Chancellor outlines view of SUNY system
ALBANY — The State University of New York is planning for the next academic year, and Chancellor John B. King Jr. said that the system is ready to realize another year of growth, development and scholarship despite what he described as a hostile environment for academic freedom and the principles that undergird the SUNY system.
In his annual 'State of the University' address in Albany on Wednesday, King said the university system is building on four 'pillars' — research, student success, economic development and diversity.
King said that despite federal attacks on the premise of diversity, equity and inclusion, SUNY is doubling down on it.
'DEI is not only one of our pillars, it's in our DNA,' King said from a podium in The Egg, a theater complex attached to the state Capitol. 'Our enabling statute, written more than 75 years ago, promises that SUNY will provide to the people of New York educational services of the highest quality, with the broadest possible access, fully representative of all segments of the population.'
King said DEI is a foundational principle, guiding SUNY college curriculums, campus codes of conduct and commitments to protecting disabled and disadvantaged communities.
'DEI means continuing to make absolutely clear that there is no place for antisemitism on campuses, just as there is no place for racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia or any other form of hatred or bigotry,' he said.
To combat racial, religious or other bigotry, King said SUNY will start requiring all students who run clubs on campuses to undertake federal Title VI civil rights training next semester.
King said SUNY will also push back on the federal push to defund research on college and university campuses — which he said has put SUNY-led research on Alzheimer's disease, cancer detection, the health effects of the 9/11 attacks and more at risk.
'We're making steady progress toward Gov. Hochul's goal to double SUNY research, with $1.2 billion in SUNY-wide sponsored research expenditures across the system,' King said.
And he noted that SUNY is leading a novel approach to artificial generative intelligence research, continuing to implement a multi-billion dollar Empire AI project that will connect the SUNY University at Buffalo with the other colleges, universities and research organizations for a publicly-led AI research and development program.
'Empire AI is making it possible for SUNY researchers to help us better understand everything from antisemitism on social media to climate change,' King said. 'Binghamton University associate professor Jeremy Blackburn's work with AI aims to, in his words, 'understand jerks on the internet.' His research uses AI applications that comb massive troves of social media data to help us understand how social media is used to spread extremist ideologies.'
King proudly noted that SUNY has reversed the decade-plus-long trend of dropping enrollment across its 64 campuses, a trend that has left a handful of campuses with structural deficits and has required them to make difficult downsizing plans, including at SUNY Potsdam.
King noted that for the last two years, SUNY has grown enrollment in every corner of its offerings, adding students in doctoral programs, associate degree programs and every level in between. The system has not yet returned to its peak enrollment headcount from 2008, when it served 471,184 students. Total enrollment for fall 2024, the latest semester with available data, shows the system served 376,534 students.
And SUNY is on track to add many more students to its community colleges next year, as the state opens up the SUNY Reconnect program meant to offer free associate degrees to full-time students ages 25 to 55, seeking a degree in an in-demand field. King said SUNY is also expanding it's 'Ten Percent Promise,' which guarantees that 10% of select high school seniors will have guaranteed admission to the competitive SUNY universities with lower acceptance rates. The system is also expanding its ASAP and ACE programs, which connect students at risk of dropping out of college with academic, financial and personal support systems.
SUNY is also rolling out a pilot program to offer evening and weekend child care on community college campuses for students.
Overall, King outlined a positive view of the future of the SUNY system, keeping with the policies and priorities the system has held for decades.
'I leave here filled with optimism that's grounded in our progress, our results and our strength — that not only can we meet this moment, we already are,' King said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Plans move to turn closed primary into SEN school
Plans to turn a closed primary school into a school for children with special educational needs (SEN) are taking a step forward. Colgate Primary School in Felling, Gateshead, was transferred to the Cedars Trust to provide 180 places from September. The academy organisation has applied to the council to expand the car park and widen its access. Planning documents show the school is expecting a high number of children to arrive in vehicles, either with their parents and carers or by home-to-school transport provided by the local authority. The existing car access entrance from High Heworth Lane would be widened to allow for two-way traffic, the documents said, while pedestrian access would remain from Colegate West. It comes after the Labour-led council decided to close the school in September last year. Colegate Primary had been dubbed the council's "most vulnerable school" in official documents, with a projected financial deficit of over £500,000 by 2025-26, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. More than 2,000 people signed a petition backing calls to keep it open. Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram. School closure consultation a 'tick-box exercise' BBC Sounds: Gateshead parents bid to save primary school Gateshead Council
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
American Military News
2 hours ago
- American Military News
Trump sees Iran deal that allows US to destroy nuclear sites
U.S. President Donald Trump said he envisions a nuclear deal with Iran that would allow the destruction of 'whatever we want' in the country including labs, a version of an inspections regime that is likely to be rejected by Tehran. Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, Trump briefly outlined his vision of a deal that is 'very strong, where we can go in with inspectors. We can take whatever we want. We can blow up whatever we want. But nobody getting killed,' he said. Trump also said he believed a deal with Iran could be completed within 'the next couple of weeks' and that talks had made 'a lot of progress.' But his comments about destroying nuclear facilities highlight a major sticking point between the two over whether Iran should be allowed to produce its own enriched uranium. An adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, dismissed Trump's ideas. 'Accessing Iran's nuclear sites and 'blowing up infrastructure' is a fantasy past U.S. presidents shared. Iran is independent, with strong defenses, resilient people, and clear red lines,' Ali Shamkhani said in a post on X on Thursday. 'Talks serve progress, interests, and dignity, not coercion or surrender,' he added. It's not clear if the ability to dismantle or destroy infrastructure in the event that Iran is found to be weaponizing its enrichment capability is a demand that U.S. negotiators have formally put to Iranian counterparts in their current talks. Trump's comments came in response to questions about reports Israel has revived plans to attack Iran. He said he advised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against that idea as it could disrupt ongoing talks between the U.S. and Iran. Trump described an alternative that gave the U.S. the option to destroy infrastructure related to a weapons program that would be baked into an agreement with Iran. 'We can blow up a lab, but nobody's going to be in the lab, as opposed to everybody being in the lab and blowing it up, right?' he added. After the 1991 Gulf War, a United Nations-led regime was imposed on Iraq in which inspectors were allowed to destroy nuclear and chemical weapons-related infrastructure. Iran has repeatedly warned the U.S. against threats of military action. Iranian officials insist their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and uranium enrichment is necessary for its nuclear power sector. Earlier on Wednesday officials in Iran said they'd consider allowing Americans to be part of International Atomic Energy Agency inspection teams under a future deal with the U.S., a walkback from a practice of excluding inspectors who are U.S. nationals. Trump's comments about being able to destroy nuclear infrastructure may make officials in Iran rethink the concession. Despite the apparent distance between expectations, Trump sounded optimistic about a deal, which his special envoy Steve Witkoff has been negotiating. 'They still have to agree to the final stages of a document, but I think you could be very well surprised what happens there, and it would be a great thing for them,' Trump said. 'They could have a great country into the future.' After talks in Rome on Friday, the Iranian foreign minister and lead negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, said they could lead to progress toward an agreement in the next couple of meetings. ___ © 2025 Bloomberg L.P. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
