Noticias relacionadas con la Innovación Educativa
The co-chair of Colby College’s recently announced $750 million fund-raising campaign puts remarkably little emphasis on its end date.
“If you had picked up the phone and asked me, ‘Bob, what is the end date of the campaign?’ I would say, ‘I’m not sure,’” said Robert E. Diamond, a former chair of Colby’s Board of Trustees and current trustee who is co-chairing the campaign. “In all the discussions we had, I think that probably got less discussion than anything else.”
The college does have an end date in mind -- officials have been saying the campaign will last six more years, although they have yet to announce a specific closing date. Leaders of the campaign say they have focused on its ambitiousness and its goals instead of its deadline. When the campaign was announced in October, Colby noted it was the largest ever undertaken by a liberal arts college and listed the ways money raised will go toward academic programs, access and new facilities.
Such emphases aren’t unusual for major campaigns at colleges and universities. But Colby stands out for how little attention it has drawn to its campaign’s eventual ending. The college’s campaign stands out for another reason as well: it was only in a silent phase, the critical period in which officials court big-name donors to build momentum, for a year. It’s common for colleges to spend several years in quiet phases, raising large sums toward their total campaign goals.
Those points can be attributed in part to Colby’s unique history. However, they also reflect trends affecting higher education fund-raising more generally. Many institutions are careful in what they emphasize as they court different groups of donors and use their campaigns to meet an ever-widening variety of goals. Many are also currently having success securing pledges from their big-name donors thanks to flush times and years of grooming.
Colby, a 2,000-student college in Waterville, Me., that ranks among the country’s oldest private liberal arts institutions, had raised more than $380 million toward its $750 million goal when it officially launched the campaign Oct. 20. The college said it had received 32 contributions totaling at least $1 million each. Such large donations are an important part of meeting the lofty fund-raising goals that colleges and universities are frequently chasing.
The percentage of its goal Colby raised before going public isn’t unusual. Raising large sums before publicly launching a campaign allows institutions to decide where to set their final goals, line up the biggest patrons they’re likely to find, demonstrate some momentum and catch the attention of other prospective donors.
What is most unusual about Colby’s announcement is the single year spent in a silent phase. It was possible in part because strong stock market performance has put wealthy donors in a position to give and in part because the college had prepared for the campaign with a message that resonated.
“This is Colby’s moment, and the environment is conducive,” Diamond said.
Diamond chaired Colby’s Board of Trustees when its last campaign ended, in 2010. That campaign raised $376 million in a five-year effort, exceeding its goal by $6 million.
The college learned from its previous campaign, Diamond said. He also attributed the early fund-raising success this time around to ambitious work by Colby’s president, David A. Greene, who took over in 2014.
Greene has pushed for Colby to grow closer to Waterville and invest in the city, Diamond said. He has also shared a vision for operating Colby as one of the world’s top liberal arts institutions. A Colby goal is to use the campaign to “continue to redefine the liberal arts.”
Major gifts already announced will go toward residential and mixed-use space, a center for arts and innovation, an institute for American art, an athletic complex, and a new program to make internships, research opportunities or other global experiences a financial possibility for every student.
A number of pieces came together at the same time, Greene said.
“Our global programs were really starting to develop quickly, and then our revitalization of Waterville and our efforts to really be engaged in that in a deep way were moving at a pace that was faster than we had anticipated originally,” he said. “It was really starting to come to life in a way that it felt like the time was probably right to take this public.”
Taking the campaign public early was an opportunity to have more time to spread Colby’s message at a time when its academics and admissions are strong, Greene added.
“I thought having six years of that communication platform instead of five years would be better for us over all,” he said.
Other timing issues could play into early campaign launches, experts said. With the uncertainty of federal tax reform hanging over development offices and philanthropists, many may feel an incentive to give this year while the tax environment is still predictable. With stock markets continuing to rise, it’s time to strike while the iron is hot.
Experts also say that short silent phases can reflect colleges’ fund-raising operations becoming more advanced. Many colleges and universities have gotten much better at knowing which donations are in the pipeline and which donors are close to signing up for a big gift.
“We’ve seen people using their data,” Dena Schwartz, a senior analyst with the Advancement Forum at EAB. “They do a screening to figure out what their donor pool looks like. They do know who their big donors are.”
One fund-raising campaign can build momentum for another, Schwartz said. So well-run past campaigns can help new campaigns be successful more quickly in the future.
Colby’s wide range of ambitious goals is in character with many of today’s major fund-raising campaigns. In some cases, a wide range of goals is a reason institutions are de-emphasizing campaign end dates.
The goals aren’t always public facing. Sometimes they are about signing up new donors who have not previously given.
“We’re seeing more and more schools plan campaigns without publicizing that end date because they have lots of goals in mind that aren’t necessarily that dollar goal on paper,” Schwartz said. “They talk about engagement goals. They talk about young alumni donors. They need the flexibility to achieve that over time.”
For example, millennial donors aren’t necessarily motivated to give by a particular end date the way other generations have been, Schwartz said. She also noted that colleges and universities find themselves competing with many causes to win young donors’ money. The fund-raising environment today is more competitive than it has been in the past, so some institutions might need wiggle room to meet their goals.
Colby is attempting to re-engage a group of donors who may not have heard from the college recently, said Anne Clarke Wolff, a Colby trustee and vice chair of the campaign. She said the college has had difficulty engaging with donors who graduated in the 1970s and 1980s, around the time Colby was unsettled by its disbanding fraternities in 1984.
Many alumni from those generations are playing leading roles in this campaign, so she is hopeful that the efforts will prove successful.
“What we don’t know is the time it will take to re-engage that broader community with the campaign and, more importantly, what’s going on at Colby,” she said. “Maybe that education, re-engagement, cultivation, will take a little bit longer. Maybe it will be shorter.”
Since Colby launched the campaign in October, its total raised has climbed from $380 million to $387.9 million. The college will hold a New York City launch for the campaign Dec. 6.
Data sets on campaign end dates are relatively scarce, but Council for Aid to Education surveys indicate that institutions sometimes launch campaigns without determined end dates. Still, experts say a campaign launched without officials having any end date in mind would be uncommon. The Council for Advancement and Support of Education recommends comprehensive campaign periods not exceed eight years. Doing so helps to maximize the efforts of volunteers, donors and staff members, according to the organization’s reporting standards. It also keeps fund-raising campaigns aligned with institutions’ priorities.
Colby isn’t alone in not directly emphasizing a campaign end date. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute announced a $1 billion campaign in October. The university’s official announcement made no note of an end date, although President Shirley Ann Jackson had previously written about the coming campaign enabling a strategic plan called the Rensselaer Plan 2024.
The RPI campaign is planned to end in 2024, a spokeswoman said. The institute has not specifically chosen to de-emphasize the campaign end date, she said, but instead wants to focus on other elements of the effort.Editorial Tags: Development/fund-raisingImage Source: Colby CollegeImage Caption: Robert E. Diamond is co-chairing Colby College's campaign.Is this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment:
When a researcher is busted for fraud, the exposure often trickles out from source to source. Whether it's exposed by an institution, professional association, journal or the media, word gets out.
Depending on how big a deal a case is, it might make international headlines. Other times, the fraud is dealt with quietly. But why does it occur, and why does it keep occurring? From an environmental and organizational level, what can be done to combat research fraud? Is there something to be learned by examining fraud at a level beyond just the case-by-case stories, sometimes packaged in shock journalism with explosive headlines?
Those are the types of questions that caught the attention of Nachman Ben-Yehuda and Amalya Oliver-Lumerman, professors in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem -- inspiring them to write their own catalog of the history and ramifications of research fraud in Fraud and Misconduct in Research: Detection, Investigation and Organizational Response (University of Michigan Press).
Based on an examination of 748 cases where there were public records or reports of fraud, in English, between 1880 and 2010, the book is not a comprehensive look at every case of research fraud that ever occurred, the authors acknowledge. (Most of the cases are clustered in the United States, for example.) But the book serves as a look at how fraud, and the response to it, has changed over the years, and how different stakeholders -- governments, institutions and journals, whose reputations rely on academic integrity and the clean use of research money -- have responded.
While the authors argue fraud “is not a major characteristic of science,” and that the research industry is healthy over all, they do say their analysis leads them to believe fraud is underreported. And new regulations, they write, need to consider the effects on day-to-day work: they should spur growth in research as much as they curb cheating.
Ben-Yehuda and Oliver-Lumerman answered questions jointly via email. The following exchange has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Q: What made you interested in researching and writing on this topic?
A: We were involved (in our administrative roles at that time) in a case of suspected research fraud that exemplified how complex dealing with such issues can be. The case became a big ordeal for the department, the faculty and the university, and the relevant international scientific community. The entire affair, which lasted several months, made us very curious. It obviously raised interesting questions about the more general phenomena of fraud in research. It was thus this affair which propelled and motivated us to examine in depth issues of misconduct and fraud in research.
The numerous discussions we had about the event we had to deal with, as well as about other cases that came to our attention, led us to become even more curious about other cases: their characteristics, cultural differences, gender issues, and how they were dealt with by universities and other stakeholders. As a research team, we felt that the combination of a sociologist who studies deviance (Ben-Yehuda) who had already worked on the issue of fraud in science, and an organizational sociologist (Oliver-Lumerman), could offer alternative and refreshing theoretical foci to the phenomena we wanted to study. And so the idea of this book was born.
Q: What was your most important takeaway from the research that went into the book? Was there anything that surprised you along the way?
A: Among our most important takeaways is that an inquiry should not investigate fraud in research without examining the wider context. This includes the involvement of various stakeholders. The fact is that approaching fraud in research has changed over the years from a lenient treatment to a much more severe treatment (with even prison sentences in some later cases). Moreover, institutions which encountered cases of fraud in research have become increasingly transparent about the cases. Finally, it really takes the combination of a whistle-blower together with a serious organizational response to detect, expose and treat cases of research fraud.
A few things surprised us. Among them is our realization that fraud in research reflects a systemic problem and does not reflect only an individual level. Moreover, the relatively high frequency of cases detected in top institutions was quite surprising. Consequently, one of our conclusions is that fraud in research probably reflects an iceberg phenomenon (e.g., we know only of a small fraction of the cases) rather than a bad apple one (e.g., we know about most of the deviant cases). Furthermore, one of the things that really caught us by surprise is the fact that, quite frequently, when we told colleagues about our research project, again and again they tended to tell us about cases of research fraud that that they knew about yet [that] were not documented in any place we could reach.
Q: Who is your ideal audience for this book?
A: We strongly feel that this is an important and timely issue and is relevant to many. We thus wrote this book for a wide audience including scientists, university administrators, policy makers, funding agencies, students and the general public.
Q: Are there any limitations to your research are important for readers to consider?
A: Obviously, we suspect that we were able to detect only a fraction of research fraud cases and thus our study is bounded to the cases that we were able to track through various existing resources. Moreover, full case information was not always available.
Q: What new questions arose during your research that haven't been able to be answered yet?
A: There are a few such questions. For example: How do individual accounts by fraudster researchers explain the reasons for their deviances? Whether and to what degree do the new university and journals policies impact scientific integrity? Are there any global emerging patterns aiming to reduce research fraud? What forms of inter-institutional collaborations can increase norms of research integrity? What is being done to enhance research integrity norms among entry- and senior-level scientists?New Books About Higher EducationEditorial Tags: BooksSciences/Tech/Engineering/MathImage Source: University of Michigan PressIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment:
Cengage, the publisher and technology company, is introducing a subscription service that will enable students to access Cengage’s entire digital portfolio for one set price, no matter how many products they use.
The new offer, called Cengage Unlimited, will give students access to more than 20,000 Cengage products across 70 disciplines and 675 course areas for $119.99 a semester. For 12 months’ access the price is $179.99, and for two years the price is $239.99. For students taking three or four courses a semester with assigned course materials from Cengage, the subscription could offer hundreds of dollars of savings a year, versus buying or renting the products individually.
Cengage described the introduction of the Netflix-style subscription service in a press release as a “bold move”; the company has set a strategic goal of being 90 percent digital by 2019. The new strategy is a notable departure from the traditional publishing sales model, which historically has relied on the sale of individual print textbooks. Print sales have been heavily disrupted, however, by the introduction of rental programs, piracy, the sale of secondhand books and the failure by some students to purchase textbooks at all due to prohibitively high costs.
In addition to access to Cengage ebooks, digital platforms and study guides, students will have the option to rent print versions of the course materials for free, excluding a $7.99 shipping fee.
Cengage already offers an extensive ebook and print rental program, but CEO Michael Hansen said in an interview that Cengage Unlimited would offer an alternative to the “traditional and costly approach of paying for each course’s materials individually.”
According to statistics from the National Association of College Stores, students spent an average of $579 on their required course materials during the 2016-17 academic year. The College Board estimates that the average annual cost of books and supplies for students at four-year-public colleges is much higher, at $1,298 -- though it is noted this figure could be lowered by buying used textbooks or renting. Hansen said that lowering the cost of course materials for students was a key factor driving the decision to introduce Cengage Unlimited.
“High costs are limiting too many students from being able to access and succeed in their learning,” said Hansen. “We are taking unprecedented action to break down the cost barriers and end the cycle of students having to choose between course materials they can afford and the results they want,” he said.
Starting in August 2018, students will be able to access a dashboard that offers unlimited access to the company's online library, once they have paid a subscription fee. The subscription includes use of digital learning platforms MindTap and WebAssign. After their subscription ends, students will continue to retain reference access to key course materials for one year. For those that don’t want to subscribe to Cengage Unlimited, students will still have the option to rent or buy individual titles. “We would expect that the majority of students would go for Cengage Unlimited, but we don’t want to predetermine that,” said Hansen.
Cengage’s digital catalog includes titles from authors such as economist Gregory Mankiw and the late mathematician James Stewart. Currently, a new hardcover print copy of Mankiw’s Principles of Economics, eighth edition, costs $249.95. There are also rental options starting at $99.49 for print for 60 days’ access, and $76.12 for six months’ digital access with MindTap.
For students who are taking multiple courses with Cengage course materials assigned, the Cengage Unlimited proposal offers significant savings, said Joseph Esposito, a digital media, software and publishing consultant. But if you only have one course that has Cengage materials assigned, then the offer is not so attractive, he said. Rick Anderson, associate dean for collections and scholarly communication in the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah, agreed.
Both Esposito and Anderson said it was clear that Cengage was looking to convince whole institutions, not just individual faculty members, to go all in on Cengage materials. This, they worried, could result in pressure being placed on faculty to assign Cengage materials, potentially impeding their academic freedom.
Hansen said he is aware that faculty may not be receptive to top-down suggestions from provosts to change their course materials, which is why in addition to selling Cengage Unlimited at an institutional level, Cengage will also be making the case to individual faculty members that Cengage Unlimited allows them to continue teaching with high-quality learning materials in addition to offering value to students.
Esposito said that the Cengage Unlimited model, which he described as “like Spotify for books,” was a shrewd move by Cengage to increase its market share, and that the strategy reminded him of telecom company MCI’s “friends and family” campaign, where MCI gained a large share of the market by offering discounted calls to fellow MCI customers. To leave the service and switch to another provider, customers would have to explain to their friends that it would now cost more to call them. This social pressure discouraged people from switching, even if better deals could be found elsewhere, explained Esposito.
Cengage describes Cengage Unlimited as a “first-of-its-kind” subscription offer, a description that is probably accurate, said Anderson, at least among higher education publishers in the U.S. But there is precedent for this kind of model, he said. Questia, for example, offers access to a large catalog of research books and journals for $99.95 a year but is marketed as more of a “personal research library” than Cengage Unlimited, said Anderson. Cengage is familiar with Questia, having acquired the company in 2010.
Phil Hill, the co-publisher of the blog e-Literate and a partner at MindWires Consulting, said that he was “impressed” by the Cengage announcement. “It’s like someone at Cengage woke up and decided to take this digital content transformation seriously,” he said. “If you combine Cengage Unlimited with the OpenNow announcement, both of them really represent a rethinking of Cengage’s business model.” While Cengage and other publishers have dipped their toes into digital-first models, Cengage is “taking the lead,” he said.
While Hansen said that the announcement of Cengage Unlimited was significant, he said he didn’t think it represented a big shift in strategy for the company. “I think our strategy has been very consistent for the last five years. In terms of leading with digital, we believe, and we know from the data, that digital is a better experience relative to print for most students,” he said. For those that still want access to print, Cengage Unlimited would give them that option, too.
Cengage reports that currently more than 2,000 institutions in the U.S. are assigning Cengage products in more than 10 courses. Around 1,400 institutions are assigning Cengage materials in more than 20 courses. And some 600 institutions are assigning Cengage materials in more than 50 courses. Hansen said he hopes to expand adoption by attracting both students and faculty with Cengage Unlimited’s “very compelling price point.”Editorial Tags: TextbooksImage Source: Pixabay/JuralMinIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment:
The National Football League -- beleaguered by protests from players during the national anthem and boycotts from fans who have taken offense -- reached a financial agreement last week with a group of activist players organized as the Players Coalition. Per an agreement with the group, the league will donate $89 million over the course of seven years to causes committed to social change for African-Americans.
The United Negro College Fund -- a group founded in 1944 to help fund scholarships for students attending private institutions among the nation’s historically black colleges and universities and a recipient of some of the earmarked money -- is receiving a fourth of the donation, and some are criticizing the UNCF's involvement.
The agreement, reached last week, does not stipulate a quid pro quo demanding players stop kneeling or protesting during the national anthem, a movement started last year by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. But some members of the Players Coalition, a group of 40 or so NFL players, have agreed to stop their protests as a result, while others have declared that the financial deal doesn’t address their actual grievances, but rather is intended to make the protest movement go away.
Peaceful in nature, the anthem protests have roiled NFL leadership and have become a part of American culture wars, with President Trump at one point calling to "change tax law!" to punish the league because of them. (The NFL gave up its tax-exempt status in 2015, though much of its revenue is still taxed anyway. The league and teams still benefit from various tax breaks, however.) Kaepernick started kneeling during the national anthem last year -- and others throughout the NFL and among college and high school football programs have joined the effort -- as a way to draw attention to police brutality against African-Americans. Critics have called it disrespectful to the flag and the military.
The UNCF is set to receive 25 percent of the NFL’s donation, and while those in favor of the NFL’s move say the money will go to a good cause, the deal’s detractors have characterized it as hush money to quell a black protest movement.
The UNCF declined to comment.
"This new program will supplement, and not replace, our other key social responsibility efforts, including Salute to Service, cancer awareness, domestic violence/sexual assault and youth programs,” Tod Leiweke, the NFL’s chief operating officer, told teams in a Friday memo.
Given the criticism by some of the players questioning the intentions behind the money, though, the UNCF’s acceptance of the funds is drawing parallels to when it accepted donations from Charles and David Koch's company and a Koch foundation in 2014.
Critics said the members of the organization “sold their souls to the devil” for accepting the funds from the conservative billionaires, who have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into conservative political causes -- including political groups that have pushed voter ID laws, which research has shown disproportionately disenfranchises minorities, even when they are legally entitled to vote -- over the years. There were also concerns about the Kochs’ influence in how the gift was used, since the agreement stipulated they would have two representatives on the five-person advisory board that doled out the scholarships.
But the reaction wasn’t all negative, with some praising the move. Indeed, the Koch brothers’ libertarian tendencies can sometimes overlap with progressive causes dedicated to racial justice, such as their recent $4.5 million grant to research drug policy reform at Ohio State University. (Research shows that current drug laws and policies stemming from the government’s “war on drugs” are enforced more often and more harshly on minorities than white people.)
Los Angeles Chargers tackle Russell Okung is among the players who took issue with the NFL’s donation.
“When you’re dealing with a certain group of people, this entity as a league -- you try to keep in mind, is this a reparation, or just $89 million?” Okung told the Los Angeles Times, arguing that the protesting players were calling for substantial changes to policy and society.
“Reparation extends beyond just dollars and cents, in real change in policy and lobbying. I think that should be more at the forefront of what we’re trying to accomplish here,” he said.
He’ll continue to raise his fist during the national anthem.
Malcolm Jenkins, of the Philadelphia Eagles, one of the key members of the Players Coalition’s negotiations with the NFL, has said he will no longer protest during the anthem. He and retired NFL receiver Anquan Boldin, another member of the coalition, posted a statement on Twitter pointing out that the agreement with the league doesn’t stipulate concessions from protesting players.
The dialogue between the Players Coalition and the league has “always been about the issues; strengthening the criminal justice system and fight for racial and social equality,” they said.
Marybeth Gasman, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Minority-Serving Institutions, who has studied white philanthropy's influence at black colleges, said she saw parallels between the Koch gift and the NFL donation, in that the NFL might be using it as a way to quell what the team owners view as distractions, brought on by larger societal issues.
“The protest, taking a knee, is about police brutality against African-Americans. That’s what they’re protesting,” said Gasman. “I don’t think [the donation] lets [the NFL] off the hook from caring about police brutality toward African-Americans … It can’t just be money to say, ‘OK, so we threw money at that problem, so go away.’”
In 2014, Gasman wrote an essay for Inside Higher Ed arguing that the UNCF should return the Kochs’ money. She didn’t think the UNCF should return the NFL’s money, but said that the organization should use the opportunity to demand more from the NFL than just donations.
“This is about making sure that people know that this police brutality is happening, and who better to do it than the NFL? You have all those people watching, why not educate people when they’re watching football about police brutality against African-Americans?” she said.DiversityEditorial Tags: Development/fund-raisingImage Source: Al Diaz/Miami Herald/TNS via Getty ImagesImage Caption: Colin Kaepernick (wearing No. 7) taking a knee in 2016.Is this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 3Diversity Newsletter publication date: Tuesday, December 5, 2017Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Email Teaser: Why Is the NFL Giving Millions to UNCF?Magazine treatment:
While it’s unsurprising now when racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic posters crop up on college campuses, a rarer event is the white nationalist culprits sticking around to pose for photos.
But such is the case at Southern Methodist University, where police are currently investigating banners and posters espousing white supremacy that were hung over the weekend. Experts say white supremacists intentionally mean to rattle college campuses by being photographed with their handiwork.
Members of Texas Vanguard, an offshoot of Vanguard America, the white nationalist group that has grown in prominence since the presidential election, on Twitter claimed credit for the signs at Southern Methodist, which read, “Reclaim America. No more tolerance, no more diversity” and “White men! Save your people! Reject the opioid beast!”
Another poster mocked gay pride, insinuating gay people are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases and that they molest children.
In front of one banner, two members of the group gave the Nazi salute and posted a picture of it to Twitter, writing that they “had a great night.”
They were captured with skull masks covering their mouths, but campus police released images of five people, barefaced, who they believe posted the materials.
Such tactics -- white nationalists proving they visited campus -- can be used to scare minority students, said Carla Hill, an investigative researcher with the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism.
While largely white supremacist movements started simply spreading their propaganda in the cloak of darkness, the contemporary political climate has buoyed them, Hill said. A common practice among Patriot Front -- another group closely aligned with the “alt-right,” characterized by fringe, right-wing and racist views -- is its members hanging large banners on overpasses and being photographed from a distance, so the public knows they were there, but their faces are unrecognizable.
In the bloody riots in Charlottesville, Va., in August, though, white nationalists felt emboldened enough to show their faces for a torch-lit march around the University of Virginia campus, which was followed by a riot the next day, where a woman was killed when a white supremacist drove his car into a group of counterprotesters.
When internet sleuths outed some of the men involved with the UVA demonstration and they lost their jobs, supporters of the white nationalist movement were galvanized to raise money for them so they continue their so-called activism, Hill said.
“It shows you’re more hard-core if you’re willing to show your face,” Hill said. “Typically, they get doxed, but they get a lot of support from the movement. You’re kind of a martyr when you get exposed and continue to be an activist.”
Since September 2016, the ADL has tracked 310 incidents of white nationalist propaganda on college campuses, with the numbers escalating -- 127 of those events occurred since September of this year, Hill said. Of the 310 incidents, 55 were based in Texas, which is where Southern Methodist is located.
Hill said she has not counted how many times white supremacists have posed with these posters.
President R. Gerald Turner released a statement that said anyone hanging “unauthorized” signs would be prosecuted.
“While SMU strongly supports freedom of speech and expression, the outside group featured on these signs promotes an abhorrent message that is opposite to SMU values,” Turner said in his statement. “Our university community is deeply committed to maintaining an educational environment that is welcoming and inclusive. As an institution dedicated to learning, we value respectful and civil discourse.”
Southern Methodist has encountered such fliers before. Posters listing the reasons why white women shouldn’t date black men were tacked around campus last semester, and a student was punished for hanging up fliers in response titled “why white women should date black men” that contained some clichés some might consider offensive. The student who posted the second round of fliers violated the institution’s conduct code and was given a deferred suspension.DiversityEditorial Tags: Student lifeIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 2Diversity Newsletter publication date: Tuesday, December 5, 2017Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Email Teaser: Revealing Themselves on CampusMagazine treatment:
Education groups scrambled Friday to dissect a massive bill from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to reauthorize the federal law that governs higher education, with proposals that have serious implications for how students pay for their degrees and how colleges are evaluated.
The bill also delivers on long-held GOP priorities to roll back regulations on the for-profit and online education sectors and steers new federal money to apprenticeships and career training.
Broad outlines of the 542-page proposal emerged earlier in the week. And well ahead of the bill’s release, it was clear that Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the House education committee, would look to simplify the federal student aid program (partly by ending many loan repayment benefits), eliminate the gainful-employment rule and other regulations long opposed by for-profits, and more broadly seek to link federal aid eligibility to students' ability to repay loans.
The details in the full bill did not win much support from college lobbyists and student aid advocates. While most were still examining the full implications of the bill, groups said the legislation would increase the cost of college for students while doing significantly less to protect them from low-quality programs.
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said the group is “deeply concerned that the proposal would undermine decades of federal policy aimed at helping students at the undergraduate and graduate levels afford a high-quality higher education.”
Among the most significant developments in the bill is how it would reshape the way colleges and universities are held accountable for their students’ success graduating and repaying loans.
The bill eliminates an Obama administration rule designed to weed out career education programs that graduate too many students with debt they can’t repay. Another provision, meanwhile, adds new graduation benchmarks for minority-serving institutions seeking dedicated federal grant funding. And colleges across the board would be on the hook for student progress on loan repayment.
While Foxx didn’t get much support from higher education for the bill, the White House on Friday afternoon released a set of priorities for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act that broadly reflected the goals of the House proposal. And Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, issued a statement backing the framework, saying the “status quo” is not working for millions of students and that tinkering around the edges isn’t enough.
“I’m glad that Chairwoman Foxx has put forward a bill that addresses the many challenges with a holistic, reform-minded approach,” she said. “I look forward to working with Congress to help ensure students have access to lifelong learning opportunities that prepare them for success in the 21st century.”
The introduction of the House bill, which was crafted with virtually no input from Democrats, is the first act in a reauthorization saga that will likely span much of the next year -- if it doesn’t drag into 2019.
Senator Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate education committee, has signaled that he hopes to pursue a bipartisan process to update the higher education law for the first time since 2008, meaning many of the most controversial provisions of the House bill likely won’t become law. But Foxx’s legislation provides a clear vision of GOP priorities in a higher education bill and shares much of Alexander’s own stated conception of a new law.
For-Profits See a Win
Perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of the House Republican bill are for-profit colleges. The bill eliminates the gainful-employment rule -- among the Obama-era regulations most hated by the sector -- and bars the secretary from issuing a new rule.
The legislation also ends the so-called 90-10 rule, which prevents for-profits from getting more than 90 percent of their total revenue from federal student aid programs.
Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities, said in a statement that the House proposal directly connects the higher education law with jobs and career training.
“This proposal offers important reforms that emphasize good jobs and quality careers for our nation’s students,” he said. “The Higher Education Act has become our nation’s work-force investment strategy. It is imperative to update in ways that produce future skilled workers enhancing U.S. competitiveness and, ultimately, our nation’s economy.”
Most observers expected the end of the existing gainful-employment rule when Republicans took the White House and both houses of Congress last fall. And the U.S. Department of Education this week is launching an overhaul of the regulation through the negotiated rule-making process. The House legislation would importantly end the separate definition of nonprofit and for-profit institutions under federal law that allowed the Obama administration to craft a gainful-employment rule targeting for-profits.
Kevin Kinser, a professor of education policy studies at Pennsylvania State University, said a single definition for all higher ed programs would be the best outcome for for-profits and, potentially, the worst for the rest of higher ed.
"This is more than just saying don’t regulate gainful employment," he said. "It is saying there is no reason to look at for profits differently than the rest of higher ed. Combine this with opening up Title IV to alternative providers of higher education, and allowing full curricular partnerships with for-profit providers, and you’ve created a whole new competitive environment with enormous implications for the current system. Don’t expect institutions to take this lying down."
Student and consumer advocates, meanwhile, blasted the bill's assistance to for-profits. Debbie Cochrane, vice president of the Institute for College Access and Success, said students are losers under the House proposal, while for-profits are the clear winners.
"By gutting regulations designed to ensure that schools provide the education students have paid for, this bill would have the taxpayers write a blank check to colleges that overcharge and underdeliver," she said.
On top of those regulatory changes, she said the bill makes it harder for students who have been defrauded or misled by their college to seek and obtain discharge of their loans.
While the bill would loosen major restrictions on for-profits, it adds new accountability measures for colleges that receive $600 million in annual dedicated grants for minority-serving institutions. To qualify for those funds, colleges must meet a benchmark that they graduate or transfer at least 25 percent of students.
That’s a significant development at the federal level, where colleges have yet to see completion-oriented performance-based measures attached to funding, even after years of experimentation at the state level. The language drew criticism from advocates for college access who said the funds are intended to strengthen and develop historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions that have traditionally gotten by with much less support.
Michelle Asha Cooper, president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy, said the bill singles out and threatens to undermine institutions that have historically given underrepresented student groups access to higher education.
“While policy makers’ efforts to enrich these institutions must be informed by reliable evidence, we must also remember that when serving underrepresented students -- which these institutions do -- more resources are needed, not less,” she said.
Introduction of similar performance-based measures has been trending at the state level for years -- as far back as 1979 in Tennessee. Research indicates those measures do have an impact on the behavior of colleges, said Rebecca Natow, an assistant professor of educational leadership at Hofstra University.
“It gets institutions’ attention and it does prompt changes in their campus programming with regard to students to get them more focused on completion,” she said.
But some colleges have seen unanticipated consequences, such as increasing standards for admissions or lowering academic standards, Natow said.
Critics of such measures in the past have complained that they reward institutions that are doing well while making it harder for colleges most in need of help to make strides on improving student success.
Marybeth Gasman, director of the Penn Center for Minority-Serving Institutions, said the provision doesn’t recognize the mission of those colleges or the challenges of their student populations.
"These are institutions that are doing a huge share of the work of educating low-income students," she said. "That also means they are not going to have consistent graduation rates."
Deborah Santiago, chief operating officer and vice president for policy at Excelencia in Education, said she doesn’t necessarily oppose setting a baseline for institutions that receive competitive federal grants. But she questioned whether graduation rates are the best metric to measure those colleges’ impact, even if they account for transfer students.
Many students attending minority-serving institutions attend part-time, stop out and return later, Santiago said. Those students are not included in the federal graduation rate as currently calculated.
“Graduation rates are wonderful metrics when you’ve got traditional students,” she said. “For a community college or an open-access institution, that’s more challenging.”
New Risk-Sharing Scheme
Experts said one of the most important proposals in the mammoth bill is the plan to elevate federal loan repayment rates as a "risk-sharing" metric for colleges.
The House GOP would drop the use of borrower cohort default rates at the institutional level, which most experts agree are a flawed measure, and replace them with programmatic repayment rates. Under the bill, any academic program where, for three consecutive years, more than 45 percent of borrowers are least 90 days delinquent in repaying their loans would be knocked out of the federal loan program (after a possible appeal process). And programs that exceed the 45 percent threshold for a year would be required to create a "repayment improvement task force" that the department would review.
The committee said in a fact sheet released Friday that the goal of the repayment-rate approach to risk sharing is to "target federal aid to only those programs where graduates have the ability to repay their student loans."
Julie Peller, executive director of Higher Learning Advocates, a recently formed group that focuses on policy, said she appreciated Foxx's effort to ensure that colleges have some "skin in the game" under the $150 billion annual federal aid program.
"However, the proposal’s definition of ‘positive repayment’ as any student who is less than 90 days delinquent is far too lax a standard for holding institutions accountable for the outcomes they produce," Peller said in a written statement. "Additionally, the PROSPER Act still leaves important questions unanswered, including how the measure will treat students who don’t neatly fit into any particular program of study and what role the ‘repayment improvement task force’ will have for helping low-performing institutions improve."
Community colleges could be hit hard if the feds adopt the repayment-rate metric, said David Baime, senior vice president for government relations and policy analysis at the American Association of Community Colleges. Default rates are less of an issue for two-year colleges. That's because their tuition rates are relatively affordable and low-income students are less likely to cross the 270-day default threshold than a 90-day repayment one.
"It's clearly highly problematic for our institutions," he said, "simply because our students don't borrow much."
-- Paul Fain contributed to this article.Editorial Tags: Financial aidImage Caption: Representative Virginia Foxx during a House education committee hearing this yearAd Keyword: Higher Education ActIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment:
The proposed update to the Higher Education Act introduced in the House Friday would allow colleges to refrain from investigating sexual assault allegations while a criminal inquiry is under way if police or prosecutors request such a delay.
Advocates for survivors of sexual assault say that proposal would undermine federal requirements that colleges thoroughly investigate sexual misconduct and lead to slower remedies for victims. But some observers say in practice the language would likely mean little change from current policy, which allows colleges to briefly hold off on investigations when police gather criminal evidence.
That provision is among several affecting campus policies handling sexual assault and harassment that angered advocates for survivors last week.
Some of those, like a mandate governing standards of evidence in campus proceedings, would enshrine into law recommendations from interim guidance issued by the Department of Education in September. Others provisions involve campus climate surveys to be conducted by colleges.
But advocates have focused in particular on language that appears to suggest colleges would face no penalty for holding off on pursuing campus sexual assault complaints at the request of law enforcement.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in September announced she was rescinding 2011 and 2014 federal guidance on campus sexual assault policies. She then introduced new interim guidance that will be in effect until the department writes a new federal regulation governing campus policies.
That interim guidance said colleges could choose to set either a preponderance of evidence standard for findings of campus-based proceedings or a clear and convincing standard that requires a higher burden of proof. Survivor advocates argue that the preponderance standard, which was backed by the Obama administration in its 2011 guidance, should be used for findings of civil rights violations like gender-based discrimination. But groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education argue that a higher standard of evidence should be used absent additional protections for students accused of misconduct.
The House bill backs the additional flexibility for campuses that the department included in its interim guidance. Nothing in the subsection, the language states,
may be construed to prohibit an institution of higher education from delaying the initiation of, or suspending, an investigation or institutional disciplinary proceeding involving an allegation of sexual assault in response to a request from a law enforcement agency or a prosecutor to delay the initiation of, or suspend, the investigation or proceeding, and any delay or suspension of such an investigation or proceeding in response to such a request may not serve as the grounds for any sanction or audit finding against the institution or for the suspension or termination of the institution’s participation in any program under this title.
Survivor advocates say the proposal goes even further by granting campuses the ability to delay proceedings at the request of law enforcement agencies.
And they say it potentially sets up a dilemma for survivors between reporting an assault to the police and getting full remedies from their campus.
Alyssa Peterson, an organizer with Know Your IX, said the current state of play on campuses recognizes that victims of assault have a need for remedies from both the criminal justice system and their campus system. But language in the Republican proposal for updating the higher ed law suggests that colleges would face no penalty for delaying campus proceedings at the request of law enforcement for any reason.
“It basically imposes no safeguards on the process,” Peterson said. “It would allow schools to do nothing at the expense of survivors.”
That could create a disincentive for survivors to involve police at all, she said, if they sense their college might use law enforcement as a reason for making slow progress on addressing an allegation. Potential remedies go beyond a finding of misconduct and include interim steps like making sure a victim doesn’t have to stay in the same dorm or attend the same class sections as their attacker, Peterson said.
Scott Schneider, a lawyer who specializes in higher education law at the firm Fisher Phillips, said that he expected in practice delays citing law enforcement requests would be extremely infrequent.
"At least in my experience, it is exceptionally rare for a prosecutor or a police department to say, 'stop, do not do any investigation until we are done with the prosecution of the case,'" he said.
Schneider said if it came to that, a campus could choose to suspend an accused student in the interim.
Brett Sokolow, president of the Association of Title IX Administrators, said the language of the House bill potentially represents a significant change in the requirements on campuses when a law enforcement investigation is open.
“While the bill does not specify how long the delay may be, a short delay would be consistent with current law,” he said via email. “However, longer delays would be a big change and could result in a decreased emphasis on the campus resolution process, especially if prosecutors decide they want to use this provision to keep the campus response in limbo.”
The Republican proposal also calls for annual campus climate surveys, but observers say they would have limited value. Because colleges would be allowed to choose appropriate questions, the surveys would be meaningless for any comparisons, said Laura Dunn, the executive director and founder of SurvJustice.Editorial Tags: Student lifeIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment:
An incident at the University of Connecticut last week became the latest case to attract considerable attention over issues of campus free speech and the environment for minority students. The event ended up in chaos, with students in the audience shouting at the speaker and the speaker arrested over an altercation with an audience member who took his notes. The speaker, the conservative pundit Lucian Wintrich, was trying to speak on the topic "It's OK to Be White," which is widely seen by minority students and others as a way to mock efforts to draw attention to the bigotry faced by minority individuals in the United States.
Wintrich was arrested after he had an altercation with a woman who took his notes from the podium at which he was speaking. That woman -- whom Wintrich and his supporters have blamed for the altercation -- was widely assumed to be one of the students protesting the event. But a community college administrator has come forward to say she was the one who took the notes.
The woman is Catherine Gregory, associate director of career services and advising at Quinebaug Valley Community College. Her decision to come forward has set off a new round of debate about the incident.
Wintrich is calling for Gregory to be arrested for stealing his property (the notes), and for UConn's police department to drop the charges against him. The police department is continuing to investigate the incident and has not dropped any charges. Gregory's lawyer said he has heard reports that her conduct is under investigation, but that no charges have been brought.
Criticism of Gregory has come from many besides Wintrich, and from some who say his message is hateful but that taking his notes was not appropriate. An editorial in The Hartford Courant, which previously said that Wintrich shouldn't have been invited to campus and that he "was spewing ignorant, and hateful, baloney," nonetheless found fault with Gregory.
The editorial said Gregory was "ill suited" to be advising college students, given her conduct at the speech. "There are time-honored ways to practice nonviolent civil disobedience at speeches: signs, walkouts, audience members turning their backs on a speaker. But grabbing his speech off the podium isn't one of them," the editorial said.
Wintrich has said in a series of tweets that UConn should be more outraged by what Gregory did than his action to seek to reclaim his notes, which he said was entirely justified.
We live in a culture of toxic liberal supremacy, where if you’re a well-meaning young conservative just attempting to give a speech to eager students the violent left matriarchy will shout you out, steal your belongings, and then the police will charge YOU.— Lucian B. Wintrich (@lucianwintrich) November 30, 2017
Carlee Drummer, president of Quinebaug Valley Community College, issued a statement about the incident, without naming Gregory, suggesting that the incident had no relevance to Gregory's college role.
"Quinebaug Valley Community College confirms that one of its employees attended a speech given by Mr. Wintrich at the University of Connecticut," the statement said. "The employee attended on her personal time and QVCC learned about the incident when reported in the media. The college does not condone the behavior and encourages peaceful discourse and compassionate debate. The employee attended the event as a private citizen."
Gregory did not respond to an email request for comment, but her lawyer, Jon Schoenhorn, did talk to Inside Higher Ed about her view of what happened and why her actions were justified.
He said that Wintrich grabbed Gregory around her neck in a threatening way after she took his notes, and that police were correct to arrest him.
As to Gregory's actions, he said that Wintrich engages in "hate speech" that is designed to inflame audiences where he appears. He said that Wintrich's actions "are beyond the First Amendment" in their insults of black and Latino and other students.
Schoenhorn said it was incorrect to say, as Wintrich and many others have, that Gregory stole his papers. Schoenhorn said that Gregory never intended to keep the speech but was trying in a "mild and measured way" to calm the situation. "What Ms. Gregory did was the equivalent of unplugging a microphone," he said. "It was not to stop a speech."
On Friday, about 200 students at UConn marched on campus to protest the university's decision to allow Wintrich to speak on campus. Susan Herbst, president of the university, has said repeatedly that she finds Wintrich's rhetoric to be hateful, but also that he has a right -- protected by the First Amendment -- to speak, and that students should protest him in ways other than shouting him down.
A letter to the editor in The Daily Campus, the student newspaper, criticized Herbst for defending Wintrich's rights without having attended the event and seeing the pain it produced. "When your students were faced with the words of a man intending to incite anger, deny the reality of oppression and ultimately physically assault someone over A PIECE OF PAPER you were not there," wrote a student, Emily Steck. "What about this event made your administration believe that freedom of speech should be prioritized over hate speech?"December 1, 2017
On Saturday, Herbst published a column in the Courant in which she suggested that student groups should exercise judgment on whom they invite to speak on campus. "Students should be thoughtful in their invitations and are responsible for them. Having the right to invite a speaker does not necessarily mean it is a good idea," Herbst wrote.
At the same time, she wrote, students have the right to invite to campus people of all views, and speakers have a right to be heard. "It is never the role of a university to shield our campuses from speech that is disagreeable, purposely provocative or even outright hateful, such as Wintrich's. These characterizations are in the eye of the beholder, and so it is unwise for us to attempt to draw lines in the sand about what is or is not protected speech," Herbst wrote. "Our Constitution and courts have already broadly defined free speech. Universities should not attempt to create our own narrower interpretation, which would never withstand a challenge."Editorial Tags: Student lifeImage Caption: Speaker is arrested at UConn.Is this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment:
Two’s company and three’s a crowd. Four, apparently, is grounds for resignation, especially when it’s accompanied with 171 text messages and 11 phone calls over a 36-day period.
That’s the number of times that Anthony Carter, chief of police at the University of Cincinnati Police Division, contacted a female faculty member during and after an investigation into threats her estranged husband, also a faculty member, made after discovering a photo that allegedly showed her in a compromising position with another male faculty member. Carter “unnecessarily and without precedent” inserted himself into the investigation, according to a report by an outside firm, commissioned by the university and obtained via public records request by The Cincinnati Enquirer.
Carter has since stepped down from his role as chief of police and is now working as a researcher at the UC Institute of Crime Science in a position slated to run until September 2018. His new assignment was announced shortly after his resignation in late November.
The faculty members involved in the investigation were not named in the report, but the basic rundown of the scenario -- which also includes a cameo by the Westboro Baptist Church -- looked like this: the husband discovered a photo of his wife and a co-worker in a “sexual setting” and commented to a university dean that he would kill the male faculty member.
The comment was reported on Sept. 1 to the director of public safety, who then told Carter to follow up on the matter. One of his detectives interviewed both the married faculty members.
The husband admitted making that statement but said it was made in the heat of the moment and under duress, and he had no plans on following through. The wife said she was not romantically involved with the other faculty member, and that her husband wasn’t a threat to them. The wife later indicated to the detective that she hadn’t been truthful about her entire account, and the detective tried to set up another interview, although the wife didn’t respond to the request.
Carter entered the scene when he and the female faculty member met in a “purely happenstance” manner, according to the report, when the Westboro Baptist Church staged a demonstration on campus. Carter was there to oversee the safety of the protests and counterprotests, and the wife among many at the university who were there observing. He asked the woman to speak to him regarding the case involving her husband, and later followed up with an email.
Over the next 36 days, their communication became “oddly personal,” according to the woman, and Carter asked her three separate times to meet with him in a social setting -- whether or not these invitations were intended as dates is disputed -- including a Cincinnati Bengals football game. The woman said no to each request.
Carter’s lawyer told the Enquirer that he disagreed with the report’s findings and said his remaining in contact with the woman after the initial investigation into the threats was closed was a professional courtesy. Any notions of a romantic gesture were "misinterpreted," and Carter’s gestures were merely “friendly.” He also said that the female faculty member was the only one who mentioned the concept of a “date” or “romantic relationship,” and that Carter corrected those notions.
The report, the university and campus advocates for victims of sexual harassment, however, disagreed with Carter’s interpretation and said that his extensive communication had the consequences of overstating his authority on the case and making the woman feel more unsafe than she should have felt.
The report’s findings were as follows:
- That Carter did not take the immediate steps necessary to determine if a credible, bona fide threat of physical harm to faculty or students really existed.
- That Carter unnecessarily and without precedent, injected himself into nonsupervisory aspects of the investigation bypassing traditional command and control, heightening his participation only after meeting Wife face-to-face.
- That Carter unnecessarily and inappropriately maintained extended and extensive contact with Wife, well beyond any investigative imperative.
- That Carter, whether intentionally or unintentionally, led Wife to believe that he was acting on behalf of the university in assessing the professional standing of both her and Husband.
- That Cater unnecessarily put wife in fear for her safety, whether intentionally or unintentionally, by overstating any danger to her.
- That Carter failed to officially document his interactions with Wife as would typically be required of an investigating officer dealing with a witness or complainant.
- That Carter failed to inform … his subordinate [detective] working on the case, of all of his contacts with the witness, notwithstanding that there was potentially relevant safety information contained in those conversations.
- That on three separate occasions, Carter inappropriate asked Wife to attend a social activity with him. While Carter denied that any of these requests constituted a “date,” irrespective of its characterization, the conduct constituted inappropriate interaction between Carter, acting as an investigating officer, and a vulnerable witness in the investigation he was conducting.
The chain of events that set off the report occurred later in September when the husband allegedly made another threatening comment about the other male faculty member, which was reported to authorities but denied by the husband. Afterward, though, the female faculty member told him of Carter asking her out after the husband complained that Carter had treated him unfairly in the follow-up interview about the alleged second threat. The husband then told the university that Carter had asked out his wife, and while the university was sorting out that information, Carter asked the wife to see a play with him.
On Oct. 24, about a month after the university was informed of Carter’s communications with the wife, Exiger, an outside consulting firm, was asked to look into the matter. The university asked Carter to resign on Nov. 22, two days after the report was completed, and Carter appealed before ultimately turning in a resignation. University lawyers had found that his actions were inappropriate but did not warrant his dismissal, according to more documents obtained by the Enquirer.
A day after his resignation was accepted -- Nov. 27 -- the university announced his research position. Carter has been positively credited, according to his personnel file, with helping rewrite the department's mission statement and increasing diversity.
“In sum, we find that while Carter may have been concerned about the overall well-being of Wife, he engaged in inappropriate conduct, which was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to further his own personal interests,” the report read. Carter’s combination of actions and inactions “leads to the conclusion that the threats were not his primary interest or concern if any real concern at all.”Editorial Tags: CrimeImage Caption: Anthony Carter, former police chiefIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment:
The University of Mississippi’s third major incident involving violations by football boosters has led the National Collegiate Athletic Association to take the unusual step of barring the Rebels program from postseason play in 2018 -- a penalty the university said it would “vigorously appeal.”
The verdict comes after the NCAA’s Division I Committee on Infractions found that six football staffers and a dozen boosters had helped funnel $37,000 in cash payments to recruits and provide access to free lodging, cars, meals and apparel. The university lacked institutional control over its football program, the committee concluded, a finding the NCAA has used with decreasing frequency in recent years.
In addition to the 2018 bowl ban, the Rebels face scholarship reductions and several of its former or current coaches or administrators were given show-cause orders, meaning they are likely to be limited from athletics-related positions for a certain number of years.
Mississippi must also pay $5,000 in addition to the roughly $180,000 fine it chose to pay and vacate games in which ineligible players were involved.
Former head coach Hugh Freeze, who resigned in July amid revelations that he had called an escort service from his work phone, will be suspended for two games in the 2018 season should any other NCAA institution hire him.
But the 2018 bowl ban remains the harshest punishment, in part because NCAA rules stipulate senior players can now transfer without penalty, potentially weakening Mississippi’s position in the Southeastern Conference.
Chancellor Jeffrey S. Vitter released a statement saying the university intended to fight the 2018 ban. It had already taken itself out of postseason play for the 2017 season.
“The additional postseason ban is excessive and does not take into account the corrective actions that we have made in personnel, structure, policies and processes to address the issues,” Vitter said in a statement.
The university faced “strikingly similar” cases in both 1986 and 1994, said Greg Christopher, the NCAA’s chief hearing officer and athletics director at Xavier University, in a call with reporters Friday.
“This is now the third case over three decades that has involved the boosters and football program,” the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions wrote in its decision. “Even the head coach acknowledged that upon coming to Mississippi, he was surprised by the ‘craziness’ of boosters trying to insert themselves into his program.”
While some expected much stronger sanctions against Freeze, Christopher said Friday that the coach had promoted an “atmosphere of compliance” but simply failed to exercise oversight over his staff. Freeze also cooperated throughout the investigation, Christopher said.
In what could be described as an old-school athletics caper, an assistant athletics director arranged for cash payouts facilitated by boosters to some prospects, between $13,000 and $15,600, and then lied about it in an interview with NCAA investigators, the Committee on Infractions said.
Two staffers forged ACT scores for the recruits and organized for a booster to provide five recruits with housing and transportation while they completed academic work to be eligible.
One particularly interesting aspect of the case was the involvement of one Mississippi State University football star, Leo Lewis, who had been wooed by multiple SEC programs, including Ole Miss.
SBNation reported in depth on the deal the NCAA struck with Lewis: it would offer him limited immunity from punishments if he would share details of the cash and perks institutions had showered him with.
Lewis’s statements to the NCAA helped bury the University of Mississippi but also placed him as a co-defendant in a civil lawsuit that could cost him big money if he is found liable, SBNation reported. The plaintiff is the suit is Rebel Rag, an apparel shop that is alleging defamation against Lewis.
In a highly unusual move, Lewis was brought in to testify to the Committee on Infractions.
Christopher said that the NCAA had offered this partial immunity to six individuals in the course of the investigation. He also criticized the leaks to press, saying they degraded the integrity of the investigation.
“We don’t stress confidentiality to be secretive or to not be transparent about our process,” he said.Is this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment:
The U.S. Senate early Saturday morning narrowly approved major tax legislation roundly opposed by higher education leaders and student groups. The bill, like the House of Representatives' tax plan passed last month, got no public hearings and senators themselves complained they had no opportunity to read the legislation even as last-minute amendments were offered affecting issues like private college endowments and education savings plans.
The 51-to-49 Senate vote sets up negotiations with House leaders over substantial differences between the two bills. Most in higher education view the House version as substantially more harmful for students and colleges than the Senate bill, but many also have major concerns about the Senate legislation.
Both bills would create significant potential new tax burdens for higher education institutions and would, college leaders predict, adversely affect charitable giving and state budgets that support public colleges and universities.
Senate lawmakers approved multiple amendments Friday to provisions that would affect higher education. One allows taxpayers to deduct only up to $10,000 for state and local property taxes. Previous language eliminated state and local deductions entirely. Even with that change, however, higher education leaders say the cap could put strains on state budgets. The fear is that wealthy taxpayers in states that invest substantially in public colleges and other services will push to cut spending generally, since they will no longer receive a tax break on their state and local payments.
Like the House bill, the Senate legislation imposes a new 1.4 percent excise tax on the largest endowments held by private colleges. But thanks to an amendment offered Friday, the tax will apply only to endowments valued at $500,000 per full-time student. Previously, that provision would have applied to endowments valued at $250,000 per student. But although the tax will apply to only the wealthiest private institutions, higher education leaders call it a flawed idea that sets a worrying precedent.
Another amendment blocked by senators Friday would have specifically exempted from the endowment tax Hillsdale College, a private institution in Michigan with ties to Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education, and an institution praised by many conservatives.
Also like the House legislation, the Senate tax plan doubles the standard deduction for tax filers, a change that charitable groups say would hurt incentives for donating to tax-exempt entities like colleges. (See a complete breakdown of provisions in both bills ahead of Friday's amendments here.)
But the Senate plan does not include provisions to strip many tax benefits for students pursuing a college or graduate degree or paying off their loans, making it a significant improvement over the House bill, said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, in a written statement. Student and faculty groups staged protests across the country this week against the elimination of the student tax benefits. The protests focused in particular on a provision of the House bill that would tax graduate student tuition waivers as income -- a change those groups say would make graduate education unattainable for many students.
"We are especially pleased that the Senate recognizes the importance of education benefits that help millions of middle- and lower-income students and families finance a college education," Mitchell said. "We hope that any final legislation will leave these critically important benefits in place."
In addition, the final Senate bill dropped a proposal to add consequential new costs for business activities unrelated to a college's core academic mission -- everything from the rental of laboratory facilities to income from special events. It also did not include taxes on royalty income generated from licensing of a college's name and logo. Those activities by colleges have little apparent connection to academics, but higher education groups said costs from those taxes would have an effect on colleges' ability to pay for student support.
And Mitchell said changes to the standard deduction and new caps on state and local tax deductions were problematic provisions of the Senate bill.
"As a result, we are deeply concerned that at a time when postsecondary degrees and credentials have never been more important to individuals, the economy and our society, the tax reform proposal approved by the Senate could make college more expensive and undermine the financial stability of higher education institutions," he said. "This is simply wrongheaded."Editorial Tags: Breaking NewsFederal policyAd Keyword: Tax ReformIs this diversity newsletter?: Newsletter Order: 0Is this Career Advice newsletter?: Magazine treatment: