It’s been a pivotal year for higher education, and that’s particularly true for college professors. The ubiquity of artificial intelligence, the enormity of political pressure, and the severity of financial constraints on many college campuses have conspired to create learning environments of profound unease and uncertainty. At the same time, many faculty members look at 2025 as a year when the promise of new technologies became more clear, and the strength of collegial communities became more crucial. Can a year like this be summed up in a single word? We’ll find out.  

Related Reading: 

Sign up to receive The Chronicle’s Teaching newsletter

AI Has Joined the Faculty (The Chronicle) 

How to Restore Joy in the Classroom (The Chronicle)  

Grading is Broken (The Chronicle) 

Guest: 

Beth McMurtrie, senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education

Beckie Supiano, senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education 

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

Nearly three years after ChatGPT first came on the scene, college students are using generative AI to help with myriad tasks. Outlining and brainstorming are a breeze. A tough concept, skimmed over by a professor during a lecture, can probably be explained succinctly by a chatbot. This kind of AI use is happening on college campuses across the country, and much of it wouldn’t be considered unethical. But the line between efficiency and academic dishonesty is blurry, and some experts are concerned that an AI-infused education could essentially rewire students’ brains. So, how do colleges weigh the promise of AI against its much-discussed perils?
Related Reading:

These Students Use AI a Lot — but Not to Cheat (The Chronicle)  

The Cheating Vibe Shift (College Matters: Apple / Spotify) 

Should College Graduates Be AI Literate? (The Chronicle) 

Guest:
Beth McMurtrie, senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher  Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

One university president has resigned. Another is on the ropes. A new governor is heading into office, flipping party control to the Democrats. It’s all happening in Virginia, which has become a key battleground in a larger political war over higher education. This past summer, Jim Ryan resigned as president of the University of Virginia, hoping to stave off federal investigations of the university's diversity efforts. Now, Gregory Washington, president of George Mason University, is under fire for similar issues and fighting to keep his job. In tumultuous fashion, the commonwealth of Virginia has become a tinderbox of state and federal political fury — and there’s no clear end in sight.
Related Reading
House Republicans Say George Mason Leader Broke the Law. His Lawyer Sees ‘a Political Lynching.’ (The Chronicle) 
Virginia Democrats Block College Board Appointees, Leaving George Mason’s Without a Quorum. (The Chronicle) 
The U. of Virginia’s President Was Targeted Over DEI. Now He’s Resigning. (The Chronicle)
Guest
Jasper Smith, staff reporter at The Chronicle of Higher Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

One of the nation’s most selective institutions is sounding the alarm about grade inflation. According to a new report, A’s account for about 60 percent of all grades awarded in 2025 at Harvard College, which houses the university’s undergraduate program. That’s a big jump from 2005, when less than a quarter of grades were A’s. The report has provoked a frenzied response, validating for critics the notion that “elite” colleges aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, and that Gen Z students are delicate snowflakes who can’t handle tough grading. The truth, of course, is more complicated. But the report provides a fascinating portrait of how Harvard views its own role as a sorter of talent, and it shines a light on universal debates over grading that extend far beyond Cambridge, Mass.
Related Reading

What’s Up With Grade Inflation? (College Matters podcast)  

The Great Campus Charade: Students Are Learning and Studying Less — Yet Grades Go Up (The Review) 

Why Does the Trump Compact Talk About Grading? (The Chronicle)

Guest
Beth McMurtrie, senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

Lately, calls for “intellectual diversity” are all the rage. From President Trump, to right-wing think tanks, to college presidents, arguments abound for adding more conservative voices to the professoriate. But are these arguments being made in good faith? How liberal are faculty, really? And what does a push for a narrowed, classics-driven curriculum mean for the canon-expanding courses that some colleges now offer on subjects as diverse as the Grateful Dead and Taylor Swift?
Related Reading: 

Higher Education Needs to Embrace a Diversity of Beliefs (Fox News/ Gordon Gee)

Viewpoint Diversity is a MAGA Plot (The Review / Lisa Siraganian) 

How One State’s 'Intellectual Diversity' Law Has Changed Professors’ Teaching (The Chronicle) 

Guest
Brock Read, deputy managing editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

The pro-Palestinian protests that erupted on many college campuses in the spring of 2024 gave rise to a surge of complaints about antisemitism at colleges across the United States. Under pressure to respond, Columbia and Harvard Universities have both in the past year adopted into policy a common definition of antisemitism, using the text as a guide in discrimination investigations. But defining the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and antisemitism has long bedeviled scholars, and refereeing such cases invites concerns about free speech and academic freedom. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, upon which Columbia and Harvard now rely, wasn’t ever intended to be a speech code and shouldn’t be used as such, says Kenneth Stern, who helped to draft the text about two decades ago. But how, then, should colleges respond to concerns about hatred and prejudice aimed at Jewish people?

Colleges Use His Antisemitism Definition to Censor. He Calls It a ‘Travesty.’ (The Chronicle)

The Great Antisemitism Debate (The Chronicle) 

Why Anti-Jewish Discrimination on Campuses Might Not Violate Title VI (The Chronicle) 

UC Berkeley Hands Over 160 Names to the Federal Government for ‘Potential Connection’ to Antisemitism. (The Chronicle)  

Guest
Kenneth S. Stern, director of the Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College.

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

Barack Obama wants university leaders to stick to their guns. Appearing on the final episode of Marc Maron’s long-running WTF podcast, the former U.S. president urged college presidents to guard their academic independence, even if it means losing some federal money. Obama’s message comes at a pivotal moment, as the Trump administration pressures colleges to get on board with its sweeping higher-education agenda. The administration's “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” proposed this month, would require colleges to accept restrictions on admissions, hiring, and speech in exchange for preferred access to federal money. But what would passing Obama’s leadership test mean in practice? And who might be willing to risk standing up to Trump?
Related Reading

Episode 1686: Barack Obama (WTF with Marc Maron)

Trump’s ‘Compact’ is Freaking People Out (College Matters from The Chronicle)

Obama’s Legacy: An Unlikely Hawk on Higher Ed (The Chronicle)

Guest
Andy Thomason, assistant managing editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

After months of skirmishes with colleges, the Trump administration has proposed a treaty of sorts with nine high-profile institutions. By signing the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” participating colleges would essentially co-sign the president’s sprawling higher-education agenda. Under a draft agreement, signatories would explicitly ban considerations of race in admissions or in the awarding of scholarships, abolish departments that “belittle” conservative views, and strictly limit the percentage of international students enrolled in undergraduate programs. Many higher-education associations and analysts rushed to blast the proposal, which has been described as “horrifying” and reminiscent of a Mafia-style ultimatum. But what does this compact say about the historic relationship between the federal government and higher education, and how might that relationship be changing no matter what?
Related Reading

Trump’s Proposed ‘Compact’ Asks Colleges to Show They’re ‘Pursuing Federal Priorities’ (The Chronicle)

Trump Says Signing a New ‘Compact’ Will Benefit Colleges’ Finances. It Could Also Do the Opposite. (The Chronicle)

Trump’s Imperfect Compact Is a Perfect Opportunity (The Chronicle Review)

A Deal That Would End Universities’ Independence (The Atlantic)

Guest
Sarah Brown, senior editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education

As president of Princeton University, Christopher Eisgruber is among the highest-profile college leaders to publicly criticize the Trump administration for its attacks on higher education. He is a defender of the sector, arguing that colleges are far better at upholding free speech and more welcoming of diverse viewpoints than critics would suggest. The recent killing of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist, has energized a national debate about the state of free speech on college campuses — both for conservatives like Kirk, and for faculty who have been sanctioned for speaking ill of Kirk in the wake of his death. None of this, though, changes Eisgruber’s fundamental view that colleges, for the most part, are actually quite good at facilitating tough conversations at a particularly polarized moment. It’s an argument Eisgruber lays out methodically in a new book, Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right.

Related Reading

Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, by Christopher Eisgruber (Basic Books)

With Charlie Kirk’s Killing, a New Chapter of the Campus Speech Wars Has Begun (The Chronicle)

The Elite-University Presidents Who Despise One Another (The Atlantic)

At Yale, Painful Rifts Emerge Over Diversity and Free Speech (The Chronicle)

The Trump administration is hitting universities where it hurts, terminating thousands of research grants in areas it deems wasteful or ideologically driven. Many scientists who study vaccine hesitancy, gender identity, and climate change, have either lost grant money or been put on notice that their federal funding could soon disappear. What does this mean for the U.S. academic-research enterprise, which seeks to cure diseases, understand societal problems, and even save the planet? And how might a highly politicized approach to doling out federal research money change the nature of science itself?

Related Reading: 
The Scientists Who Got Ghosted by the NIH (The Chronicle) 

An NIH Grant Is Restored, With a Catch: Cut a Study on Trans Youth (The Chronicle) 

The NIH is Requiring Grantees to Follow Trump’s Anti-Trans Executive Order (The Chronicle) 

Their NIH Grants are Back. But Nothing is Back to Normal. (The Chronicle) 

Guest

Stephanie M. Lee, senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.