After the tumultuous academic year just completed, there’s not a university leadership in the country that isn’t using the relative quiet of summer to evaluate all policies and procedures related to expression and protest. This makes good sense. Many institutions did seem flat-footed in the face of unprecedented activity and scrutiny. And now comes a fall semester with a high-stakes divisive election added to the already-combustible mix.��

We are doing the same thing here at ����vlog, New Jersey’s second largest higher education institution. But like many colleges, we are also trying to do more than gird ourselves for the coming storm. There is an opportunity – and a real need – to encourage constructive engagement and not just minimize risk. Universities have a key role to play at what feels like an inflection point for American democracy. Let’s try to channel the passion of our students into democracy-building action. This is not easy, of course. We are deeply divided as a country, and that extends to many campus communities.��

Even more profoundly, we confront evolving cultural norms that favor disagreement over discourse and are, in some cases, simply anti-democratic in treatment of dissent or fact. The divisiveness is perpetuated and amplified by social media, political operatives and advocacy groups. That’s exactly why it’s on us, as higher education leaders, to intentionally build the muscle memory of an engaged campus culture built around a shared aspiration to advance the common good. We have the ability and resources – unique from almost any other institution in society – to cultivate an environment where people from different backgrounds can respectfully co-exist, interact and collaborate. So, if we’re not the ones attempting to foster a spirit of positive civic engagement – who will?

At Montclair, we’re practicing what we preach. As an indicator of our efforts, last month we received the . The classification recognizes 25 institutions that promote effective leadership transcending functional or instrumental objectives in pursuit of collective public goods like equity, harmony, sustainability and liberty. Others featured on the list include Arizona State University; California State University, Fresno; James Madison University; and the United States Naval Academy.��

I’m proud of the efforts that earned this recognition but even more energized by what’s possible if all of higher education embraces the goal of creating citizen-leaders. This takes sustained and nuanced hard work, but imagine the impact we can have if we collectively harness the power of thousands of students, faculty and staff to strengthen our civic fabric.��

Based on what we’ve learned at Montclair and numerous other institutions that are leading the way, here are some tangible ways to do this:

1. Embrace public service as a gateway to civic engagement. At Montclair, we have multiple service-oriented leadership programs, such as NextGen Service Corps, Bonner Leaders and AmeriCorps, that introduce students to key concepts and practices while building skills in teamwork and community partnership. Most importantly, students get a sense of their own potential for efficacy through engagement. We seek to go beyond these programs to teach this key lesson. All of our departments and colleges are building courses that create hands-on learning opportunities while addressing a wide range of issues, from unequal educational and health outcomes to environmental and social justice, poverty, human trafficking and climate change.

This type of activity opens the door to broader engagement by introducing students to the complexity of challenges. It creates opportunities for dialogue with people who have different views and demonstrates that most solutions require understanding and collaboration, which cannot be achieved through toxic Instagram posts.

2. Intentionally build discourse and constructive engagement skills. It’s critical to ensure that our faculty, staff, and students feel comfortable facilitating difficult conversations and to equip them with the tools they need. That’s why I joined , an initiative of The Institute for Citizens & Scholars that brings together university leaders from across the country and political spectrum to design and share resources that help students prosper in a pluralistic society. This summer, the organization will hold their Faculty Institute on our campus, which trains faculty to be skilled, confident, and comfortable in creating, leading, and sustaining spaces for diverse intellectual and social perspectives.��

We teach students to do the same. Our Office for Social Justice and Diversity trains students to facilitate workshops that cover a range of topics, such as safe spaces, microaggressions, and diversity and inclusion. Students learn how to navigate tough situations by speaking freely and respectfully as they build alliances around an understanding of differences. These sessions have demonstrated that peers listen to peers, resulting in improved communication, problem solving and conflict management skills. This is what our democracy desperately needs!��

3. Don’t shy away from promoting political activity.��There is nothing more fundamental in a democracy than voting. And it should not be controversial to promote this activity as long as we are assiduously non-partisan.�� We should urge members of our community to participate in an informed and habitual fashion and underscore not just the symbolic value of this activity but its substantive significance. This often means getting beyond presidential politics – which many students scoff at particularly in states that seem definitively “red” or “blue” – by shining light on legislative and municipal races. A local focus often has the added benefit of making the effort non-partisan which is an absolute must.

That is a key component of the partnership between Montclair’s Civic and Voter Engagement Office and the . This year, we’ll ramp up our collective efforts by launching an educational bipartisan social media campaign, hosting voter registration events, providing shuttle service from campus for students to vote, and offering polling location information for students who live off campus.

4. Demonstrate collaboration through community partnership. Every time we do work with off-campus partners, we have the opportunity to teach our students how action rooted in trust and understanding is most effective. This is an apolitical but tangible illustration of what is missing in the civic realm.��

The best way for us to serve is to come up with projects based NOT on our own ideas and priorities; the direction needs to come from community. We need to act as true partners by laying down deep roots, being active participants, and demonstrating commitment to lasting, sustainable change. Most importantly, we need to listen to the frustrations and aspirations of our neighbors.

5. Join forces to amplify effort.��We can’t work alone and we shouldn’t reinvent the wheel. That’s why, in addition to Citizens and Scholars, I’ve also joined ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge’s to draw inspiration from peers and organizations that have done great work in this space. Working together, higher education leaders can ensure that students all over America are well-equipped to be productively engaged citizens.��

I believe that universities committed to advancing the needs of society are essential to conquering the problems that confront us and that the students we serve will be those responsible for bringing about positive change. That includes cultivating our democratic norms and institutions. That’s why from the moment they step on our campuses, students must see our strong commitment to civic engagement and have access to examples that demonstrate the power it can have over divisive activism.��

There are those urging universities to retreat from the public arena. There can be no neutrality when it comes to democracy, however. Our institutions can only thrive in a free, open society so this is an existential matter. It’s up to each of us to draw lessons from colleagues doing great work to preserve these conditions. Let’s support each other as we take responsibility for the vitality of the American democratic republic.

I’ve thought about that speech a lot as higher education continues to come under intense scrutiny. I strongly believe in staunchly defending the role of universities as engines of public good that bring enormous value to their communities and the nation. But I also believe in self-reflection and admitting our faults. I share more about this with Inside Higher Ed in .��

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Today’s students are some of the most remarkable and resilient that I’ve seen in my career as a higher education leader. Faced with more twists and turns than any generation in recent memory, they remain optimistic, hungry and ready to make a difference.

But despite this self-assurance, there’s one major concern that looms as a challenge for this cohort: the ability to constructively manage conflict.

It’s been widely discussed that the pandemic generation around the world. But perhaps even more alarming is how quickly they fell behind in developing the interpersonal skills that are so important for living and working alongside one another. On college campuses, we witness the effects on a daily basis, with many of our students finding it hard to constructively advocate for what they need or to deal with disagreements in a solutions-oriented manner. The result is a worrisome rise in student conflicts on campus.

How did we get here? Today’s students have emerged as adults in a distinct environment for several big reasons:

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated rates of seclusion, leaving young people cloistered during the crucial years when they should have been building social capital. The problem is such that U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued in our country, pointing to showing that the time young people spend with their peers has decreased by nearly 70% in the last two decades.

Many of these students celebrated rites of passage like prom or graduation over Zoom. Perhaps they didn’t experiment with dating or were unable to spend quality, in-person time with others their age during critical growth years. As a result, we see a lack of sophistication and social acuity needed to help them manage relationships in college.

For example, we’ve seen roommates who – despite sharing a living space – only communicate over text. We’ve even had students ask faculty and administrators for advice on how to talk to someone they’re interested in dating. And we regularly see groups of students sitting together, glued to their smartphones instead of engaging in conversations with one another.

They’re overly reliant on their parents to problem solve. Students are highly connected to their parents, often inhibiting their ability to make autonomous decisions or manage conflict on their own. Students all too readily hand our staff their phones with a parent on the other end, ready to take control of the situation rather than allow their child to gain the independence they need for when they graduate and enter the workforce. I regularly receive calls from parents expecting me to mitigate individual issues.

We’re facing a broader degradation of societal norms. The rise of simultaneously caused a decline in our expectations of decent behavior. In the digital realm, people hide behind their phones as they troll or argue with others anonymously. And that’s if they’re even looking at content they disagree with – the algorithms are sorting us into camps based on interests and beliefs, making it less likely we interact with anyone outside our own echo chamber. This can make it tough to transition to “real-life” situations, where students are living in dorms and attending classes with people who hold a wide range of beliefs and values.

The adults aren’t setting a good example. Today’s students came of age when the former U.S. president – one of the most influential and visible people in the world – was embraced and celebrated for his strident and confrontational style rather than for encouraging understanding and compromise. His success paved the way for so many other politicians, business leaders, celebrities – really, anyone else with an opinion and access to a computer or a smartphone – to follow suit. The kids were watching.

So, in the face of all of this, what’s the solution?

Teach by example. As my colleague Mildred García, chancellor of the 450,000-plus student California State University system, put it at a recent , we must teach students how to have civil debates and dialogue. One of the most important aspects of being in college is learning how to live in a civil democracy, and it’s our responsibility to uphold those standards.

Anyone with exposure to young people should demonstrate this personally: Sit down with students, and explain a different point of view face to face. Teach them how to explain themselves, while having the patience to listen to the thoughts of others. Emphasize that you’ll get a lot further when you’re not always on the attack or immediately playing defense.

Help them find their voice through training and mediation. At Montclair, we employ a number of strategies to ensure students can self-advocate instead of being reliant on others for guidance and decision-making. These include skill development opportunities during orientation, a roommate mediation center run by graduate students in our counseling program, and a peer training program called Social Justice Education.

The programming helps students learn how to navigate difficult conversations and supports inclusive connection by encouraging them to speak freely and respectfully as they build alliances around an understanding of differences. These sessions have demonstrated that peers listen to peers, resulting in improved communication, problem-solving and conflict management skills. This is what our democracy desperately needs! That’s why I joined College Presidents for Civic Preparedness, an initiative of the , to promote a shared commitment to providing students with the tools they need to prosper in a pluralistic society.

Champion intentional collaboration around shared interests. To combat the challenge of separating students from their phones and video games, we’ve launched groups like the Montclair University Gamers, which offers lively community and social engagement. This approach takes a commonality between the participants and introduces it in different social contexts, allowing them to contribute to real-life interactions without giving up their safety net.

But we find that others actually crave activities away from their screens. A group that’s risen in popularity post-pandemic is Montclair Unraveled, our knitting and crocheting club. Students make conversation while doing something productive with their hands.

We also strongly encourage public service and create opportunities for students to engage. While working in the community, students often find themselves in unfamiliar situations and interacting with people from different backgrounds. Yet when they know their purpose is to collectively focus on a shared goal that is bigger than themselves, interpersonal conflicts take a back seat.

Our goal is always to inspire students to look at the bigger picture as we prepare them to become responsible and engaged citizens. That mission is even more heightened during a critical election year. I’m focused on bridging the gap between our students and society by serving on the ’s 2024 Presidents’ Council to help create a culture of nonpartisan civic engagement and voter participation on all campuses.

No one purposely set out to prevent young people from appropriately engaging with their peers. But I do believe that all of us need to make a concerted effort to change the path that was charted over the past several years. We need to be more intentional and teach by example the necessary skills to navigate conflict with confidence, understanding and empathy.

At a time when our nation is more divided than ever, it’s on us to double down on helping students learn how to engage with each other respectfully.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

The popularity of pursuing education abroad is on the rise. The number of Indian students studying abroad rose steadily after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching a six-year high in 2022, and the U.S. welcomed more students from India than ever before. Second only to China, India reached an all-time high in international student enrollment in the U.S. last year, as America issued a record number of student visas.

Both countries gain a great deal from this valuable partnership, propelled by significant changes in immigration policies. Students are exposed to academic excellence, diverse programs and research opportunities, professional development, and cross-cultural immersion. American universities benefit from the talent and diversity Indian students bring to campus, enriching their intercultural exchange of ideas and expertise.

For students and families, choosing where to study abroad can be overwhelming when faced with thousands of choices. While it might be tempting to focus on the more well-known or exclusive schools in the U.S., it’s important to keep in mind that many others pair excellence with accessibility. By looking beyond the most “famous” institutions, you will realize that some schools are not only more affordable, but they offer even more opportunities to transform the lives of students.

Several practical considerations, interests, and career goals must be carefully considered when choosing a degree program. Beyond academic quality and cost, here are some other areas to explore:

Location

The location of a university can have a huge impact on the student’s overall experience, both in terms of feeling “at home” as well as proximity to external opportunities. Factors to consider include an urban, suburban, or rural environment; climate; access to job, internship, and networking opportunities in the region; and the cultural makeup of the area.

If retaining close ties to India while studying abroad is important, refer to organizations like Indian American Impact to better understand the Indian presence in different states. For example, Indians make up the majority of the state’s immigrant population in New Jersey, where ����vlog is located. In February 2024, Governor Phil Murphy announced the launch of the New Jersey-India Commission to further promote cultural and educational exchanges between the two.

Inclusive Environment

Beyond the wider region, consider how important diversity is within the campus community. One of the best parts about studying abroad is the opportunity to engage with others from all over the world. To get that experience, which is so important for fostering future leaders who understand and appreciate cultures outside of their own, it’s crucial to be in a truly inclusive environment.

Schools like Montclair offer resources for student belonging and assimilation, with dedicated programs to make sure all students are positioned to thrive regardless of their background. But this is not the same at all schools, as recent legislative changes in parts of the country have changed how these initiatives are structured. It’s important to do due diligence to explore what is available to meet your needs.

Employable Degrees

Schools must move quickly to update and introduce programs to meet the changing needs of the workforce. For example, consider programs that are specifically designed to meet growing demands for computer & data scientists, address the public health crisis, and tackle the global teacher shortage.

Many university programs offer hands-on learning experiences outside of the classroom, offering the opportunity to engage in internships, apprenticeships, and networking opportunities with employers. These experiences offer transferable skills for job prospects all over the world.

Focus on Output

Many schools will boast of their exclusivity and low acceptance rates, but the marginal effect of attending that university should matter much more. The main question to ask is not “How many students got rejected?” but “How will earning a degree from this institution alter the trajectory of my life?”

Media outlets like U.S. News, World Report and Wall Street Journal have tried to answer this question by focusing on factors like graduation rate, value added to a graduate’s salary, and the amount of time it takes to pay off student debt. Their rankings show how institutions change the lives of students and their families by evaluating who offers affordability without compromising quality. They, therefore, describe the best institutions as engines of social mobility, something that resonates with Indian students considering earning a degree abroad.

The increasing trend of Indian students pursuing higher education in the US is promising and exciting. Linking the deep talent pool in India with the academic resources and research opportunities at American universities is a recipe for advancement that benefits the entire world.

for President Koppell’s views on:

What are some strategies for fostering connections between a university & its local community?

What are the pressing needs for colleges & universities to embrace new technologies & teaching models?

What does he see as the future of Higher Education?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions last June fueled heated debates and raised questions about the distribution of opportunities to attend highly selective education institutions.

Among them is: How will we ensure diverse leadership in this country if student diversity decreases at Ivy League and other top colleges?

That question, while well-intentioned, is overly narrow. We should instead be asking this: Why are we so laser-focused on the graduates of a tiny number of schools, presuming they are the rightful inhabitants of leadership posts in business and government?

As a professor, dean and now a college president with decades of experience at public and private schools (including the Ivy League), I’ve found that the most impressive students often come from less prestigious institutions.

So why are we unwilling to recognize that great leaders can and do come from a wide variety of educational backgrounds? And why do we lean so heavily into a highly flawed filtering system that privileges people of means and connection?

The answers are rooted in the mistaken but prevailing narrative that selectivity equals quality. We adhere to the notion that the more competitive an institution, the better it must be — and that students admitted into these coveted spots must be superior to those who are not.

Unfortunately, this is why many employers looking for the best talent narrowly focus on graduates of “elite” institutions. Research reveals the degree to which these schools fuel the pipeline for some of the most prestigious leadership roles in America.

found that although just 1 percent of U.S. students attend Ivy-Plus schools (the eight Ivy League schools plus MIT, Duke, Stanford, and University of Chicago), they account for more than 13 percent of those in the top 0.1 percent of U.S. income distribution, a quarter of U.S. senators, nearly half of all Rhodes Scholars, five of the last 12 U.S. presidents and almost three-quarters of Supreme Court Justices since 1963. And “Attending an Ivy-Plus college instead of a flagship public college triples students’ chances of obtaining jobs at prestigious firms,” the research found.

If we treat those outcomes as fixed, unless these schools diversify, we won’t have diverse leadership in government, business and academia.

But those outcomes are not fixed. The study’s authors didn’t question the imbalance of opportunities perpetuated by the heavy reliance on these 12 top schools out of thousands of other fine colleges and universities.

Why only 12? Tweaking the composition of the student body at only 12 elite institutions was never going to fix our diversity problem.

Countless outstanding graduates emerge from non-Ivy institutions that embrace students from varied backgrounds and with fewer resources.

Yes, these students frequently display incredible “grit” and “resilience,” but that praise is too-often offered as a kind of offset for an assumed talent deficit. That’s nonsense. Many students at more accessible institutions can run intellectual circles around their peers at “top schools.”

To disregard their talent because they don’t have the “right” degree is to leave acres and acres of human potential wasted.

We need to wash away the prevailing attitude — among those making hiring decisions, graduate school admissions decisions and other evaluations of college graduates — that attendance at an elite institution is a perfect proxy for excellence. This requires reformulating ranking systems that reward institutions for being exclusionary.

If everyone in a hiring position focused on individuals’ attributes, abilities and achievements, it would have an enormous impact on increasing diversity in leadership.

And diversity is what we’re looking for. Recent found that, when asked to evaluate how current business and political leaders are reacting to societal challenges, the vast majority of Americans somewhat or strongly agreed that “even great leaders are not suited to handle all crises” and that some emerging crises faced by society today require “a new crop of leaders to emerge with new skill sets.” Poll respondents also overwhelmingly indicated that “having more diverse leaders would allow for better outcomes in government, business, etc.,” and that “society would be better if we evolved past the ’traditional’ leader (e.g., male, white, older, etc.).”

Fortunately, it was never necessary to believe that 12 schools could alter the leadership landscape for our entire country. There are many colleges and universities working hard to foster diversity simply by increasing access to high-quality education. Just by leveling the playing field, they are producing a diverse set of highly capable graduates prepared and eager to make an impact on the world, and changing lives in the process.

Many of us are steadfast in our belief that accessibility and excellence must go hand in hand. Yet too often, our schools — and by extension, our students — remain in the shadow of a small but influential group of institutions built on histories of exclusion and privilege.

New Jersey’s second-largest higher education institution, ����vlog, where I serve as president, is one of these overshadowed schools. Built on an ethos of inclusion and excellence, we are a minority-majority and Hispanic-Serving Institution.

Last year, 44 percent of our incoming class were first-generation college students, while 48 percent of our undergraduates received Pell Grants. Our accessibility does not undermine our results. Indeed, Montclair’s exceed national medians. And Montclair to defy expectations based on its broader accessibility.

There is no question that Ivy-Plus schools offer a small number of people a remarkable education — including me: I was fortunate to study at Harvard, and I’ve undoubtedly benefited from my association with this august institution. Those advantages have fueled my conviction that real progress requires broadening the pathways to power. To do so we must support the institutions that are cultivating new waves of talent reflective of the diversity of our country.

New Jersey wears its egalitarian spirit on her sleeve. No royalty here. Each of us deserves our own shot at success. So as the new president at ����vlog, I was shocked that the unequal treatment of New Jersey’s college students is shrugged off like traffic on the GWB, just an unavoidable fact of life.

The complex structure of New Jersey’s state investment in college students obscures this surprising reality, but the picture is clear if you pull it apart. Start with the core appropriation to each of the Garden State’s 11 public universities.

A student’s choice of school may mean that the state invests more than $7,000 per student annually in her school or less than $3,000! Some of this disparity can be explained by differences in institutional profile but that only gets you so far.

Consider my students at ����vlog who receive one of the lowest state investments, just $3,047 per student each year in state funding. That’s 30% below the average per student at the other 10 public universities — and a staggering 50% less than the per-student appropriation at the three other public research universities.

Indeed, the inequities are even greater if you include a confusing but critical component of state investment in higher education: coverage of health care and pensions for some university employees. The number covered varies by institution. It is set by the legislature, not guided by enrollment or any other formula.

Just do the math to see how this plays out. At the average NJ research university, it takes seven students to “earn” a single state-supported faculty or staff position. At Montclair, it takes 14 students! Are Montclair students worth only half the investment of students who attend other schools?

Now funding is not destiny. Grit and hard work have a lot to do with success. I am proud that ����vlog students perform as well as or better than students at other senior public universities.

Graduation rates are similar overall and higher for Hispanic and African American students. They are supported by a Montclair faculty and staff that operate at an incredible level of efficiency – 20% fewer employees per student than the average – with a cost per degree lower than all but one in-person, four-year state institution.

We are a recognized leader in social mobility and our students defy expectations. Indeed, Montclair students outpace the graduation rates predicted by their family income by the largest margin in the nation. And they do so while achieving excellence in key fields including education, business, science, communications, health and the arts.

We make this happen by running a lean, mission-focused institution made up of faculty and staff who are passionately dedicated to student success.

This is what we owe our students and the people of New Jersey, our largest investor, and we should be held accountable for these results.

Now there is a highly uncomfortable reality about the disparity in funding that must be addressed. Each institution has a different demographic profile. One strength of Montclair is the fantastic diversity of our majority-minority student population. Here’s the thing though. When you look at the state’s investment per student through the lens of racial and economic equity, it is obvious that New Jersey invests less in minority and low-income students. Let me be clear. I am not saying the intent is discriminatory but it is the effect nonetheless.

This is simply the result of students flocking to Montclair and other growing institutions, drawn to high-quality programs and stellar results in terms of graduation and employment. These hard-working minority students are being shortchanged as a result of their shrewd focus on outcomes. It’s not right, and I must call out this unfair and counterproductive policy because these are not abstract statistics to me. They represent real people.

Like Hunter, a hard-working student from Elizabeth who is the first in his family to pursue a college degree. Or Sienna, a senior from East Orange, who launched her own line of hair-care products for women of color while attending Montclair full-time.

My students speak passionately about their dreams, about the meaning of a degree for their families, and about their plans to give back to their communities. They are not just working hard in their classes but holding down jobs and taking care of families. It isn’t easy, and I am so proud of them.

The people of New Jersey have no interest in continuing the indefensible disparities that are obscured by the politics of budget-making. They see that all of Montclair’s 21,000 students — and underfunded students at other institutions — offer the same fantastic return on public investment. That is, after all, the premise of enlightened, important policies like the Garden State Guarantee.

Our legislators have the power to start righting this wrong in the current budget. My colleagues at six public universities have come together to propose a common-sense starting point: set a floor of $3,750 annual investment per student. That would still allow for significant variation reflecting institutional differences. It will not erase all of the inequities, but it gets the ball rolling. Now is the time to bring an equity lens to our higher education funding system. Let’s get this done. Our students deserve no less.

Jonathan G S Koppell