International Women’s Day 2026 (March 8), with the theme “Rights. Justice. Action. For ALL Women and Girls,” arrives at a moment when higher education is being asked to do two things at once: protect the conditions that make learning possible, and deliver outcomes that justify the public’s trust (and investment).
The learner’s story is clear. Women are now the majority of postsecondary students, about 53% globally and 57.6% in the U.S. But the leadership story is still catching up. Women lead only 27% of the world’s Top 200 universities and 33% of U.S. colleges and universities. The work is in that gap.
We are excited to feature leaders who deserve recognition for the work they are doing to build the future of higher education: campus cultures that can hold disagreement, policies that protect truth and belonging, institutions that translate learning into opportunity, and technology governance that strengthens, not erases, what’s human.
Their work demonstrates how “Rights. Justice. Action.” moves from culture, to policy, to action, and finally to the future-facing layer that touches everything: AI.
Culture: how we live together on campus
In order for universities to teach well, they have to function as communities, which means creating environments where people can disagree without dehumanizing each other, and where the pressure of modern life doesn’t collapse the learning experience.
At Dartmouth, President Sian Beilock has actively promoted dialogue as a foundational element of learning. Academic institutions are built to foster discussion and allow learners to challenge themselves and test their ideas amongst their fellow students and their professors. Providing “brave spaces” where dialogue can occur and providing students and professors with tools to foster structured conversation with empathy, reframes campus tension as something universities can manage by design. The capacity to advance ideas and to navigate through a complex society where not everyone will agree is built in these foundational classroom and campus moments. Learning happens through the struggle and new ideas require an ability to create, discuss and hone amongst colleagues, sometimes especially those that disagree. Dialogue becomes a strategy for resilience.
On a different continent and in a different institutional context, Professor Xoliswa Mtose (UNIZULU) models culture change at the level of identity and purpose. Her vision positions the university as a “node for African thought,” renewing the relationship between institution and society and challenging inherited academic models that can alienate universities from the publics they serve. This is culture work in its deepest form: redefining what the university is for and who it is accountable to.
Both leaders are strengthening the civic capacity of the campus. They’re building conditions where learning can happen even when the world is loud.
Rights and policy: the guardrails that protect learning
If culture is how a community behaves, policy is how it protects what matters when tested.
At MIT, President Sally Kornbluth placed a spotlight on the tension between institutional autonomy and external pressure by rejecting elements of a proposed federal higher education “compact.” Her argument centered on core academic principles: free expression and research funding based on scientific merit, making the case that universities can’t fulfill their mission if those principles are compromised. Whatever one’s politics, the leadership stance is unmistakable: the university’s operating system must be defended if its outputs are to be trusted.
In Ireland, Professor Orla Feely, as the first woman president of University College Dublin, reflects a different but complementary policy focus: equity that outlives a single leader. Gender equality action plans are not symbolic. They shape hiring, promotion, representation, and institutional accountability, turning “justice” from aspiration into sustained practice. Treating inclusion as an organizational requirement means it is not an optional value.
Dr. Shelly Lowe (IAIA) brings a form of rights-centered leadership that is mission-specific and deeply consequential. Her move into the presidency of the Institute of American Indian Arts underscores what it means to champion Indigenous interests within education. Her leadership is beyond representational, it is rooted in cultural stewardship, community accountability, and the protection of identity through learning. Dr. Lowe’s trajectory celebrates the concepts of sovereignty, creative education, and public purpose.
Rights and justice are not abstractions. They show up as governance choices, institutional commitments, and the willingness to draw lines when the mission is at stake.
Action: outcomes, opportunity, and institutional modernization
After culture and guardrails come results. “Action” is where leadership becomes tangible, through curriculum redesign, partnerships, research capacity, and the pathways students use to translate learning into economic and social mobility.
In India, Deepa Sharma (IIMT) represents outcome-driven modernization: multidisciplinary curriculum restructuring, outcome-based education, and industry partnerships that connect learning to employability. In a time of economic uncertainty, higher education needs responses to the reality students feel every day: the return on education must be clear, and the pathway from classroom to career cannot be mysterious or accidental.
In South Africa, Professor Nosisi Feza (Walter Sisulu University) shows “action” through research excellence and institutional capacity-building. The work of raising research performance is often mischaracterized as purely competitive, through rankings, prestige, and outputs. But at its best, research leadership expands opportunity: it creates ecosystems where talent can emerge, where historically under-resourced institutions can compete globally, and where scholarship becomes a driver of local and national development.
And at Oxford, Professor Irene Tracey embodies a version of action that spans both discovery and stewardship. As a leading researcher in the neuroscience of pain and a vice-chancellor, she represents the institutional value of pairing research credibility with executive leadership. In a climate where universities are pressured to prove relevance, leaders who can connect discovery to human outcomes provide a powerful answer.
Action is not a slogan. It’s employability, research ecosystems, and measurable institutional change that expands what students can do with their lives.
Future proof: AI, accountability, and what we refuse to lose
As tired as we may be, the topic of AI, it is an inevitability in our practical economy. It is the layer that will either reinforce or undermine the values described above. Culture, rights, justice, and action may all be impacted by AI depending on how institutions govern it.
Joy Buolamwini has become one of the most important voices linking AI adoption to civil rights, accountability, and bias. In a moment where campuses are rushing to adopt algorithmic systems across admissions, advising, instruction, and operations, her work reminds higher education of the hard truths about the risks of scale without accountability. If universities claim to serve equity and opportunity, they have to ensure the technologies they deploy don’t quietly encode the opposite.
At the same time, Dr. Jess Evans (Maricopa Community Colleges) represents the operational leadership required to implement AI responsibly at scale. Community colleges sit at the center of workforce preparation and mobility, which means their AI decisions shape how quickly learners can succeed, how efficiently institutions operate, and how directly education connects to jobs. Evans’ work highlights the “action” side of AI: implementation, governance, and execution that serves real students in real systems.
Leadership worth celebrating
The future of higher ed belongs to leaders who can both interrogate AI (ethics, bias, governance) and operationalize it (implementation, outcomes, scale).
International Women’s Day is an opportunity to celebrate leadership while acknowledging accountability in higher education.
Women are the majority of students, yet remain underrepresented in the top seat. That gap affects what institutions prioritize, how they respond under pressure, and how they design pathways for the learners they serve.
This week gives us the chance to name the kind of leadership higher education needs next:
- Leadership that builds campus cultures strong enough to hold disagreement
- Leadership that defends rights and academic integrity when tested
- Leadership that produces actionable outcomes—career mobility, research excellence, institutional modernization
- Leadership that governs technology with accountability and human dignity at the center
These leaders are not simply influencing higher education. They are building it so that the institutions educating the majority of the world’s learners can better reflect, serve, and empower them.
