Each year at this time, the staff of the Martin Center share our higher-ed-reform dreams for the coming 12 months. Will all of our wishes come true? Probably not. Nevertheless, we offer them here in a spirit of optimism, for the reader’s enjoyment and edification.
Keep Title IX Out of College-Sports Revenue Sharing
Last year, the Boston College Law Review (BCLR) published an article on the “equity implications” of paying college athletes, a topic made pressing by Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s NCAA v. Alston concurrence and the related settlement of House v. NCAA.
As a review, Kavanaugh joined in full the Court’s 2021 decision that NCAA restrictions on player “name, image, and likeness” compensation violated antitrust law. Yet he noted separately that the NCAA’s entire business model, which bars student athletes from direct participation in profit sharing, “would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.” House v. NCAA, scheduled for settlement finalization in April, promises to change that template. Henceforth, college athletes will receive up to 22 percent of ticket, television, and sponsorship revenue, a sum that will amount to billions of dollars a year.
Division I football players should keep their hundreds of millions, and women’s fencing should keep their vending-machine nickels.Though the resulting divvying up will be hugely complicated, BCLR’s question was relatively simple: Do current Title IX regulations require equal payouts to male and female athletes? The law review’s answer, based on a close reading of current guidance, was “no.” Thus, the authors suggested, the Department of Education should issue new rules ensuring that men and women receive “proportionately equal payments for their athletic services.”
This would be a terrible idea. Subjugating free markets to highly politicized notions of “fairness” usually is. Nevertheless, as if reading over BCLR’s shoulder, the Biden education department signaled exactly this move in a July ’24 statement to ESPN, assuring reporters that “schools must provide equal … benefits, opportunities, publicity, and recruitment, and must not discriminate in the provision of financial aid” in the post-House era. In other words, male athletes, whose sports bring in billions, must share equally with female athletes, whose sports don’t. Applied to the non-college-sports sector, such thinking would see Tesla sharing profits not only with its own employees but with Ford’s. After all, both groups are making cars.
The incoming Trump administration should put a stop to this nonsense posthaste. Division I football players should keep their hundreds of millions, and women’s fencing should keep their vending-machine nickels. For that matter, when a Caitlin Clark arises and ladies’ basketball begins raking in the dough, women shouldn’t have to give those dollars to men’s lacrosse.
It would be a crime if the big-money sports, having finally secured justice for players, were forced into a crypto-Marxist sharing of the wealth. This year in higher ed, let’s stop that happening.
-Graham Hillard, Editor
Stop Approving Blatantly Political Courses
Among the reasons why higher education has lost so much of its formerly high level of trust in America is the perception among the people that what is being taught often has nothing to do with a broad and useful education but instead is a jumble of politicized courses. Professors abuse their positions with “teaching” that is obviously designed to subject students to their beliefs, with good grades for those who regurgitate those beliefs. Parents and taxpayers don’t want to pay for that.
If higher-education leaders want to regain trust (and funding), they would do well to learn to say “no” when faculty members propose courses that appear to be mere opinion mongering. The best place to start would be with that hottest of issues currently, the Israel versus Gaza conflict. Here’s an example: Cornell University has approved a course for the spring semester taught by a professor, Eric Cheyfitz, who is clearly filled with animosity toward Israel. Cornell’s administration should have turned this course down, since it seems that it will inflame rather than enlighten.
A good rule for administrators to follow when presented with courses that look like activism disguised as education is the title (and substance) of a book by Professor Stanley Fish: Save the World On Your Own Time.
This rule applies to all courses that revolve around theories and opinions rather than bodies of knowledge.That applies not just to current topics but to all other courses that revolve around theories and opinions rather than bodies of knowledge. Consider a forthcoming course at the University of Maryland that will focus on fatness, blackness, intersectionality, and systems of oppression. The university’s administration should have said “no,” because this course isn’t about knowledge but only the pushing of grievances.
Once college officials find that they can and should say “no” to proposals for politicized courses, then they should go through their course catalogues and comb out those where the professor is using school resources to promote his or her views about the world. It is not an affront to their academic freedom to say, “You can talk or write about this material on your own, but not in our classes.”
-George Leef, Director of External Relations
Allow More Higher-Ed Differentiation
In the coming year, I’d like to see more differentiation between universities, including more innovation and experimentation—and a supportive regulatory environment that encourages such distinctions.
Today, variation between universities is mostly limited to differences in student quality or superficial differences in university characteristics (e.g., location, size, number of graduate students). For undergraduates, the experience is similar whether they’re at UCLA or UNCP. General education, major requirements, number of hours, career services: The quality of these offerings may vary, but the essentials are the same.
There are, of course, a few exceptions: St. John’s College (and a few others) offer distinctive “Great Books” curricula. Work colleges (which I wrote about here) combine work, service, and learning. But, on the whole, universities offer remarkably little variation. Universities that were once solely STEM-focused now offer a robust list of humanities and social-science majors.
This sameness doesn’t serve students, whose wants and needs vary widely.
Accreditors are part of the problem. By setting rigid standards, resisting non-traditional models, and offering limited flexibility for new providers (among other challenges), accreditors powerfully dissuade innovation. Opening the door to new accreditors will help create a regulatory environment where universities can innovate, experiment, and deliver models that serve students, the marketplace, and society.
With new regulations, we could see a variety of changes that differentiate universities from one another, including:
- Unique curricula, alternative teaching methods, or unconventional academic programs that fall outside the traditional scope of higher education;
- Quicker responses to a changing job market;
- More non-traditional delivery models (e.g., year-long programs, online instruction, competency-based education);
- More specialized programs and start-ups;
- Innovative curriculum design;
- More faculty with professional or industry expertise instead of terminal academic degrees; and
- Cost-cutting innovations.
This kind of variety and true diversity would meet students’ needs far better than the current one-size-fits-most model that we have today. Let’s free the market to do what it does best: serve its customers through competition and cooperation.
-Jenna A. Robinson, President
Make Classes Harder
We need a major shift in academic standards on college campuses, spurred on by both professors and students. Professors are still capable of influencing their students, and that includes holding them to a higher standard. Let’s say goodbye to the days of easy A’s and B’s and get back to the rewarding of actual achievement. Let’s encourage students to take pride in their work rather than just getting by. C’s may get you degrees, but it’s admirable to strive for more.
Students are far more capable than is often indicated by their treatment.Students are far more capable than is often indicated by their treatment. The rise of college-student infantilization is a prime example of this phenomenon. By ensuring that campuses are cushy “safe spaces,” and by holding students’ hands through four years of college, academia is doing a major disservice to countless 18-to-22-year-olds. This emotional stunting not only lowers students’ ability to meet challenges, but it also diminishes their self-confidence. There is much to be said about the pride and self-discipline one gains from registering for and attending classes on one’s own, as well as from applying oneself to achieve a top grade while in school. College should help launch students into adulthood, yet, as the Martin Center has covered this year (see here, here, here, and here), it has instead become in many instances an overly curated environment in which students regress in their personal autonomy and maturity.
People (students included) will mostly rise to meet whatever standard is set for them, and that is true also when expectations are lowered. The Martin Center has written about how academia is in many instances losing its rigor, and standards are being lowered across the board. Many students are indeed lowering themselves to reach the minimal expectations put forth by many colleges and universities.
In an effort to train students for the potential challenges of adulthood and the workforce, professors should encourage students to apply themselves by upping the difficulty of their classes. I would love to see students rise to the occasion and be confident in their abilities to meet and go beyond expectations. The classroom environment, when cultivated by professors dedicated to students’ success and learning, is a unique place to explore new ideas and grow in understanding of important topics. As such, professors should look for ways to break down barriers to learning and discussion, all the while challenging their students in the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
Such efforts can have a great ripple effect on academia and society as a whole.
-Ashlynn Warta, State Reporter
Get Ready for America’s Birthday
The start of a new year often inspires fresh plans and goals. In the United States, 2025 is an opportunity to reflect on and prepare for the 250th anniversary (semiquincentennial) of the country’s founding. Efforts to commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence are underway at various levels of government. Congress, for example, established the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission, and the North Carolina legislature convened a non-standing committee dedicated to studying the state’s role in the country’s founding and exploring ways to engage citizens with that history.
Colleges and universities, particularly public institutions, should also find ways to recognize this momentous occasion. Below is a list of ideas institutions can consider implementing:
Assign a common read.
Colleges often assign or recommend books for the campus community to read together to cultivate a shared intellectual experience. The Declaration of Independence, and perhaps one or two other founding documents, would be ideal titles for the 2025-26 academic year.
Colleges and universities, particularly public institutions, should find ways to recognize this momentous occasion.Organize a speaker series.
Many of the historians, philosophers, artists, and literary scholars housed in colleges and universities are sources of insight into various aspects of the country’s earliest days. A speaker series highlighting notable events, works, and individuals from the founding period is a way to recognize faculty and educate the campus community.
Create an essay contest.
A little competition may motivate students to dive deeper into early American history. Institutions should consider holding an essay contest prompting students to reflect on a theme related to the founding. The prompt can be narrow (e.g., a specific town’s role in the revolution) or broad and open-ended (e.g., what the Declaration of Independence means to you).
Host a reenactment.
Nothing brings history to life quite like a reenactment. Hosting a “Living History Event” such as a mock-debate between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would be a creative—and likely popular—way to engage students with the country’s underlying ideas and ideals.
The 2026 semiquincentennial will be here before we know it. Colleges and universities should spend next year getting ready.
-Shannon Watkins, Research Associate