Changing Higher Ed

Most universities, Shawn Banzhaf says, would be happy if 5% of their students were military-connected. At Arizona State University he puts the figure at about 13%, roughly 22,000 military-connected students. In his experience, serving them well takes more than processing GI Bill benefits: it takes understanding a different culture, making expectations explicit and building community from the first day.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Shawn Banzhaf, Executive Director of the Pat Tillman Veterans Center at Arizona State University. The conversation covers military culture training for faculty and staff, trauma-informed care, the hidden curriculum and the difference between being military friendly and military supportive.

Banzhaf served 21 years in the Army National Guard, including a deployment to Iraq, before leading the Tillman Center. He walks through the programs ASU uses with its military-connected students, from a wilderness program whose participants, he says, stay through to the end of their degree about 90% of the time to a one-hour training that has reached thousands of faculty and staff.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, boards, enrollment leaders and student affairs teams that serve veterans, service members and military families.

• Who military-connected students are, and why they do not arrive like the ordinary student
• Why support for military students has to come from the top down
• Trauma-informed care as a baseline, and an asset mindset in place of a deficit mindset
• The hidden curriculum, and why veterans want the "operations order" spelled out
• Accommodation policies for students who are still serving
• Community and camaraderie as the keys to retention, persistence and graduation
• The difference between military friendly and military supportive

• ASU's military activation form, which Banzhaf says lets a deployed student's classes pause and resume with no W on the transcript
• Treks for Vets, a four-day wilderness program whose participants, he reports, stay through to the end of their degree about 90% of the time
• The Proving Grounds, a one-hour military culture training that Banzhaf says has reached thousands of ASU faculty and staff
• Written accommodations for active-duty students, which he says give faculty cover to extend deadlines for those deployed
• TROOP, a new 10-day program to bring recently separated veterans together before their first class

1. Develop a military culture training and make it mandatory for faculty and staff.
2. Build community milestones for military-connected students, starting with a veteran-specific orientation.
3. Be more than military friendly: be military supportive, including helping those still serving earn credits toward promotion.

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/veteran-student-success/

#StudentVeterans #StudentSuccess #HigherEducation #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

At UC Santa Barbara, Kavitta Ghai recalls, students waited two days, on average, to get a question answered. For a student whose scholarship was just pulled or whose tuition is due tomorrow, that is too long, and at community colleges, she notes, most classrooms have no teaching assistant at all. She argues AI can now offer the round-the-clock support students have never had, if it is built and governed the right way.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Kavitta Ghai, CEO and Co-Founder of Nectir. The conversation covers why faculty-led adoption works, how to guardrail AI at the course level, and how to measure whether AI improves student outcomes.

Ghai co-founded her company as an undergraduate at UC Santa Barbara and has worked with colleges and universities from Stanford's Graduate School of Business to the California Community Colleges. She explains why AI should draw on a course's own materials rather than the open internet, why student conversations with AI should stay private, and why an outright ban leaves students behind.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, boards, CIOs and faculty leaders deciding how AI should support students and who should control it.

• "Time poverty": how long students wait for answers, and why it matters for persistence
• Community as the core value proposition of college
• The teacher's role as a "curiosity facilitator" in an AI-enabled classroom
• Why technology adoption works best when faculty choose it
• Grounding AI in course materials, and setting guardrails at the class and campus level
• The AI policy "sandwich": administrative standards, faculty classroom policy and student privacy
• Measuring AI's effect on GPA, motivation, retention and course success

• UC Santa Barbara's two-day average wait for students to get a question answered
• Hiring engineers and working out onboarding within 48 hours when UCSB went remote in 2020, with 20,000 students and faculty joining
• Studies of her company's tool that Ghai cites: a 20% GPA increase and a 36% boost in intrinsic motivation after one term in a published pilot, and a 7.5% average GPA increase at Los Angeles Pacific University among students who used it at least three times in a semester
• The California Community Colleges deploying AI to all 116 colleges with faculty-led adoption, as Ghai describes it

1. Time is of the essence. AI can level the playing field so support no longer depends on whether a student can afford a tutor.
2. Keep all three layers of AI policy in place, and choose a provider that meets the same criteria: student privacy, faculty-set guardrails and administrative standards such as FERPA, SOC 2 Type 2 and accessibility.
3. Invest in training, professional development and ongoing support for faculty, staff, administrators and students. McNaughton notes the provider can be internal, such as the IT group, as long as it stays current.

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/ai-for-student-success/

#AIinHigherEducation #StudentSuccess #HigherEducation #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

Most AI risk at a university does not start with a hacker. It starts with a student, a faculty member, or a researcher copying something out of the learning management system and pasting it into a personal AI account, where every safeguard written into the institution's enterprise licenses no longer applies.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dean Scontras, Vice President of SLED (State, Local Government, and Education) at Island. The conversation covers the three AI issues facing presidents: academic integrity, compliance around sensitive data, and responsible AI use aligned with institutional guidelines and mission.

Scontras has spent his career bringing new security and identity technology into state government and higher education, with prior public sector leadership roles at Duo, Auth0, and Wiz. He explains why the visibility an institution needs is about safety rather than policing, why AI has become a board-level decision with more stakeholders than the CISO alone, and why a policy without the tools to enforce it cannot be enforced.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, CIOs, and research leaders deciding how much AI to allow, where to allow it, and how to enforce the line they draw.

• Why there is no single definition of academic integrity when AI policies vary by college, department, and professor
• Shadow AI and the first step of seeing which AI tools are in use, by whom, and with access to what data
• How personal AI accounts bypass the protections of sanctioned enterprise licenses
• Compliance exposure for CUI and CMMC-governed research data
• Reputational, financial, and research-funding risk from AI-related breaches
• The roles of state governments, technology firms, and institutions in AI safety
• Whether institutions should standardize on a single sanctioned AI platform

• One institution reporting a roughly 30% increase in test scores, and a Berkeley study Scontras cites on a rise in A grades
• R1 and R2 research data governed by CUI and CMMC controls, where an unsanctioned AI tool can circumvent existing compliance
• A blog post by Auburn's CIO, "The Phantom Menace," on how personal AI use undoes enterprise license protections
• States passing AI policy, then asking what technology stack will implement it
• The California State University system contracting with a single AI vendor

1. Establish an AI policy or playbook first. Every control depends on knowing what the institution allows, for whom, and where.
2. Make sure the technology can implement the policy. A "no AI" rule without visibility into what tools are in use and what data they reach cannot be enforced.
3. Educate users and the board, and partner with companies whose goals align with AI safety. AI decisions now involve more stakeholders than any single officer.

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/ai-governance-in-higher-education/

#AIinHigherEducation #HigherEducation #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

Texas A&M holds a green light rating for its speech policies and still fell from 47th to 192nd in this year's College Free Speech Rankings. Harvard climbed from 245th to 71st without changing a single policy, a sign that how leadership responds to speech controversies matters more than what is written in the handbook.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Sean Stevens, Chief Research Advisor at FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The conversation covers the seventh annual College Free Speech Rankings and why institutions with strong written policies can still see their free speech climate collapse.

Stevens, a social psychologist specializing in political psychology and survey methodology, directs the rankings, which this year surveyed students at 261 institutions across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He explains how the rankings score student self-censorship, comfort expressing ideas, political tolerance, and trust in administration, and how deplatforming attempts and punishments of faculty and students can weigh on a school's score for up to five years.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, and enrollment executives evaluating how their institution will respond to the next campus speech controversy or external pressure to censor.

• Why a green light policy rating does not protect an institution's free speech ranking
• How the rankings separate trait-based self-censorship from campus climate
• How speech controversy penalties are graded by severity and decay over four to five years
• The corporate HR model of managing speech controversies and the mixed messages it sends
• Syllabi review, course cancellations, and preemptive compliance with the DEI executive order
• The impact of the Charlie Kirk assassination on student attitudes toward violence and self-censorship
• FIRE's upcoming surveys of faculty, international students, and college administrators

• Texas A&M's drop to 192nd after the firing of a senior lecturer and demotion of a dean following a student complaint
• Texas State University's fall of 147 places to a bottom-three finish
• Harvard's rise from 245th to 71st with no policy reform, driven by gains in student trust in administration
• UC Davis posting the largest improvement through policy reform and the decay of past penalties
• Barnard College and Columbia University moving up from the bottom two spots
• Dartmouth College and the University of South Carolina changing culture quickly under new leadership

1. State the institution's position on free speech and academic freedom clearly, then follow it when a controversy hits. Written policy without enforcement costs more than it protects.
2. Stand up to pressure to censor, whether it comes from campus groups or state and federal government. Student trust in administrative resolve is a scored component that can move within two survey cycles.
3. Build the capacity for difficult conversations through faculty modeling in the classroom and a substantive First Amendment module at student orientation.

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/college-free-speech-rankings-leadership/

#FreeSpeech #AcademicFreedom #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast

Student loan default and repayment rates have continued to be calculated through years of dormant collections, and some institutions could soon face single-year default rates high enough to threaten their Title IV eligibility. That risk is arriving alongside final OB3 rules, sweeping accreditation proposals from the AIM negotiated rulemaking, and midterm elections that will reshape every committee governing higher education.

In this Washington Update episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Tom Netting, President of TEN Government Strategies. The conversation covers the federal regulatory and political changes that put institutional Title IV eligibility at risk and how the 2026 midterms could change them.

Netting has advocated before Congress, federal agencies, and state governments for more than 35 years on behalf of private institutions of higher education. He walks through the final OB3 rules on earnings accountability and graduate and professional loan limits, the AIM Neg Reg proposals on transfer of credit and accreditor independence, the diffusion of the Department of Education across other agencies, and the committee-by-committee stakes of the midterm elections.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, and enrollment executives evaluating their institution's exposure to default rate penalties, accreditation changes, and the next round of negotiated rulemaking.

• Why default and repayment rates calculated during dormant collections threaten Title IV eligibility
• The OB3 earnings accountability metric and the Department's push for early implementation
• Litigation over graduate and professional loan limits and the exclusion of nursing
• AIM negotiated rulemaking proposals on transfer of credit, outcomes assessment, legal compliance, and accreditor independence
• How the midterm elections could reshape the Senate HELP, House Education and the Workforce, Veterans' Affairs, and Appropriations committees

• Borrowers who enrolled in 2017 or 2018 and have not made a single loan payment heading into 2026
• Nursing programs left off the professional degree list, triggering litigation that has halted enforcement of the loan limits for those programs
• The House advancing ten bills to codify the Department of Education's dismantling while the Senate HELP Committee rejected the idea on a bipartisan basis

1. Model your default and repayment rate exposure now, because no regulatory accommodation exists yet for rates calculated during years without collections.
2. Review transfer credit policies and program-level outcomes, because accreditors will be responsible for enforcing both under the AIM proposals.
3. Do not wait for the midterms to change the rules, because the Department plans post-election negotiated rulemaking on change of ownership, administrative capability, and financial responsibility regardless of the outcome.

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/washington-update-title-iv-risk-midterms-neg-reg/

#HigherEducationPolicy #NegReg #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

Most institutions measure access at admission and affordability, then ration the experiences that actually change student outcomes to whoever finds them. The experiential learning that employers say they want gets delivered to honors cohorts and groups of thirty while everyone else gets the catalog.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. W. Brooke Elliott, Dean of the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois. The conversation covers how Gies scaled experiential learning from a selective offering into a curricular requirement across every program, and what it cost on the staffing, funding, and governance side to make it hold.

Elliott is starting her third year as dean in her twenty-fourth year at Gies, where the land-grant mission is expressed through a purpose statement committing the college to expanding access to business education. Her operational focus is on what accessibility means after enrollment: whether the live client projects, consulting engagements, and immersions inside a degree are reachable by a large share of learners rather than a selected few.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, and deans evaluating whether to scale experiential learning beyond pilot programs and selective cohorts.

• Redefining accessibility to include the experiences inside the degree, not just admission and price
• How Gies sources 300 to 400 live client projects a year to place every junior on a team
• Why undergraduate employer projects are free, and how project sourcing functions as the recruiting pipeline
• The staffing model: a dedicated experiential learning office paired with internal learning designers
• Embedding experiential capstones inside online graduate programs serving roughly 7,000 students
• Investing in faculty AI capability for 18 months before changing the curriculum
• The iMBA governance precedent that made current innovation move quickly

• Business 301, Business in Action, a junior-year course placing every student on a live client project, and Business 401, Crafting Your Purpose, sending seniors into their local and home communities
• Illinois Business Consulting, in its thirtieth year, and the Disruption Lab, which pairs Gies and Grainger College of Engineering students on technology problems sourced from inside the college
• International immersions redesigned into domestic and then virtual formats, including a virtual immersion with a partner institution in Japan
• Replacing programming-language modules in the undergraduate core with modules on using AI to program, and launching the MSBAi with a first cohort of 30
• Students correcting their assumptions about John Deere and Caterpillar by working the companies' actual problems

1. Mission and purpose alignment only matters when it functions as a decision rule for resource allocation and program design.
2. Learner-centric requires faculty first, because faculty deliver the experience. Invest in capability before expecting delivery.
3. Leading authentically is what mobilizes people past what an org chart can compel, and disruption is where access expands if someone goes after it.

Read the transcript:

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/scale-experiential-learning-to-every-student/

#ExperientialLearning #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast

Workforce readiness is usually framed as a funding and program-design problem. In some states and at some institutions, the funding and the employer willingness already exist, and what is missing is a structure on the institution's side that can take the offer and act on it.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Brad Griffith, president of Buckeye Innovation, a central Ohio technology firm building custom software for nonprofits, local governments, and growing organizations. The conversation covers where the public-private partnership between employers and institutions breaks down, and what leaders can change on their own side of it.

Griffith serves on a curriculum advisory committee at Central Ohio Technical College, hires apprentices through Columbus State Community College's IT Flexible Apprenticeship program, and ran six state-reimbursed interns this past summer. He guest lectures in a justice tech program at Ohio State and has helped commercialize university-developed technology, including a job-matching tool that came out of the OSU Wexner Medical Center.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, deans, and career services leaders evaluating whether their institution can absorb employer, donor, and state investment in experiential learning at the speed those partners operate.

• State wage reimbursement programs for employers who host interns, and how the Ohio application and reimbursement process works in practice
• Donor-funded and institution-funded internship placements at outside employers
• Internal curriculum approval sequencing versus accreditor review as the source of curricular delay
• Writing course descriptions broadly enough that faculty can change technologies without reopening formal approval
• How curriculum advisory committees give two-year and technical colleges a structured way to bring in employer input
• Career fair pricing and participation structures that can screen out smaller local employers
• The start-to-finish work cycle, from conceptualizing a problem through launch and post-launch support
• Why commercializing university research calls for a different capability than developing it

• VocFit, a job-matching tool for individuals with developmental disabilities developed at the OSU Wexner Medical Center, moved from mailed paper surveys and manual spreadsheet matching to deployed software now demonstrated in Italy and partnered with Cincinnati Children's Hospital and Colorado State University
• A University of Richmond student whose internship at an Ohio company was funded by his own institution
• An Ohio State justice tech program pairing engineering with the Moritz College of Law, where four student project teams on four technology stacks raised a real long-term support constraint
• Central Ohio Technical College's community advisory committee, which reviews courses and syllabi and names the skills employers see missing in graduates
• Apprenticeships through Columbus State Community College serving working adults changing careers, some with employer-funded certificates and stipends

1. Invite businesses in and build structures where outside perspectives are represented, including advisory boards and standing invitations for employers to participate.
2. Make sure students graduate with real project work they can show, on a publicly visible portfolio rather than a transcript reference to coursework.
3. Embrace AI while teaching its limits alongside its capabilities, so graduates can judge where it belongs, where it does not, and how to use it as a thought partner.

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/employer-engagement-in-higher-education/

#WorkforceReadiness #HigherEducation #PublicPrivatePartnership #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

Private colleges under enrollment pressure get told to diversify revenue. The venture that follows usually either fails to earn or drags the institution away from the academic identity families were paying for.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Brooke Barnett, President of Rollins College. The conversation covers how a tuition-dependent private structures a diversified budget model without compromising the curriculum that gives its degree value.

Barnett walks through the Innovation Triangle, a three-part portfolio Rollins spent more than a decade and $200 million building. The parts run on deliberately different economics: a boutique inn whose net proceeds fund student scholarships, an art museum relocating into the Winter Park community that charges no admission and is designed to draw no institutional funds, and the Rick Goings Institute, a cross-sector executive education venture built around AI readiness informed by the liberal arts.

She separates declining willingness to pay among full-pay families from rising ability-to-pay pressure driven by demographic shift, and explains why the instruments that address them are not interchangeable. She also details how Rollins applies its own pedagogical method to institutional AI decisions, refusing technophilia and technophobia as the same kind of failure.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, and enrollment executives evaluating whether to launch non-tuition revenue ventures and how to structure them so they reinforce rather than dilute institutional identity.

• Separating willingness to pay from ability to pay, and why each requires a different instrument
• The Innovation Triangle and why only two of its three assets are expected to generate revenue
• How the Alfond Inn functions as a hotel, a rotating contemporary art collection, and a scholarship engine at once
• Positioning executive education as an extension of the curriculum rather than an unrelated business line
• Why 80 years of adult learning and graduate business capacity cannot be replicated inside a single budget cycle
• The Gateway and the pragmatic liberal arts tradition traced to John Dewey's 1931 conference at Rollins
• Applying liberal arts inquiry to institutional AI decisions, and protecting the cognitive struggle that produces learning

• The Alfond Inn, a boutique hotel and living art museum with quarterly collection rotations, which had directed $10.8 million to the Alfond Scholars program as of early 2026
• The Rollins Museum of Art, relocating off campus with donor and tourist tax support, free to the public and explicitly not a revenue generator
• The Rick Goings Institute, launching cross-sector executive programming this fall on a $10 million seed commitment
• Accelerated master's pathways including the Rollins MBA, serving a market seeking two degrees in a compressed timeline
• Incoming undergraduates serving with roughly 40 central Florida organizations before attending their first class
• A College of Liberal Arts AI certificate and a graduate business faculty summer spent rebuilding curriculum around AI

1. Concentrate capacity, attention, and financial resources on the students being served and the colleagues serving them.
2. Identify the institutional assets that are genuinely distinctive, then protect and cultivate them rather than diluting them in pursuit of enrollment.
3. Make the financial math work to support the aspirations. Doing more with less does not work; doing less with less requires the discipline to choose.

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/tuition-dependent-college-non-tuition-revenue-academic-mission/

#HigherEducation #HigherEdLeadership #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

Institutions recruiting adult learners are inserting them into schedules, deadline policies, and course structures designed for 19-year-olds, then treating the resulting attrition as a student problem. The barriers doing the damage are recent design decisions, not fixed features of higher education, and several of them cost almost nothing to remove.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Evan Kropp, executive director of distance education at the University of Florida's College of Journalism and Communications. The conversation covers what has to change structurally when adult learners stop being an enrollment contingency and become a population the institution designs for.

Kropp oversees UF CJC Online and its Master of Arts in Mass Communication, a 36-credit online degree enrolling roughly 650 students. His operational focus areas include course design standardization, cost transparency, transfer and prior learning credit, and the translation of academic learning outcomes into professional language students can use.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, and enrollment executives evaluating whether to build degree completion and adult learner pathways at their institutions.

• Why the "I'm too old for a classroom" objection comes from 25-year-olds as often as from 65-year-olds, and what that means for online positioning
• How course learning outcomes can be reissued to students as resume language at the end of every course
• What lifelong learning costs an institution that treats it as an operating commitment rather than a slogan
• Why transfer and prior learning credit decisions are traditionally financial decisions, and what a competitive response time looks like
• The recurring time cost created when faculty design online courses independently
• Why deadline policies written to teach 19-year-olds accountability misfire on working adults
• How to build an AI curriculum by asking employers where they are deliberately not using AI

• UF CJC Online converts course learning outcomes into resume bullet points, producing 100 to 120 curated items across the 12-course Master of Arts in Mass Communication sequence
• Master Access, which lets graduates of that degree audit unlimited courses from an 80-course catalog for $500 per year
• Standardized navigation across every online course in the program, eliminating the semester-start relearning cost created by 40 faculty designing independently
• Franklin University's transfer database of roughly 1,800 institutions, returning a transfer decision in five minutes instead of a week
• A rebuilt program financial page showing cost per class and cost by credit load for students paying as they go

1. Adult learners cannot serve as an enrollment patch for demographic decline. An institution that wants them has to redesign schedules, advising, onboarding, and technology support rather than recruiting into the existing structure.
2. The value proposition has to be explicit at the course level, connecting the program to the credential, the specific skills, and the student's professional aspirations, rather than leaving that chain implied across a degree.
3. Insufficient support is a primary reason adults quit the first time. Advising, financial aid, career services, technology support, and faculty training all need to be reconsidered for this population rather than inherited from the traditional model.

Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/redesign-an-institution-for-adult-learners/

#HigherEducation #AdultLearners #DegreeCompletion

Most institutions in a crisis don't believe they're in one. The word calls up a scandal with a camera crew outside, and nothing on this week's agenda looks like that, so the answer is often no.

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Evan Nierman, founder and CEO of Red Banyan, a strategic communications firm built around high-stakes rapid response. The conversation covers why a crisis is any circumstance with the potential to negatively impact reputation and/or revenue, and what that definition changes for colleges and universities.

Nierman explains why the old instinct to stay quiet and avoid giving oxygen to a fire now cedes the battleground to whoever is willing to characterize your institution, how most colleges can pinpoint their likeliest crises well before one arrives, and why the day-to-day spokesperson should usually be a trained communications professional rather than the president.

This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, and communications leaders deciding whether to respond publicly, and when.

• The broader definition of a crisis and why institutions may not recognize one before it escalates
• How hyper-connectedness, self-selected news, and hyper-partisanship changed the response calculus
• When to respond publicly instead of leaving well enough alone
• Why the bulk of crisis work happens before the crisis
• Who belongs on the core crisis response team, and when to bring in outside expertise
• Why the day-to-day spokesperson should usually be a trained communications professional
• Why Nierman says PR is dead, and what powering reputation means in its place
• Guilt by association, due process, and how colleges can center their institutional values
• Why institutions should teach students and faculty to use AI effectively instead of treating it primarily as a cheating problem

• College presidents dragged before Congress over antisemitism on campus
• A George Washington University commencement speech, and the dean's response to it
• Colleges taking fire because donors' names surfaced in the Epstein files
• Deepfake cases where recordings exist of conduct that never happened
• Public opposition to AI data center construction

1. Reputation is the institution's single most valuable asset; protect it, preserve it, and invest in powering it
2. The time to deal with a crisis is before you have one, with a detailed plan, media-trained people, and set procedures
3. When it comes, be strategic and be speedy, even though that runs against the pace academia normally moves

Read the full episode summary and transcript: https://changinghighered.com/higher-ed-crisis-communications/

#CrisisCommunications #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast