The American Association of University Professors chapter at the University of Minnesota organized a postcard writing campaign to urge President Rebecca Cunningham to defend higher education against recent attacks on research funding, academic freedom and international students. 

The effort launched on May 5  with the chapter standing in front of Coffman Union to encourage passersby to sign cards imploring Cunningham to join with universities across the country to establish a Mutual Academic Defense Compact, said Elaine Auyong, Associate Professor in the department of English. 

The action is a coalitional effort between AAUP and members of the Stand Up for Science, 50501 and Indivisible movements. 

“In just one hour, our group was able to collect over 200 postcards signed by UMN students, employees, and alumni,” Auyong said in an email statement to the Minnesota Daily. 

The initiative is an ongoing process, said ecology professor Ruth Shaw.  Shaw said, now that the campaign has started, the AAUP has begun sending small batches of ten cards to the office of the president.

The Mutual Academic Defense Compact of the Big Ten Academic Alliance, proposed by the Rutgers University faculty senate, is a resolution calling on eighteen institutions to pool their resources against federal threats to higher education. 

While the faculty senate voted on April 25 to join the compact, the University itself has yet to do the same. The University of Minnesota faculty senate is one of ten faculty senates that have voted to join the alliance.

AAUP Member and associate sociology professor Elizabeth Wrigley-Field said that growing this compact among universities across America is essential in preventing any individual institution from being targeted.

“There has been a movement at universities all across the United States … to say that we need to unite,”  Wrigley-Field said. “If we’re resisting alone, we can be targeted. And so the question of ‘How do you break out of that dynamic?’ is the central strategic question that institutions of all kinds are facing.”

In February, the U.S. Department of Education directed higher educational institutions to end diversity and inclusion practices. In March, the department launched an investigation against the University of Minnesota, along with several other universities, citing allegations of antisemitism. 

Refusal to comply with the standards the department outlined has culminated in threats to funding, accreditation, and non-profit status, the loss of which could put jobs at risk for not only faculty, but every University worker across the state.

Wrigley-Field was one of the first to cast her vote in favor of the resolution.

 “It was clear to me that the University Senate is not always on the same page, which makes sense, you know,” Wrigley-Field said. “We had lots of divided votes about lots of different things, but this vote was absolutely clear. We were absolutely united.” 

In addition to the postcard effort, the executive committee of the AAUP wrote letters to Cunningham urging the administration to take a clear stance against federal threats. However, Cunningham has yet to acknowledge these demands. 

Wrigley-Field said the response from undergraduates, alumni and even community members who are not associated with the University has been overwhelmingly supportive. 

“Community members who don’t necessarily have a direct tie to the U … are really enthusiastic about the idea of being able to … tell the U, ‘We want you to stand up for us’,” Wrigley-Field said. “‘We know that you, the University of Minnesota, are really important for what happens in the State, and we want you to defend yourself, because that’s also defending us.’”

The American Association of University Professors chapter at the University of Minnesota organized a postcard writing campaign to urge President Rebecca Cunningham to defend higher education against recent attacks on research funding, academic freedom and international students. 

The effort launched on May 5  with the chapter standing in front of Coffman Union to encourage passersby to sign cards imploring Cunningham to join with universities across the country to establish a Mutual Academic Defense Compact, said Elaine Auyong, Associate Professor in the department of English. 

The action is a coalitional effort between AAUP and members of the Stand Up for Science, 50501 and Indivisible movements. 

“In just one hour, our group was able to collect over 200 postcards signed by UMN students, employees, and alumni,” Auyong said in an email statement to the Minnesota Daily. 

The initiative is an ongoing process, said ecology professor Ruth Shaw.  Shaw said, now that the campaign has started, the AAUP has begun sending small batches of ten cards to the office of the president.

The Mutual Academic Defense Compact of the Big Ten Academic Alliance, proposed by the Rutgers University faculty senate, is a resolution calling on eighteen institutions to pool their resources against federal threats to higher education. 

While the faculty senate voted on April 25 to join the compact, the University itself has yet to do the same. The University of Minnesota faculty senate is one of ten faculty senates that have voted to join the alliance.

AAUP Member and associate sociology professor Elizabeth Wrigley-Field said that growing this compact among universities across America is essential in preventing any individual institution from being targeted.

“There has been a movement at universities all across the United States … to say that we need to unite,”  Wrigley-Field said. “If we’re resisting alone, we can be targeted. And so the question of ‘How do you break out of that dynamic?’ is the central strategic question that institutions of all kinds are facing.”

In February, the U.S. Department of Education directed higher educational institutions to end diversity and inclusion practices. In March, the department launched an investigation against the University of Minnesota, along with several other universities, citing allegations of antisemitism. 

Refusal to comply with the standards the department outlined has culminated in threats to funding, accreditation, and non-profit status, the loss of which could put jobs at risk for not only faculty, but every University worker across the state.

Wrigley-Field was one of the first to cast her vote in favor of the resolution.

 “It was clear to me that the University Senate is not always on the same page, which makes sense, you know,” Wrigley-Field said. “We had lots of divided votes about lots of different things, but this vote was absolutely clear. We were absolutely united.” 

In addition to the postcard effort, the executive committee of the AAUP wrote letters to Cunningham urging the administration to take a clear stance against federal threats. However, Cunningham has yet to acknowledge these demands. 

Wrigley-Field said the response from undergraduates, alumni and even community members who are not associated with the University has been overwhelmingly supportive. 

“Community members who don’t necessarily have a direct tie to the U … are really enthusiastic about the idea of being able to … tell the U, ‘We want you to stand up for us’,” Wrigley-Field said. “‘We know that you, the University of Minnesota, are really important for what happens in the State, and we want you to defend yourself, because that’s also defending us.’”

Each year, the United States has hundreds of thousands of deaths that could have been averted, according to a new collaboration between researchers at Boston University, Hunter College and the Minnesota Population Center. 

The U.S. is one of many nations considered wealthy, with the World Bank defining a wealthy nation as one with an average gross national income per capita of $14,005 or above. 

If death rates in the U.S. matched those of other wealthy nations, according to the study, the country would see far fewer deaths from avoidable diseases and accidents, or excess deaths. 

These excess deaths have continued to rise steadily over four decades, even in the post-pandemic era, said Jacob Bor, lead author of the study and associate professor at the Boston University School of Public Health.

“As the highest income and wealthiest country in the world, surely we should be at least average in terms of health outcomes?” Bor said.

The researchers estimate that between 1980 and 2023, excess deaths, or “missing Americans,” totaled 14.7 million in the United States. Bor says he hopes that quantifying these numbers can attract the attention of policymakers. 

“Being able to see that almost half of deaths under 65 could be averted if the US had the mortality rates of our peers, it highlights the very human costs of this,” Bor said. “The amount of grief and trauma that Americans are experiencing as a result of this … takes your breath away.”

While mortality increased worldwide during the pandemic, the disparity between the U.S. and other wealthy nations reached a peak in 2021, as the climb in deaths was much more pronounced in the United States. 

Although excess deaths declined from 1.1 million in 2021 to just over 700,000 in 2023, the recent numbers are consistent with the previously rising pre-pandemic trend.

“This actually is not a pandemic or a postpandemic story,” associate director of the Minnesota Population Center Elizabeth Wrigley-Field said. “This is a story about a longer-term trend, and we’re exactly on the line that you would expect us to be on, just based on the fact that things have gotten worse every year for America in relation to our peer countries.” 

Though the study did not uncover the specific determinants of the trend, the researchers speculated that it may be attributed to the United States’ comparatively poor social and healthcare infrastructure.

“Other high-income countries have more robust social safety nets,” Bor said. “Most of them have universal health care. Most of them have much more restrictive policies around firearms.”

The study is a part of a series of research collaborations, each uncovering a different piece of the post-COVID-19 mortality puzzle in the United States. 

The earliest project in the series examined how racial, ethnic and geographic disparities in mortality have shifted post-pandemic, with the study finding that most of the disparities spiked during the height of the pandemic and then returned to pre-pandemic levels. 

However, the increased mortality gap between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan Americans persisted even after the peak of the pandemic. The authors suspect this disparity could be due to rural hospital closures, healthcare worker burnout and vaccine hesitancy.  

The next steps for the research group are to identify the specific mechanisms and pathways underlying the United States’ mortality disadvantage, co-author and Boston University Demographer Andrew Stokes said. 

“Are they missing because of traffic accidents? Are they missing because of cardiometabolic diseases or drug poisoning?” Stokes said.  

Bor is concerned that proposed federal spending cuts to public health infrastructure and social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program could exacerbate the trend. 

“Our lesson from these data is that we should really be investing in the health of Americans,” Bor said. “What we’re seeing from the new administration is further divestment from the health of Americans.”

A team of researchers at the University of Minnesota recently completed a human trial for a novel gene-editing treatment, which could provide hope to patients with late-stage gastrointestinal, or GI, cancers. 

The treatment boosts the immune system’s ability to fight cancerous tumors by modifying tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell that can recognize and kill cancerous cells. Though similar approaches that work by activating the immune system have proven valuable for other cancers, few have been effective for GI cancers until now, co-author Tim Starr said.

“Your immune system is sending cells into your tumor,” Starr said. “But they’re not working, so can we soup them up?”

Individuals with metastatic cancer, meaning their cancer has spread to other parts of the body, have limited treatment options. With a new potential treatment option, researchers have the opportunity to fight advanced GI cancers with cells that patients already have in their own bodies. 

For the treatment, researchers began by removing a portion of the tumor from the patient to grow the tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, or TILs, in the lab. Then, the patients had their cells edited, as researchers deleted a molecule called CISH, which typically dampens the TILs’ ability to fight cancerous cells.

Once the cells are edited, the TILs are multiplied and infused back into the patient. 

In recent years, there has been an increase in the incidence of GI cancers in younger populations. Colorectal cancer, a type of GI cancer, is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Of the twelve metastatic patients who received the treatment, half saw their cancers stabilize after four weeks, meaning their tumors did not grow during this period. Branden Moriarity, an associate professor in the department of pediatrics, said one patient even went into full remission, as her tumors disappeared and have not returned for two and a half years.

None of the patients examined had the adverse side effects that accompany similar treatments, like severe neurological symptoms or cytokine storms, a condition that can trigger a potentially life-threatening inflammatory response. 

The University of Minnesota’s specialized Molecular and Cell Therapeutics facility makes this promising treatment possible. 

In addition to housing the novel cell and gene therapy research, the facility also runs the University of Minnesota Medical Center’s blood marrow transplant lab, which helps treat blood cancers and other blood disorders, said David McKenna, medical director of the MCT facility. 

Though the trial’s results were encouraging, the research team must improve the effectiveness of the treatment, which might involve identifying additional genes to delete, Starr said. Some members of the team are starting a new initiative, known as the Minnesota TIL Alliance, to refine the treatment and broaden its applications. 

The initiative will be a collaboration between researchers at the University to develop a new iteration of the treatment that can be applied to different cancers like ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and UV melanomas. 

“We hope to develop a therapy that could be applied broadly to all these different kinds of cancers,” Moriarity said.

Correction: A previous version of this article said the TIL initiative will be a collaboration between researchers at the University and the Mayo Clinic. However, currently, the Mayo Clinic is unable to directly participate in the initiative. 

The Board of Regents Nominating Committee met Wednesday to interview candidates for upcoming vacancies in Board leadership positions, as sitting Chair Janie Mayeron and Co-Vice Chair Mike Kenyanya’s tenures come to an end this year.

Ultimately, the Nominating Committee did not come to a consensus and will be reconvening on June 1 for an official decision.

According to the regents’ bylaws, officers, including Chair and Vice Chair, must be elected every two years. The Nominating Committee, run by Regents Kodi Verhalen, Mary Turner and Tadd Johnson, is tasked with preparing a slate of recommended candidates to be voted on by the Board. 

Current Co-Vice Chair Douglas Huebsch and Regent Robyn Gulley are seeking the Chair position.

During his candidacy interview, Huebsch said his goal would be to bring order to the chaos the University has been facing and help Minnesota thrive through the next century.

In recent months, Huebsch and fellow sitting leadership proposed the Board’s controversial March resolution, which restricts institutional speech by requiring all statements of public concern by University faculty groups and departments be approved by the president.

Gulley was one of three regents who voted against the resolution, citing its vagueness and the concern that it may precipitate self-censorship on campus. 

Gulley is also being considered for a Vice Chair position, as are fellow Regents Ruth Johnson, Penny Wheeler, and James Farnsworth.

Throughout the consideration process, committee members were primarily interested in the candidates’ availability, unique attributes and whether they could effectively communicate. During deliberations, Regent Mary Turner added it was important their recommended slate have the backbone to challenge University administration.

As they serve, new leadership will likely face many unique challenges like contending with growing concerns over federal budget cuts and academic freedom on campus.

After a chair is elected, they are expected to appoint regents to standing committees, lead meetings and moderate discussions. The vice chair works with the chair to lead the Board and fulfills the duties of the chair in their temporary absence. 

The Nominating Committee decided the vice chair position would remain a shared responsibility and two candidates be recommended.

The Board of Regents Nominating Committee met Wednesday to interview candidates for upcoming vacancies in Board leadership positions, as sitting Chair Janie Mayeron and Co-Vice Chair Mike Kenyanya’s tenures come to an end this year.

Ultimately, the Nominating Committee did not come to a consensus and will be reconvening on June 1 for an official decision.

According to the regents’ bylaws, officers, including Chair and Vice Chair, must be elected every two years. The Nominating Committee, run by Regents Kodi Verhalen, Mary Turner and Tadd Johnson, is tasked with preparing a slate of recommended candidates to be voted on by the Board. 

Current Co-Vice Chair Douglas Huebsch and Regent Robyn Gulley are seeking the Chair position.

During his candidacy interview, Huebsch said his goal would be to bring order to the chaos the University has been facing and help Minnesota thrive through the next century.

In recent months, Huebsch and fellow sitting leadership proposed the Board’s controversial March resolution, which restricts institutional speech by requiring all statements of public concern by University faculty groups and departments be approved by the president.

Gulley was one of three regents who voted against the resolution, citing its vagueness and the concern that it may precipitate self-censorship on campus. 

Gulley is also being considered for a Vice Chair position, as are fellow Regents Ruth Johnson, Penny Wheeler, and James Farnsworth.

Throughout the consideration process, committee members were primarily interested in the candidates’ availability, unique attributes and whether they could effectively communicate. During deliberations, Regent Mary Turner added it was important their recommended slate have the backbone to challenge University administration.

As they serve, new leadership will likely face many unique challenges like contending with growing concerns over federal budget cuts and academic freedom on campus.

After a chair is elected, they are expected to appoint regents to standing committees, lead meetings and moderate discussions. The vice chair works with the chair to lead the Board and fulfills the duties of the chair in their temporary absence. 

The Nominating Committee decided the vice chair position would remain a shared responsibility and two candidates be recommended.

The Board of Regents Nominating Committee met Wednesday to interview candidates for upcoming vacancies in Board leadership positions, as sitting Chair Janie Mayeron and Co-Vice Chair Mike Kenyanya’s tenures come to an end this year.

Ultimately, the Nominating Committee did not come to a consensus and will be reconvening on June 1 for an official decision.

According to the regents’ bylaws, officers, including Chair and Vice Chair, must be elected every two years. The Nominating Committee, run by Regents Kodi Verhalen, Mary Turner and Tadd Johnson, is tasked with preparing a slate of recommended candidates to be voted on by the Board. 

Current Co-Vice Chair Douglas Huebsch and Regent Robyn Gulley are seeking the Chair position.

During his candidacy interview, Huebsch said his goal would be to bring order to the chaos the University has been facing and help Minnesota thrive through the next century.

In recent months, Huebsch and fellow sitting leadership proposed the Board’s controversial March resolution, which restricts institutional speech by requiring all statements of public concern by University faculty groups and departments be approved by the president.

Gulley was one of three regents who voted against the resolution, citing its vagueness and the concern that it may precipitate self-censorship on campus. 

Gulley is also being considered for a Vice Chair position, as are fellow Regents Ruth Johnson, Penny Wheeler, and James Farnsworth.

Throughout the consideration process, committee members were primarily interested in the candidates’ availability, unique attributes and whether they could effectively communicate. During deliberations, Regent Mary Turner added it was important their recommended slate have the backbone to challenge University administration.

As they serve, new leadership will likely face many unique challenges like contending with growing concerns over federal budget cuts and academic freedom on campus.

After a chair is elected, they are expected to appoint regents to standing committees, lead meetings and moderate discussions. The vice chair works with the chair to lead the Board and fulfills the duties of the chair in their temporary absence. 

The Nominating Committee decided the vice chair position would remain a shared responsibility and two candidates be recommended.

The Board of Regents Nominating Committee met Wednesday to interview candidates for upcoming vacancies in Board leadership positions, as sitting Chair Janie Mayeron and Co-Vice Chair Mike Kenyanya’s tenures come to an end this year.

Ultimately, the Nominating Committee did not come to a consensus and will be reconvening on June 1 for an official decision.

According to the regents’ bylaws, officers, including Chair and Vice Chair, must be elected every two years. The Nominating Committee, run by Regents Kodi Verhalen, Mary Turner and Tadd Johnson, is tasked with preparing a slate of recommended candidates to be voted on by the Board. 

Current Co-Vice Chair Douglas Huebsch and Regent Robyn Gulley are seeking the Chair position.

During his candidacy interview, Huebsch said his goal would be to bring order to the chaos the University has been facing and help Minnesota thrive through the next century.

In recent months, Huebsch and fellow sitting leadership proposed the Board’s controversial March resolution, which restricts institutional speech by requiring all statements of public concern by University faculty groups and departments be approved by the president.

Gulley was one of three regents who voted against the resolution, citing its vagueness and the concern that it may precipitate self-censorship on campus. 

Gulley is also being considered for a Vice Chair position, as are fellow Regents Ruth Johnson, Penny Wheeler, and James Farnsworth.

Throughout the consideration process, committee members were primarily interested in the candidates’ availability, unique attributes and whether they could effectively communicate. During deliberations, Regent Mary Turner added it was important their recommended slate have the backbone to challenge University administration.

As they serve, new leadership will likely face many unique challenges like contending with growing concerns over federal budget cuts and academic freedom on campus.

After a chair is elected, they are expected to appoint regents to standing committees, lead meetings and moderate discussions. The vice chair works with the chair to lead the Board and fulfills the duties of the chair in their temporary absence. 

The Nominating Committee decided the vice chair position would remain a shared responsibility and two candidates be recommended.

The Board of Regents Nominating Committee met Wednesday to interview candidates for upcoming vacancies in Board leadership positions, as sitting Chair Janie Mayeron and Co-Vice Chair Mike Kenyanya’s tenures come to an end this year.

Ultimately, the Nominating Committee did not come to a consensus and will be reconvening on June 1 for an official decision.

According to the regents’ bylaws, officers, including Chair and Vice Chair, must be elected every two years. The Nominating Committee, run by Regents Kodi Verhalen, Mary Turner and Tadd Johnson, is tasked with preparing a slate of recommended candidates to be voted on by the Board. 

Current Co-Vice Chair Douglas Huebsch and Regent Robyn Gulley are seeking the Chair position.

During his candidacy interview, Huebsch said his goal would be to bring order to the chaos the University has been facing and help Minnesota thrive through the next century.

In recent months, Huebsch and fellow sitting leadership proposed the Board’s controversial March resolution, which restricts institutional speech by requiring all statements of public concern by University faculty groups and departments be approved by the president.

Gulley was one of three regents who voted against the resolution, citing its vagueness and the concern that it may precipitate self-censorship on campus. 

Gulley is also being considered for a Vice Chair position, as are fellow Regents Ruth Johnson, Penny Wheeler, and James Farnsworth.

Throughout the consideration process, committee members were primarily interested in the candidates’ availability, unique attributes and whether they could effectively communicate. During deliberations, Regent Mary Turner added it was important their recommended slate have the backbone to challenge University administration.

As they serve, new leadership will likely face many unique challenges like contending with growing concerns over federal budget cuts and academic freedom on campus.

After a chair is elected, they are expected to appoint regents to standing committees, lead meetings and moderate discussions. The vice chair works with the chair to lead the Board and fulfills the duties of the chair in their temporary absence. 

The Nominating Committee decided the vice chair position would remain a shared responsibility and two candidates be recommended.

The Board of Regents Nominating Committee met Wednesday to interview candidates for upcoming vacancies in Board leadership positions, as sitting Chair Janie Mayeron and Co-Vice Chair Mike Kenyanya’s tenures come to an end this year.

Ultimately, the Nominating Committee did not come to a consensus and will be reconvening on June 1 for an official decision.

According to the regents’ bylaws, officers, including Chair and Vice Chair, must be elected every two years. The Nominating Committee, run by Regents Kodi Verhalen, Mary Turner and Tadd Johnson, is tasked with preparing a slate of recommended candidates to be voted on by the Board. 

Current Co-Vice Chair Douglas Huebsch and Regent Robyn Gulley are seeking the Chair position.

During his candidacy interview, Huebsch said his goal would be to bring order to the chaos the University has been facing and help Minnesota thrive through the next century.

In recent months, Huebsch and fellow sitting leadership proposed the Board’s controversial March resolution, which restricts institutional speech by requiring all statements of public concern by University faculty groups and departments be approved by the president.

Gulley was one of three regents who voted against the resolution, citing its vagueness and the concern that it may precipitate self-censorship on campus. 

Gulley is also being considered for a Vice Chair position, as are fellow Regents Ruth Johnson, Penny Wheeler, and James Farnsworth.

Throughout the consideration process, committee members were primarily interested in the candidates’ availability, unique attributes and whether they could effectively communicate. During deliberations, Regent Mary Turner added it was important their recommended slate have the backbone to challenge University administration.

As they serve, new leadership will likely face many unique challenges like contending with growing concerns over federal budget cuts and academic freedom on campus.

After a chair is elected, they are expected to appoint regents to standing committees, lead meetings and moderate discussions. The vice chair works with the chair to lead the Board and fulfills the duties of the chair in their temporary absence. 

The Nominating Committee decided the vice chair position would remain a shared responsibility and two candidates be recommended.