Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Addressing the need to strengthen leadership at Hispanic serving institutions

Addressing the need to strengthen leadership at Hispanic serving institutions
Getty Images

Anthony is a teaching faculty in educational policy studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network. He won a research award from the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation for his study of leadership in higher education.

Throughout the country, states continue to implement higher education policies that ensure the pathway to a degree is inclusive and accessible, with states such as New Mexico recently adopting legislation for tuition-free higher education and becoming one of many states following this trend. As more focus is placed on ways academic institutions can better support their students, there must also be reflection on how leaders play a critical role in guiding the complex organizations that serve large numbers of minority college students – such as Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).


Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) are postsecondary institutions that receive federal designation recognizing their enrollment of 25 percent or more full-time Hispanic undergraduate students. Over the last two decades, they continue to be the fastest-growing post-secondary institutions in the nation. According to Excelencia in Education, as of 2020-2021, there were 559 institutions in 29 states that met the criteria. My research suggests that fortifying leadership at HSIs would improve important outcomes which include well-being, retention, sense of belongingness, and completion rates for Hispanic students, a traditionally underrepresented and underserved group.

“Critical Transformational Leaders” in Higher Education

The value proposition of increasing college completion rates for Hispanics is often viewed in economic terms. Greater potential for employment opportunities and increased earnings for successful graduates usually accompanies the discourse about college degree completion. An accompanying narrative is how educated citizens might benefit the workforce and competitiveness of the economy. However, there are other important benefits that arrive from a college education that matter. The ability to use critical thinking skills can enrich how one views their life and place in larger society. Critical thinking skills allow students to engage in reflection, creativity, empathy, and sensemaking. College graduates tend to experience important social outcomes like better wellness, increased civic participation, less criminal activity, and lower use of welfare benefits and programs.

My research conducted a study including 73 higher education leaders at Hispanic-Serving Institutions in the Southwest United States. The interviews included college presidents, vice presidents, deans, department chairs, and other college leaders. One remarkable group of college leaders modeled what strong leadership at HSIs should be and I identified this group as “Critical Transformational Leaders.”

While this group possessed essential managerial competencies, what set the group of leaders apart was their concern and care for students. They were intentional about addressing students’ needs and avoided obsessing over rankings or accolades. These leaders sought to deeply understand the challenges college students grappled with while navigating the college pathway. They worked to understand how systemic forces shaped the lived experiences of students and worked on creating policies and procedures that would help students better navigate their challenges. These leaders were attuned to the special mission of HSIs to serve—and lift—Hispanic students. They were acutely aware that students are likely to have better workforce opportunities and social outcomes when armed with a college degree.

The example of distributed leadership modeled by this group empowered leaders at all parts of the institution—from the front lines of the student services office and classrooms to the C-suites to make decisions that focused on serving students. At meetings, they interrogated themselves to ask who was not included at the leadership table and then actively worked to broaden the leadership ranks so that leaders from all levels of the institution were represented and given voice. Importantly, these Critical Transformational Leaders did such a good job in supporting students that they were acknowledged by the federal government for their excellent completion rates for Hispanic students.

Training Leaders to Serve in Hispanic-Serving Institutions

Given that equity is one of the societal goals, there must be recognition that HSIs are key entry points where many Hispanic students begin their academic journeys. These postsecondary institutions are doing the heavy lifting in higher education by providing access to a broad population of traditionally underserved students. For example, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) reports that HSIs enroll “more African-Americans than all the HBCUs combined, more American Indians than all the TCUs together, and over 41% of all Asian Americans enrolled in college today.” As such, there is a responsibility to shore up leadership at these institutions. My findings broaden the understanding of what strong HSIs leadership work entails. It points to the need for leaders who are trained well to serve at Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

Now is the time to create programming at our national public colleges and universities to prepare higher education leaders to serve the rapidly growing Hispanic college student population. The unique needs of Hispanic college students require leaders who are not only well-trained managers, but critical leaders who are attuned to the unique needs of Hispanic students. There’s an opportunity to train future higher education leaders in their formative leadership years while they are still in college. This effort will help prepare generations of leaders to be ready to successfully serve the growing population of students enrolling at Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

At schools of education where leaders are currently trained to serve in traditional higher education settings, degree pathways for those interested in serving at postsecondary institutions with large numbers of Hispanic students must be created. The leadership curriculum must include training on matters like Hispanic community history and culture, students’ lived experiences, critical pedagogy, and culturally relevant mental health and well-being services. These future leaders must be trained on leadership responsibilities and basic functions of management. Also, in addition to college classroom training by faculty who can provide expert guidance, aspiring leaders need field-based opportunities that help them connect and apply what they’ve learned to real-world settings where they can get a sense of how to drive positive impacts.

College students arrive on campus carrying more than backpacks full of laptops, writing instruments, and notebooks. They arrive with dreams of a bright future. They are hoping for a transformative (not transactional) educational experience that will lift them and their families to a better place. As a society, we have a duty to honor their hopes and dreams by ensuring there is a strong leadership team in place to help make sure they transition successfully and seamlessly to the next level.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less