Jacobson named provost and vice president for academic affairs at Bemidji State
Feb. 26—BEMIDJI — Bemidji State University
recently named Marah Jacobson as its next provost and vice president for academic affairs.
Jacobson currently serves as the associate provost for academic and student affairs and Title IX coordinator at Augsburg University in Minneapolis. BSU and
Northwest Technical College
President John Hoffman said he selected Jacobson for the position based on her wealth of experience as a student-centered institutional leader.
"Dr. Jacobson is an outstanding academic leader with a proven track record of shaping institutions that truly serve their students," Hoffman said in a release. "She brings a deep understanding of higher education's evolving landscape and the ability to turn vision into action. Her leadership has strengthened academic programs, expanded student opportunities and fostered innovative solutions to complex challenges."
Jacobson said she is honored to join the BSU campus as well as the Bemidji community.
"It was immediately obvious to me that BSU is a distinct place with many special people," she said. "I'm excited to get up there and start working on our strategic priorities, identifying and addressing challenges and capitalizing on our opportunities. This is an amazing opportunity for me to lead and give back to the Minnesota State system, where I completed my education."
Jacobson holds a bachelor's degree in community psychology and master's and doctorate degrees in higher education administration, all from St. Cloud State University.
In her associate provost role at Augsburg, Jacobson has served as senior advisor to the provost and vice president of academic and student affairs.
She is responsible for operational and administrative processes in Academic and Student Affairs, serves as Augsburg's Title IX coordinator, oversees the college's Registrar's Office and Career Services, and is the Provost's Office liaison with the university's Office of Planning and Effectiveness, Human Resources, Chief Financial Officer, Information Technology, Enrollment Management, Grants and Sponsored Programs and all academic programs.
In addition, she has helped oversee approximately $20 million in the university's academic affairs budget and served as primary administrative liaison to Augsburg's union of adjunct faculty members.
Paula O'Loughlin, Augsburg's provost and senior vice president, said Jacobson has been a valued and trusted leader.
"Marah is well-known for her tenacity, creativity, commitment to inclusion and deep belief in the gifts of our students," O'Loughlin said. "In addition to her significant responsibilities within academic and student affairs, Marah has been a key leader on major university-wide initiatives over the past several years, from the pandemic to a new general education curriculum to co-leading our successful reaffirmation of accreditation in 2024.
"We are excited to see how a sister school in Minnesota will benefit from her leadership."
Prior to her tenure at Augsburg, Jacobson oversaw Title III grant compliance at Inver Hills Community College and served in several roles at Russel Sage College and Sage College of Albany in New York and at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University in Minnesota.
As provost, Jacobson will serve as BSU's senior academic affairs officer, establishing and administering academic budgets, policies and priorities and overseeing curriculum and student research.
She also will oversee several academic support units including grants administration, the Center for Professional Development, the A.C. Clark Library, and BSU's honors, general education and McNair Scholars programs.
Through BSU's administrative alignment with NTC, Jacobson will collaborate with NTC's executive vice president and senior academic affairs officer to enhance and expand the collaborative relationship between the two institutions particularly in the development of academic and educational programs that serve northern Minnesota's industries, workforces and economies.
Jacobson will succeed Jeff Ueland, who has served BSU as interim provost since September 2024. Her appointment begins on Monday, April 7.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
The road ahead after the NCAA settlement comes with risk, reward and warnings
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Two days after the approval of a groundbreaking $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, thousands of athletic directors and department personnel traveled to Orlando, Florida, for the annual National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention. The hot topic, of course, was the influx of changes both threatening and beneficial for schools across the country. According to NCAA President Charlie Baker, approval of the settlement may be the biggest change in college sports history. On July 1, schools that opt in to the settlement will embark on a new era of revenue sharing, changing the game both on and off the field. Rewards A handful of convention attendees breathed a sigh of relief on Friday night when U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken announced her decision. It's a quick turnaround and a period of trial and error is anticipated, but Division I athletic directors welcomed the news. 'The best thing is clarity,' UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond said. 'The best thing about July 1 is we now have clarity on the rules of engagement, what we're allowed to do, how we can move forward. Does it solve everything? No, it doesn't. But when you have clarity, you can operate more efficiently and effectively.' Kentucky AD Mitch Barnhart was relieved to get the agreement in hand. 'We've been trying for so long to be part of this,' Barnhart said. 'Maybe, just maybe, on July 1, we'll sort of all know where we are on this one.' Barnhart added that the College Sports Commission, an entity that will enforce compliance and set market value for NIL deals, will be a major positive. 'The College Sports Commission and the way that is coming around gives us guardrails and enforcement in a way that we can move forward collectively, together, for college sports,' Barnhart said. Risks In a settlement where high-revenue sport athletes have the most to gain, Title IX has emerged as a topic to watch. The 75-15-5-5 formula has emerged as a popular revenue-sharing formula, meaning that schools are likely to allocate 75% of revenue-share funds to football, 15% to men's basketball, 5% to women's basketball and the remaining 5% dispersed to other programs. If a school spent the full $20.5 million allowed this coming year, that would mean a breakdown of $15.4 million for football, $3.1 million for men's hoops and about $1 million each for women's hoops and everyone else. Montoya Ho-Song, an attorney for Ackerman LLP who specializes in higher education issues, expects Title IX lawsuits to come, just like one filed this week by eight female athletes. The area has shifted again under President Donald Trump, with guidance suggesting the federal government won't hold schools to rigid requirements to distribute proceeds equitably between men and women. 'There are definitely going to be legal challenges related to this revenue-sharing model. I always tell my clients, look, your student athletes' perceptions are their reality. If they think that they are not being treated equally, they will raise those concerns,' Ho-Song said. She warned that the 75-15-5-5 formula shouldn't be a one size fits all and suggested dividing revenue based on how it comes in isn't a valid argument. The majority of rev-share funds going to football and basketball programs, especially when coupled with losing records, will inevitably stir the pot. 'Just because there is a 75-15-5-5 budget breakdown, that does not mean that that's going to work on all campuses,' she said. 'The analysis under Title IX is making sure that it is available and everyone has the same type of access to non-grant funds. So, you do have to figure out a way to creatively divvy up those funds, but always keep in mind, if someone feels as if they're not being treated correctly, then that is always a legal risk.' Warnings Attorney Mit Winter, a college sports law specialist with Kennyhertz Perry, said it is paramount that athletic departments present an organized, united front. Since the launch of name, image, and likeness compensation four years ago, Winter said, he has encountered several instances where athletic departments are giving conflicting statements and numbers to current and prospective athletes. That can lead to legal headaches, too. 'You need to have a plan that everyone is on board with and that everyone knows,' Winter said. 'As a school, you don't want to have a situation where five different people are talking to an athlete about how much they're going to pay him or her. I think that needs to be much more formalized. The coach, assistant coaches, GM, everybody needs to be on the same page.' St. Bonaventure men's basketball general manager Adrian Wojnarowski and coach Mark Schmidt know exactly what their roles are — and aren't. 'I will never talk to a player or a parent or an agent about playing time, their role,' Wojnarowski said. 'During the season, if someone is disappointed in playing time and they call, the only conversation I'm having with a family member is supporting the head coach, supporting the coaching staff. And in the end, that's a conversation for their son to have with the head coach. Then economically, we have to have one clear message in negotiations and finances.' Impacts There are concerns that the revenue-sharing era will have multiple impacts on college rosters. Few athletic directors were willing to talk in any detail about plans for their campuses, but some of the moves have already begun in the search for more money to fulfill the details of the NCAA settlement: UTEP dropped women's tennis, Cal Poly discontinued swimming and diving, Marquette added women's swimming and Grand Canyon shuttered its men's volleyball program. The athletic director at Cal noted the school expects to lose about 100 athletes. Just how many of the so-called non-revenue sports — the ones that often feed U.S. Olympic teams — will be affected is also a concern. And many programs will need to find a niche that works for them, even if that means not consistently contending for national championships. ___ AP college sports:
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The road ahead after the NCAA settlement comes with risk, reward and warnings
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Two days after the approval of a groundbreaking $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, thousands of athletic directors and department personnel traveled to Orlando, Florida, for the annual National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention. The hot topic, of course, was the influx of changes both threatening and beneficial for schools across the country. According to NCAA President Charlie Baker, approval of the settlement may be the biggest change in college sports history. On July 1, schools that opt in to the settlement will embark on a new era of revenue sharing, changing the game both on and off the field. Rewards A handful of convention attendees breathed a sigh of relief on Friday night when U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken announced her decision. It's a quick turnaround and a period of trial and error is anticipated, but Division I athletic directors welcomed the news. 'The best thing is clarity,' UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond said. 'The best thing about July 1 is we now have clarity on the rules of engagement, what we're allowed to do, how we can move forward. Does it solve everything? No, it doesn't. But when you have clarity, you can operate more efficiently and effectively.' Kentucky AD Mitch Barnhart was relieved to get the agreement in hand. 'We've been trying for so long to be part of this,' Barnhart said. 'Maybe, just maybe, on July 1, we'll sort of all know where we are on this one.' Barnhart added that the College Sports Commission, an entity that will enforce compliance and set market value for NIL deals, will be a major positive. 'The College Sports Commission and the way that is coming around gives us guardrails and enforcement in a way that we can move forward collectively, together, for college sports," Barnhart said. Risks In a settlement where high-revenue sport athletes have the most to gain, Title IX has emerged as a topic to watch. The 75-15-5-5 formula has emerged as a popular revenue-sharing formula, meaning that schools are likely to allocate 75% of revenue-share funds to football, 15% to men's basketball, 5% to women's basketball and the remaining 5% dispersed to other programs. If a school spent the full $20.5 million allowed this coming year, that would mean a breakdown of $15.4 million for football, $3.1 million for men's hoops and about $1 million each for women's hoops and everyone else. Montoya Ho-Song, an attorney for Ackerman LLP who specializes in higher education issues, expects Title IX lawsuits to come, just like one filed this week by eight female athletes. The area has shifted again under President Donald Trump, with guidance suggesting the federal government won't hold schools to rigid requirements to distribute proceeds equitably between men and women. 'There are definitely going to be legal challenges related to this revenue-sharing model. I always tell my clients, look, your student athletes' perceptions are their reality. If they think that they are not being treated equally, they will raise those concerns,' Ho-Song said. She warned that the 75-15-5-5 formula shouldn't be a one size fits all and suggested dividing revenue based on how it comes in isn't a valid argument. The majority of rev-share funds going to football and basketball programs, especially when coupled with losing records, will inevitably stir the pot. 'Just because there is a 75-15-5-5 budget breakdown, that does not mean that that's going to work on all campuses,' she said. 'The analysis under Title IX is making sure that it is available and everyone has the same type of access to non-grant funds. So, you do have to figure out a way to creatively divvy up those funds, but always keep in mind, if someone feels as if they're not being treated correctly, then that is always a legal risk." Warnings Attorney Mit Winter, a college sports law specialist with Kennyhertz Perry, said it is paramount that athletic departments present an organized, united front. Since the launch of name, image, and likeness compensation four years ago, Winter said, he has encountered several instances where athletic departments are giving conflicting statements and numbers to current and prospective athletes. That can lead to legal headaches, too. 'You need to have a plan that everyone is on board with and that everyone knows,' Winter said. 'As a school, you don't want to have a situation where five different people are talking to an athlete about how much they're going to pay him or her. I think that needs to be much more formalized. The coach, assistant coaches, GM, everybody needs to be on the same page.' St. Bonaventure men's basketball general manager Adrian Wojnarowski and coach Mark Schmidt know exactly what their roles are — and aren't. 'I will never talk to a player or a parent or an agent about playing time, their role,' Wojnarowski said. "During the season, if someone is disappointed in playing time and they call, the only conversation I'm having with a family member is supporting the head coach, supporting the coaching staff. And in the end, that's a conversation for their son to have with the head coach. Then economically, we have to have one clear message in negotiations and finances." Impacts Few athletic directors were willing to talk in any detail about plans for their campuses, but some of the moves have already begun in the search for more money to fulfill the details of the NCAA settlement: UTEP dropped women's tennis, Cal Poly discontinued swimming and diving, Marquette added women's swimming and Grand Canyon shuttered its men's volleyball program. The athletic director at Cal noted the school expects to lose about 100 athletes. Just how many of the so-called non-revenue sports — the ones that often feed U.S. Olympic teams — will be affected is also a concern. And many programs will need to find a niche that works for them, even if that means not consistently contending for national championships.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
House Settlement Faces First Appeal as Title IX Takes Center Stage
As expected, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's order to grant final approval of the 10-year settlement between the NCAA, power conferences and current and former Division I athletes represented by the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations has been challenged. A group of objectors—Kacie Breeding, Kate Johnson, Lexi Drumm, Emmie Wannemacher, Savannah Baron, Riley Haas, Emma Appleman and Elizabeth Arnold—filed a notice of appeal with Wilken on Wednesday. The objectors, all current or former Division I athletes, will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Their attorneys include John Clune and Ashlyn Hare of Hutchinson Black and Cook and Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of Katz Banks Kumin. Advertisement More from In January, the objectors argued in a brief to Wilken that the settlement's damages feature violates Title IX. Over a 10-year period, around $2.8 billion will be paid to qualified Division I athletes who played at some point from 2016 onward. It will compensate them for lost NIL, video game and broadcasting opportunities resulting from past NCAA eligibility rules. The objectors argue that because over 90% of this money is going to be paid to male athletes, it runs afoul of Title IX's requirement of gender equity in educational programs. From an antitrust perspective, more money paid to male athletes reflects market realities. As a whole, football and men's basketball generates more revenue than women's teams, meaning players in those sports are more harmed by NCAA rules that restrained competition. But the objectors insist that Title IX would have prevented 'such disproportionate damages in the first place.' Wilken rejected the Title IX argument for several reasons and in several instances. One reason is that the settlement resolves the antitrust claims raised in the three cases, while potential claims that arise under other areas of law—be they Title IX, state NIL statutes or labor and employment laws—are outside the scope of the case. Stated differently, Wilken can't rule on disagreements related to other areas of law that are outside the scope of the pleadings and that haven't been part of the litigation process—cases are limited to the areas of law and issues raised in the complaints. Advertisement In her recent 76-page-order to approve the settlement, Wilken enunciated additional reasons. She wrote that the objectors 'have cited no authority that Title IX applies to damages award' or that Title IX applies to the distribution of those damages. She also asserted that the settlement does not release potential claims that could be raised under Title IX to challenge the injunctive relief portion of the settlement. That portion will enable participating colleges to directly pay athletes a share of up to 22% of the average power conference athletic media, ticket and sponsorship revenue, with $20.5 million expected as the initial annual cap. Many schools are expected to share more money with male athletes, which could lead to Title IX lawsuits against those schools. Importantly, those would be separate cases and not part of Wilken's decision to approve the settlement. In a statement Wednesday, Hagens Berman, which has represented the class members in the cases, warned an appeal could 'block payments to hundreds of thousands of athletes, delaying payments by a minimum of several months to potentially a year or more.' Further, the statement criticized an appeal 'based on a Title IX issue that Judge Wilken already disposed of correctly, quickly and multiple times.' The objectors will hope that the Ninth Circuit is more receptive to their Title IX argument than Wilken. But there could be a long wait for an answer: Some data suggests that from notice of an appeal to a decision often takes more than two years in the Ninth Circuit. As Hagens Berman statement alludes, if the damages portion is stayed pending appeal, class member athletes who are expecting payment will need to wait a while. Advertisement Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
