the student population, were not part of this report. Whitley and the Center for First Generation Student Success plan to undertake additional research focusing specifically on two-year institutions.

Editorial Tags: Adult educationGraduation ratesImage Source: Istockphoto.com/PeopleImagesIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Disable left side advertisement?: Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: Trending: Trending text: First-Gen StudentsTrending order: 1
Categories: Higher Education News