The 2024 U.S. national election

The days before the 2024 national election brought varying reports of how Senate and House elections would go and diverse predictions related to the "toss up" between Harris and Trump. The days before the November 5 final balloting included increasing threats that a Trump administration would undo the U.S. Education Department, warnings in Pennsylvania that public campuses couldn't restrict election-related speech, some faculty bringing the election into the classroom and others canceling classes, campuses in swing states mobilizing students to vote, and VP Harris bringing her message back home to Howard University on election-watch night.

The stakes for higher education were very high with Trump declaring during his campaign, "We spend more money on higher education than any other country, and yet they're turning our students into communists and terrorists and sympathizers of many, many different dimensions." Campuses turned to a variety of strategies to calm anxiety and election day included youth enthusiasm that many hoped would carry the ballot. But by election night that anxiety moved to a sour mood at Howard University where Harris supporters had hoped to celebrate. The mood shifted from sour to devastation as Harris conceded to Trump. As citizens, and particularly faculty, staff, and students on college campuses, woke up to a Trump win, questions began to emerge about where the U.S. government is headed. America joined the rightward shift of wealthy countries around the world and the reality that fundamental change is ahead was on many minds.

The second Trump presidency raises major anxiety and speculation as educators reflect on public concerns over the value of postsecondary education and resentments about culture issues. The hopes and fears of higher education leaders cover a variety of topics, which often stand at odds to what conservative Republicans want in general from higher education.

Trump's preference for attention to research security and federal budget reduction rather than support of the breadth of research conducted by universities is discouraging researchers, which could result in loss of critical research capability. Confusion over Trump's executive order have researchers pursuing grants with NIH or NSF in limbo. Higher education leaders warned of loss of medical research funding, that warning coming to fruition in NIH grant cancellation for LGBTQ+ related areas. A Federal Court issued a stay on allowable indirect costs for NIH grants but in the longer term some agreement on acceptable rates of indirect cost recovery is probably in order.  NIH imposed a hiring freeze over the uncertainty related to funding but the hope of restoring NIH grants may be possible through internal appeals as well as law suits. The NIH resumed key grant review teams by mid-April, 2025.

Threats to NSF could cut key student research opportunities. The uncertainty about research may have been the minimalist goal but a very real impact is evident in multiple campuses imposing hiring freezes. Senator Ted Cruz compiled his own list of 3,400 left-leaning NSF grantees that should be cut.

The National Day of Action, organized by a coalition of union groups, demonstrated against the cuts to higher education, including the cap on indirect cost recovery. The Institute for Education Sciences budget was cut $900 million in funding but it was initially unclear what exactly was defunded.The most dangerous impact of cuts to NIH and NSF is that 75% of scientists say they are consider moving to other countries to be able to pursue their research. This podcast on why academics are leaving reveals the deeper issues beyond only the faculty who are leaving because of their loss of research funding.

The reality that Trump would eventually target the National Endowment for Humanities unfolded. NEH focuses research and publishing on culture, society, and values, which contribute to other prominent institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution that is also now being scrutinized for its diversity content. Terminations of 65% of NEH employees and termination of grants continued to dismantle its focus on the documentation and education about history and culture.

Some administrators welcome the possibility that there will be reduced red-tape but remain concerned about policy intervention, especially after Trump's attempt to cancel federal grants. The impact of executive actions in the first 10 days was impossible to determine due to the lag in policy formulation and implementation as well as legal challenges that have already begun. Law schools and organizations representing them are sounding alarms that Trump appears to have no intent to abide by the law or court rulings. Placing Elon Musk in a position to make arbitrary decisions on funding throughout federal programs without regard to accurate reporting, transparency, and accountability will likely have devastating effects.

Understanding that Trump takes pride in creating uncertainty and chaos is profoundly important. Complaints about the chaos will have little impact on him or his base, primarily due to the long-term commitment Trump has made to discrediting the "deep state" and anyone who opposes him. Those attempting to analyze disinformation, distrust, and divisiveness need to understand that these three "Ds" are the basis for his appeal to those who voted for him; the disenchanted middle and lower socioeconomic classes have never felt any of the systems worked for them and their lived experience confirms their belief.

Particularly in relation to the attacks on DEI, faculty and staff are left to determine whether to respond in silence or with resistance. What institutions should do is another matter since community colleges began their "Education for All" push back but elite institutions need to understand that sitting idle and cowering will not work with Trump. As an example, Columbia University was one of the first places to feel the pressure when 3 federal departments considered cuts to $54 million in funding based on assertions of institutional antisemitism.Ultimately, $400 million in federal contracts with more than $250 million coming from NIH were cut from Columbia University. The federal funding cuts hit Columbia's post-docs and research faculty immediately. Columbia's President, Katrina Armstrong, is at the pinnacle of visibility as she navigates Trump administration demands and the expectations of her institution.

Concerns immediately arose that Columbia's capitulation to the Trump administration attack delivered a win reflecting a dangerous imposition power. The New York Times reported that Columbia was a target emanating from a failed real estate deal proposed by Trump 25 years ago, which could mean the attack could be a singular vendetta of political theater. However, U.S. Constitution law scholars issued a statement through ACLU offering the opinion that Trump's attack violated 1st Amendment free speech provisions as well as Title VI procedural guidelines. The Columbia press release was a de facto admission that Jewish student complaints were not appropriately addressed; remedies demanded by Trump were modified in specifics but the broad compliance drew condemnation from the AAUP President and others.

The weaponization of funding is unprecedented and reflects the "exercise of raw power to intimidate, enforce obedience, and silence dissent" of all higher education. The overreach from the Federal level to control budget and program is a warning to all institutions. The Columbia chapter of AAUP equated the Trump administration demands to ransom and indicated Jewish student demands had eclipsed the grievances of other groups. Proof of the threat to other institutions is that 60 other higher education institutions were informed that they are "under investigation," Signaling a central focus, Senate Republicans returned to hearings on accusations of universities not addressing anti-Semitism. As an example of the capriciousness of Trump's "investigations," UPenn's "proactive punishment" reducing federal funding by $175 million was threatened in the media, which administrators pledged to "understand and address." There is a possibility that the attack on Columbia isn't only about higher education but also about a wider number of institutions being taken over by Trump and his allies. As the story continued to unfold, Harvard's $9 billion in research was being investigated, $210 million in federal funding frozen at Princeton University 2-weeks after its President published an op-ed criticizing Trump's targeting of higher education. Trump administration intent to block $510 million in federal contracts for Brown University added them to the list.

Adding another level of attack, ICE arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate of Columbia University, who is not on student visa but a Green Card and is married to a U.S. citizen, for involvement in a Pro-Palestinian demonstration. Khalil's detention was temporarily blocked but he remained isolated from legal representation and his wife who will give birth within the coming month. Daniel Levy, spokesperson for the far-right pro-Israel group Betar, claims to have given the Trump administration leads on Khalil as well as thousands of others. Maybe that's why Trump promised that Khalil is only the first international student (although he is not presently on a student visa) to be deported for being involved in protests. CNN coverage of the Tufts Ph.D. international student taken into custody called lawyers and citizens to push back on criminalization of speech that the Trump administration opposes. The University of Alabama doctoral student from Iran taken into custody supposedly represented a threat to U.S. security but specifics were not available.

Columbia warned international students to be careful what they say or do. Fear spread throughout the U.S. with international student services offices being flooded with concerned students as other scholars and students were apprehended. Columbia's harsh discipline of other students who occupied campus buildings during protests last year may placate conservative critics of the institution. The crackdown on protesters is a direct threat to international students at other campuses, especially in the context of revocation of 300+ international students's visas within 3 weeks leading up to March 28, 2025. Fear and chaos spread as multiple international students have been detained and interrogated. Hopefully an aberrant move adding to greater threat, Florida Atlantic University was the first university in the U.S. to permit cooperation with ICE officials and the University of Florida soon followed. Two faculty associations sued the Trump administration for creating a "climate of repression and fear on university campuses."

In the face of the 2nd Trump presidency, question has been raised if higher education leaders are up to the task of defending their faculty, staff, and students. The sheer number of executive orders in Trump's first week caused some higher education leaders to warn against "anticipatory obedience," with the cancellation of Rutger's Center for Minority Serving Institutions conference and Michigan State's cancellation of Lunar New Year possible examples. As more executive orders emerged, college presidents became increasingly alarmed, an indication that higher education leaders should not duck and run in the face of chaos and unpredictability. College presidents know that trust is essential but potentially compromised when so many issues have to be addressed at once. Successful leadership of higher education requires skillful story telling and assertion of positive institutional narratives and must include a focus on the public good achieved through educational attainment. Particularly when it comes to protecting non-citizen students, campuses have to be prepared to take action if they are to maintain their integrity as institutions with a duty to care. As of April 7, 2025, the number of international students was expanding rapidly with more than 50 institutions feeling the impact.  Unions may provide one of the best ways to push back, largely because collective voices have more influence.

Make no mistake, besides the shock and awe, disdain for law and separation of powers, divide and concur is a favorite for Trump to impose his will. Value and resentment are front and center for the base who brought Trump back for four more years; the result is delight among reactionary conservatives and dismay among progressives. The anti-diversity rhetoric and policy roll-out pitted universities against their own students in two specific examples. One of the first was that, in the face of public pronouncements and denigration of programs to support diversity, students from diverse cultural backgrounds were left to wonder if they will be supported by their institutions, especially when the Education Department is targeted for reduction in scope or elimination. The Israel v. Hamas war provided another wedging opportunity as Trump and conservatives boxed educators into a corner by labeling anything questioning of Israel as antisemitic. Even if Israel v. Hamas went away, conservatives have labeled campuses as grossly insensitive to Jewish students' claims of marginalization and harassment and the plan is to continue to push that narrative by staging antisemitism investigations across U.S. campuses.

Trump's anti-Semitism task force includes 3 cabinet members, lawyers, and Fox News correspondents. The task force is orchestrating funding cuts and multiple investigations of universities and cities for not confronting anti-Semitism. Higher education anti-Semitism hearings started on March 27, 2025 with the calling of "expert" witnesses. The hearing erupted when a panelist, Charles Small who is the founding director and president of the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism Policy, repeated criticism that Qatar supports Hamas and fosters anti-Semitism. To the credit of Kansas Senator Roger Marshall, Small was quickly called out for his derogatory and unfounded claims against Qatar.

As Trump's directive to "diminish" the role of the Education Department rolled out against strong opposition, especially those who are college educated. Some Education Department staff were placed on leave for having participated in DEI training. Others eliminated from the Education Department represent an invaluable resource for accountability. Trump's consideration of who will serve as Secretary of the Education Department is immensely important. The proposal to appoint Linda McMahon, whose founding and leadership of the WWE is asserted as her business acumen, portends a different path for her versus her predecessor. Her persistence and success with the WWE suggests she could be up to fulfill Trump's campaign promises and would likely move to impose controls on higher education, including the possibility of the Education Department seeking to control costs. McMahon was slow to submit the required materials in order to schedule her confirmation hearing so an interim was appointed. The Senate subcommittee released McMahon's financial disclosure statements and scheduled her initial hearing for the week of February 10, 2025, although other political appointees in Education have already begun. The questions raised by Senators with McMahon covered a wide variety of topics with most confirming her commitment to deliver Trump's charge to return education responsibility to the states and to reduce the scope of the Education Department. As McMahon's nomination moved to the Senate and Trump declared "Long Live the King" in social media, some question if McMahon's appointment even counts. Nicolas Kent, a former lobbyist for career colleges, was appointed as Under Secretary of Education, a position responsible for higher education policy. Trump's appointee to the Office of Civil Rights in the Education Department has a history of strong ties to conservative think tanks and has consulted in drafting legislation to push reform. The acting director of the Office of Civil Rights, which had paused investigations of complaints on campuses, returned to receiving only complaints based on disability, excluding race and gender. McMahon was ultimately confirmed by the Senate and her expressed commitment was to dismantle bureaucracy and return parents to the center of education. McMahon quickly informed Education Department staff to "prepare for a 'momentous final mission' to eliminate 'bureaucratic bloat' and return education to the states" after her appointment.

Prior to McMahon's nomination, some suggested that fears were overstated but Trump's report that McMahon was told to work herself out of the job reinforced his intent. Republican states' support for the elimination of the Education Department, the continued push of the House Committee to impose controls, and details of Project 2025 related to higher education are ominous. Virginia Foxx persistently pressed higher education during her leadership of the House Committee, even though she was unable to pass the College Cost Reduction Act. The failure to approve the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act left funding to enhance community college's role on the table. Tim Walberg's selection as the head of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce is likely to result in continued pressure for higher education to address cost and preparation for work. Lauding the House-wide efforts to assert influence over higher education, Speaker Johnson declared that more is to come. The draft House budget bill will cut higher education spending by $330 million, a move that is opposed by a majority of the public. Elon Musk's crusade to dig into databases was blocked by a federal judge who cited the importance of maintain confidentiality of student records.

The uncertainty of Walberg's and McMahon's impact are derived at least partially from vague declarations from Trump, but the impact of downsizing and reassigning current Education Department functions would certainly be significant. Democrats attempted to protest Trump's threats against the Education Department but were barred from entering its Washington, D.C. building. Authorization of immigration raids on campuses, regardless of whether it is actionable, is an example of Trump's action that higher education leaders will have to address. In the aftermath of the attempted "pause" of all federal funding, which Trump rescinded within days of rolling it out, retained a commitment to scrub all DEI initiatives and included scrutiny of federal grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. The "Dear Colleague" letter demanding that institutions eliminate all DEI efforts resulted in conflicting views about compliance, part of which was possibly premature because the compliance methodology had not been announced. The Musk-driven crusade reduced education research by $350 million and the Education Department declared that DEI violates the Civil Rights Act. The Office of Civil Rights launched 51 investigations to expand "efforts to ensure universities are not discriminating against their students based on race and race stereotypes." Adding another federal agency to the mix, new Secretary of Defense Hegseth immediately moved to prohibit race-based admissions at military academies and Trump dismissed what he labeled as "woke" appointees on the four academies' governing boards. The Naval Academy complied with Hegseth's directive by scrubbing DEI topics from all courses and removing 400 books from its library, including the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Einstein on Race and Racism. One of the greatest fears was that the Dear Colleague letter encroached upon classroom content and prohibited culturally-based programs. The subsequent clarifying statement indicated that the point was that programs had to be open and first-amendment rights be preserved.

The complaints of Trump and his supporters are animated by socio-economic class bifurcation that is related to higher education access. Those with college degrees are destined to a knowledge class that "tends to invest heavily in their children's education, sending them to private or high-performing public schools and reinforcing a cycle of privilege. This group's tendency to marry within its class further consolidates resources, status and cultural capital with the upper tier, contributing to the reproduction of class advantage." The Hidden Globe exposes how wealth is protected in obscure places that reduce funding of public good for others. The dynamic of class is evident in the pattern of blue and red states in the 2024 election, reinforcing the perception of urban and coastal elites. Perhaps the political challenges to DEI are simply a way to keep whiteness at the center of the conversation, privileging that actually undermines the objectives of inclusion and access.

The opportunity to express opposition is one of the biggest areas of concern. One survey indicated that one-third of faculty report a decline in academic freedom. Another survey indicated that most faculty fear discussing controversial issues, Worse yet, staff don't have the same protections as faculty, as demonstrated by a University of Oregon staff member being placed on leave after posting a derogatory video message about Trump's election. An opposing voice during the 1st Trump administration, the President of Trinity Washington declared that neutrality is impossible during the 2nd run. Presumed neutrality is particularly problematic if institutions seek to maintain a commitment to open inquiry. Maintaining free speech is important and supporting DEI is part of that commitment. Students' express some concerns and blame either fellow students or politicians for escalation of tension over free speech. 

The winds of change coming from Trump's election coupled with emerging AI, tariffs, and demographic shifts will challenge many, if not most, campuses. Presidents of higher education institutions are trying to figure out what to expect and whether or not to be public in opposition when their institutions are placed at risk. More reactions are likely to unfold as institutions attempt to preserve a commitment to free speech while discouraging political activism that could exacerbate reactions among conservatives to anti-Trump sentiment. The University of California Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement offers assistance for those seeking to navigate shifting politics on campus.

Discussants at the November 2024 National Student Vote Summit bemoaned the 8% drop in youth voter participation, attributing the drop to apathy. Many believed the youth vote would be pivotal in 2024 and would result in a Harris/Walz victory, others were pleased with the Trump win. Even though the majority of the college educated youth vote supported Harris, support for her dropped and shifted to Trump with young white male voters primarily responsible for the shift. Part of the new landscape of communication sources, students who voted for Trump were disproportionately activated by podcasts. Republican Brian Harrison leveraged the Trump win to rein in "the rogue administrative state" at Texas A&M with the first example being the elimination of the recently launched program in LGBTQ studies. Ultimately, 57% of student voters believe that casting a ballot didn't count.

Hang on, higher education... but there is always another day. Due to the speed and volume of Trump's actions, Inside Higher Education launched a weekly update, starting after the first 100 days. The imposition of Trump executive actions have spawned a flurry of lawsuits, with many lower courts challenging his actions and even the Supreme Court ruling against him. Examples include blocking changes in the NIH indirect expenses rate, the NEA's challenge to the anti-DEI moves, and 20 state Attorneys General who filed suit over Education Department funding cuts. V.P. Vance's adoption of Andrew Jackson's view of the court, "The chief justice has made his ruling; now let him enforce it," is not encouraging. Focus on short-term crises has to be balanced by attention to the long-term core work of knowledge creation and acquisition.

Higher Education's return on investment

The perception that seeking and achieving a higher education degree pays off has driven enrollment for generations of U.S. and international students and resulted in the dramatic growth of colleges and universities in the 20th century. The return on investment was assumed with local, state, and federal government initially contributing a significant proportion of the cost and students/families picking up the remaining, and more recently growing, proportion of the expense. With the Trump administration pushing to reduce the reach of federal government, there is some hope in states increasing their financial support.

Enter a time of demographic shifts that have resulted in U.S. institutions relying on surging international enrollment and attracting students from U.S. families who have previously not had the privilege of higher education opportunity and suddenly the return on investment question is front and center. Forbes magazine projects that at least 15% greater earnings is the general expectation for college over a high school degree. One-third of students attending college today are immigrants or from recently immigrated families. But for these students the economic mobility pay off is delayed for at least 2 to 3 generations from the first family member who pursues a college degree. For students of color from immigrant family backgrounds, the pay off is even slower than for those who are white. The executive director of the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education warned that these students "are driving enrollment growth" and that it is "in the business interests of higher education institutions, of communities and states, because immigrant-origin students are also helping to drive workforce development."

The tension between cost and benefit is reflected in survey results indicating that 75% of respondents see value in a college degree but fewer than half believed the expense was fair. Institutional accountability is at the center of the conversation because benefit varies so widely across institutions and for sub-groups of students.

Enrollment is an obvious contributor to Fitch predicting continued deterioration of the higher education sector. The anticipation future includes "variable enrollment, rising capital needs and continued operating pressures" that will "chip away at more vulnerable higher education institutions." Perceptions of institutional stability are likely to exaggerate enrollment differences, as prospective students consider whether the investment of their time and tuition dollars are worth it. As evidence of the vulnerability of higher education, 16 non-profit institutions closed their doors in 2024.

In the face of one research report indicating that one-quarter of current students regret the decision to go to college, it is critical that differential costs per student and by type of institution be addressed. With taking on debt a common and growing burden, regret has to be replaced by a clear path to ensure return on investment. A task force composed of representatives from 32 states is beginning to outline a plan to bring state and federal efforts together to address the ROI question. The focus of the National Conference of State Legislator's report is the first effort to address national higher education concerns since 2006. Education Department under secretary James Kvaal noted that policy conversations are often in isolation and that the NCSL initiative offers the opportunity to build consensus around "a system that is open to everyone who needs additional skills and credentials, is affordable, and gives everybody a fair opportunity to graduate and go on to a career of their choice." Breaking the monopoly on education pathways by offering faster and more affordable degrees and reimagine accreditation could be part of the approach to achieve both success and improve credibility.

Reports of falling trust in U.S. higher education may not be as pivotal as some (particularly conservative opposition) have asserted. Medical systems, religion, public schools, and TV news have suffered greater losses in public trust than higher education. The meeting of international educators in Japan in November of 2024 includes focus on countering the partisan attacks around the world that focus on undermining educational progress. Addressing the purpose of the International Association of Universities (IAU) meeting, its secretary general Hilligje van't Land said, "We need to explain to society why it is so important to provide high-quality education and foster critical thinking and open up world views to equip students with the ability to connect with different knowledge systems around the world."

In an effort to encourage greater focus on retention and graduation, the U.S. Department of Education recognized 200 institutions with a "student success" designation. Although the process of selection was questioned by some, the fact that recognition is valued is a positive move. The student success recognition served to redefine high performance as serving diverse student populations rather than elite status based on resources or reputation.  Bridging the gap between education and work is likely to be another area that will reap recognition and the Belmont Fast Forward example may be a good benchmark.

Student success is one of three major trends that will influence higher education in 2025. The three trends are 1) focus on student success, 2) AI, and 3) the rise of alternative credentials and flexible learning pathways.

Overt commitment to student success is reflected in the number of staff specifically charged with improving students' experiences and achievement, a function that often falls in the student affairs division of colleges and universities. A survey of 199 student success leaders was largely positive, with almost all believing that the quality of students education was good or excellent and the majority believing that their institutions were effective in supporting student success. While this survey was of staff who have a vested interest in their institutions being perceived positively, the optimism of this group may help to counter the skepticism expressed by dissenters.

While the idea of return on investment is most often focused on preparation for work, the roots of higher education in the 19th and 20th centuries also included preparation for a reasoned and purposeful life beyond employment. Higher education was advocated as adding quality to graduates' overall life and well-being. Steve Mintz' Inside Higher Education essay advocated that "big picture" courses not be forgotten. His admonition also recognized the difficulties with these courses which include lack of faculty expertise to teach them, student preparation for them, and superficiality when big issues are the subject matter. 

Understanding immigration

The U.S. Presidential election is animated again by the controversy of immigration. I counted them and there were eight examples in the Harris v. Trump debate where Trump diverted the topic to immigration and how the influx of "others" is destroying our country. Trump's victory returned the vilification of immigrants to center stage, including threats of deportations across the country. The 2017 film, Human Flow, is a compelling depiction of the mass migrations taking place throughout the world. Filmed during Trump's first term, it is a reminder of why threats and walls are inadequate in a time when so many are seeking refuge from political, economic, and social crisis.

The response to immigration fear-mongering includes declarations that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants and that immigrants are generally quite successful in pursuing their dreams and building a life in their adopted country. However, declaring transition to U.S. citizenship and seeking the American dream does little to quiet the opponents who, descended from immigrants themselves, believe that their welfare is being undermined by other immigrants seeking to take their place.

Steve Mintz of Inside Higher Education raised the question of how to portray the immigrant experience in a recent essay that may help. He used as one of his examples the Tenement Museum of New York City. I've been there and viewed the tiny apartments where families were crammed into small spaces yet made their way eventually to a better life. The images one gains are of resilience, persistence, and heroism. Portrayals such as these are not incorrect but allowing them to be used as justification for how immigrants have been treated over time and around the world today is inhumane. Even worse, demeaning immigrants as criminals and the worst of humanity, as Trump has done, goes beyond all limits of empathy and compassion.

Two books, both titled Welcoming the Stranger, delve into the faith-based and political views of immigration. The Soernes & Yang book summarizes the Christian view while the Soltes & Stern book covers the three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as provides examples of welcoming strangers around the world. Understanding the perspectives summarized in these two books is critical to moving forward with any kind of solution to immigration policy and practice in the U.S.

As one of the U.S. sanctuary cities, Chicago, Illinois, has seen over 40,000 refugees and immigrants from Venezuela and elsewhere arrive seeking a new life. The documentary Desdo Cero: The Migrant Journey in Chicago is an excellent summary of what happened. The film candidly portrays both the strain and the accommodation of Chicago and surrounding suburbs as compassionate citizens attempted to help immigrants bussed to the area by Governor Abbott of Texas in a political stunt during the winter of 2024.

Some university student governments pushed their administrations to adopt a "Sanctuary Campus" status. ICE arrests and threats of deportation for international students who express pro-Palestinian perspectives caused one immigrant youth advocacy group, United We Dream, to use similar language used by the Education Department to describe the desired experience of Jewish students on campuses - that immigrants students must be accorded assurance of security and access to the full benefit of the college experience.

Related to understanding immigration from the U.S. southern border, over 1 million internationals are studying in the U.S. at present; perceptions and the reality of hostility toward them influences their decision making in a variety of ways. During the Trump presidential years, higher education struggled to maintain an image as a welcoming place for students who wanted to study in the U.S. We are back again to images and strategies that could influence if international students come to the U.S. for study and for practical training after receiving their degrees, a vital pipeline to advance research and innovation in the U.S.A.

As Parag Khanna so ably documented in Move, migration has been occurring for millennia and is accelerating in the modern age due to environmental, economic, political and other turmoil. Thinking carefully about how immigration is portrayed and how politicians, activists, educators, and others should respond is key if the U.S. and other countries around the world are to be able to quell the controversies that are tearing communities apart.

Activism on path to continue

I continued to visit questions about activism in relation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and the continuing war between Israel and Hamas over the last year. As campuses open for the 2024-25 academic year, activism on these two topics is likely to continue and may accelerate and spread to other issues. Looking back at the height of turmoil, campuses like UCLA were unprepared to handle everything from decision making to intervention. Although proposed as competencies that college presidents should possess in order to handle current campus dynamics, the ability to build trust, resilience, communications savvy, team building, emotional intelligence, courage, and resource management are likely to be helpful in managing protests and crises as well as be broadly applicable to daily campus management.

Communications management is essential when the waters are turbulent. With the inevitability of disturbances continuing, campus leaders should clearly communicate what qualifies as violations of policy, advocate for restrained freedom of expression, and should streamline bureaucracy by forming a small crisis team ready to go into action.

Interest in the U.S. Presidential election in academic circles rose to a new level when President Biden stepped aside to make way for VP Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee. The American Council on Education took out a NYTimes ad to assert the value of higher education leading up to the national election. Although 8% of new youth voters say they won't cast a ballot, the stark contrast of possible Harris v. Trump presidencies has animated many younger voters. The proportion of students in college who plan to vote surged after Harris replaced Biden at the top of the ticket with Harris leading Trump by a whopping 38 points. To counter the youth movement, voter suppression laws were enacted in 27 states. Text messages to potential youth voters in Wisconsin threatened out of state students with fines and jail time. Misinformation could dampen the prospect of students voting in Pennsylvania. Removal of on-campus voting at Purdue University sparked outrage across campus. A Student Voice survey indicated that 38% of students plan to vote and that institutions could accommodate this number or larger through a number of strategies. Election stress was a prominent feature for everyone, sparking calls to support well-being in an anxious time.

Youth vote and appealing to those who value higher education is critical as the potential authoritarianism of a 2nd Trump U.S. Presidency looms. Both Trump and Vance have amped up their rhetoric by painting higher education as part of the "evil within" that they will attack. Former Secretary Voss under Trump, who resigned in protest of his role in the January 6 insurrection, renewed her connection by donating to Trump's campaign and said she would return in his administration if she was free to abolish the Department of Education. The rise in negative sentiment toward higher education, and elite institutions in particularly, appeals to the reactionary MAGA base and has been used to woo Jewish voters who have been persuaded that anti-semitism is rampant and unaddressed by education leaders. European university leaders warn that the U.S. is importing bad models that restrict academic freedom as institutions thread the needle between public opinion fueled by complaint-based politics versus the long-standing commitment to free inquiry.

Central to the difference is Trump's accusations about border security and what he declares as a failure of the Biden/Harris administration. Undocumented students know that they are particularly at risk because immigration is so clearly a mobilization tactic among Trump supporters. With these dynamics so obvious, campuses need to find a way of portraying and educating students about immigration over history and in the present day. Opposing immigration is integral to white Christian Nationalism, a view that the U.S. is a refuge for white citizens who came to America to establish a Christian nation. By contrast, the United Methodist Church advocates the inclusive and compassionate mandate of Christianity and denounces political violence and authoritarianism.

Constructive activism is dependent on campuses being able to create a culture of free expression. Heterodoxy in viewpoint, especially related to history that may include reprehensible moments, may need to be part of the mix. While recent reports indicate tensions about student speech, 70% of students indicate that they are comfortable in expressing their views. The American College Student Freedom, Progress, and Flourishing Study examined perceptions of viewpoint diversity, how college shapes students' learning, capitalism and socialism, and the Israel v. Hamas war. As an indicator that tolerance for different views is fragile, the report found that 71% support reporting professors for offensive comments and 56% support reporting fellow students, these percentages down only 3% from the previous assessment. PEN America noted encroachment through 29 legislative proposals designed to dismantle institutional autonomy, much of it focused on DEI or seeking to usurp control of curriculum from faculty.

Diversification in higher education is advocated by many in the general population, including 77% who believe that historically underrepresented groups should have access to study beyond high school. When this general sentiment is disaggregated, 91% of democrats and 62% of republicans agree. Intent to undermine this level of agreement on demographic diversification is evident in the "Dear Colleague" letter from Trump appointees who criticized "test-optional" admission policies on some campuses, which have generally been found to be less discriminatory for students from diverse cultural and economic backgrounds. As conservative attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion have spread throughout the country, the links between diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and anti-immigrant rhetoric is clear. Discourse around these two issues feed into accusations that higher education is hostile to conservative points of view.

The Heritage Foundation launched a new rating system to serve conservative students and families in selecting colleges "prioritizing freedom, opportunity and civil society." The rankings, using a green and red light signal as indication, placed New College of Florida at the top and Harvard at the bottom. The red light institutions presumably "exhibit a pervasive hostility toward diverse viewpoints and lack robust core curricular requirements." Unveiled divisive activism such as this are likely to drive students with different political perspectives even further down their rabbit holes. The Michigan regents considered how to respond to political pressures amid pleas from students and faculty both supporting and opposing the proposals. The firing of Michigan's Academic Multicultural Affairs head is sure to keep the controversy alive.

Banning DEI undermines universities' cultivation of talent and scientific advancement, both key to the future of the U.S. economy. Sadly, retrenchment in DEI initiatives is more substantial than many realize and there is plenty of potential for it to continue. A commitment to DEI principles can be achieved through more seamless integration, which is where many institutions appear headed. Changing office names, such as Boise State's renaming of its diversity areas to "student success" and the University of Idaho's closing DEI offices but turning to "student engagement," may help to maintain the commitment to inclusion under different guiding purposes. Idaho legislators subsequently accused Boise State of flouting the DEI ban. It remains to be seen if shifts in language will survive after the State Board of Education voted to prohibit DEI throughout Idaho's institutions. A flurry of legislative pressure in Iowa kept DEI in the spotlight and was repeated by Republicans at the state level in Ohio, Indiana, North Dakota, and Texas. Students at Iowa protested the closure of living communities designed to foster inter-cultural learning and officials at other campuses acknowledged the challenges students face as programs are attacked. Living communities that benefitted students by improving academic engagement and supporting LGBTQ+ students have closed in the DEI purge.

The tension between those who advocate and oppose a continued focus on diversity and inclusion highlights the importance of addressing the perception that DEI advocates are hostile to other perspectives. "What's next for DEI" suggested four central concerns including; DEI advocates are perceived as incurious, are progressive activists, patronizing, and have adopted the role of language police. Some view the broader issue is that DEI initiatives are censorious, performative, and ineffective. Fair or not, these perceptions must be addressed if a meeting of the minds is ever to become possible, which includes educators determining what diversity-related issues are most important. With Trump's election, DEI advocates advise that behind the scenes issues of who is fit to lead and whose scholarship is accepted will require resolution.

Creating a climate that supports the free expression of diverse views is challenging, as demonstrated in this compilation of cases. Research conducted by FIRE documented increasing partisanship and difficulty in expressing opinions, specifically related to the Hamas v. Israel war. Differentiating activist speech v. deliberative dialogue may help to clarify the purposes and potential impact of approaching expression in different ways. Yale University's neutrality directive is an apparent attempt to reduce institutional statements that reflect partisan perspectives; although some view the statement as vague, supporters assert that the goal of neutrality will foster more deliberative conversation. Bridge USA convened constructive dialogue at Georgetown University including pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian participants that resulted in active debate but managed to keep everyone in the room and reduced intolerance.

The tensions of free speech and demonstration have been met by claims of police brutality on one end and campuses walking back restrictions on where speech and protest is possible on the other. The irony is that Republicans hosted a free speech roundtable, which could enact guidelines that will actually serve to limit speech. The trend of faculty watching their words and what kinds of assignments they give to students reflects self-censorship based on self-preservation.

The election of Todd Wolfson to be President of the AAUP signals the possibility of the organization becoming more politically active. Wolfson made it clear that he would lead a national movement to restore respect and confidence in education. His political perspectives are also nuanced around his identity as an American Jewish intellectual who has expressed pro-Palestinian sympathy. Having led unionization efforts at Rutgers University, Wolfson exclaimed, "All those who care about higher education, academic freedom and the future of democracy should prepare for the fight ahead by organizing their campus communities." Wolfson expressed disappointment and pledged that there is no way for AAUP to remain neutral in the face of Trump's victory in the 2024 election. Some believe that AAUP's commitment to academic freedom relies on its succes in advocating for diversity and inclusion. The AAUP and other organizations joined in a law suit against Trump's executive orders related to DEI.

Preparing the campus through new student seminars, such as that of USC, could help. Professors at Harvard protested new policies against chalking and other expressive acts as inhibiting free expression. Two dozen Harvard faculty were suspended from the Library for mimicking a previous student protest. Some faculty are withholding political comment in the run-up to November balloting as Republicans persist in legislation that attacks "wokeness" in higher education. The House of Representative legislation is likely to complicate free speech as well as make it more difficult to protect students from harassment, which is ironic in the face of Republicans threatening accreditation be revoked over accusations of anti-Semitism. Tim Walberg, the new head of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, lobbied for the Department of Education not to proceed in resolving antisemitism complaints for California system, Rutgers, and Johns Hopkins cases.

An October 7, 2024, collection of pictures from the previous year and essays reflected how tumultuous the past year has been. Educational leaders offered opinions that demonstrated that how to proceed is very unclear. Institutions have been damed if they do and if they don't in responding to protests that turned to demonstrations that led to accusations of tolerating both anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic sentiments. Citing tensions over DEI and the Hamas attack on Israel and its retaliation in Gaza and the West Bank, educational leaders expressed the need to free higher education from the tightening vice of partisanship. John Dewey's time-honored "admonition that threats to democracy are only successful when breeding hate, suspicion and intolerance becomes a substitute for 'giving differences a chance to show themselves'" may be more important now than ever.

Campus responses to observances of the October 7 1-year anniversary of the Hamas attack proved to be challenging. The University of Maryland chose to allow only University-sponsored events rather than risk what would happen if protest groups staged events to observe the anniversary. Maryland's decision was criticized for limiting pro-Palestinian expression as well as other forms of dissent. Maryland's approach was blocked by a Federal District Court ruling, a decision the University will follow even in the face of safety concerns that "remain a source of ongoing attention and focus." While honoring the court directive Maryland's Governor expressed that the pro-Palestinian demonstration was inappropriate.

The University of Michigan student government withheld student activities fee allocation in order to pressure the University to divest from support of Israel. The Michigan student organization funding was later restored even in the face of severe backlash from pro-Palestinian groups. This is a new strategy that could take hold at other campuses. If it does, it could become a new spark for pro-Israel groups to claim anti-Semitism as well as serve as fodder for criticizing the liberal take-over of institutions.

Arrests at Michigan's activities fair, disruption of Pomona's opening convocation, the arrest of 3 protestors at the University of Chicago, and Temple University's suspension of Students for Justice in Palestine for disrupting a job fair are examples of the variety of ways campuses are experiencing protests. Cornell banned 4 students from campus for 3 years for disrupting its career fair and emails between the President and an adjunct Law professor over a proposed course on Gaza and settler colonialism became controversial. Career fair disruption is another way to press divestment by pressuring companies with ties to Israel.

There have been consequences to those who questioning Israel's retaliation against Hamas. On one side, two Columbia University demonstrators were arrested when they protested at the main gates to the campus, and on the other a pro-Israel assistant professor was barred from campus. A law professor was eventually nudged out of her position for having raised concerns about Columbia students recently enrolled after completing their service in the Israel Defense Organization. NYU professors were arrested for participating in a pro-Palestinian demonstration

The focus on divestment in military support to Israel appears to be having little impact on most campuses. Brown University and Chapman University rejected divestment demands. However, the resignation of a Brown University board member over the prospect of a divestment vote demonstrates that in some cases, protest pressure works. Both Columbia and Brown received commendation letters for a coalition of Attorneys General for not divesting in Israel. Brown suspended Students for Justice in Palestine after they protested the University's decision not to divest.  Higher education in Gaza has been effectively destroyed. Protests among Israeli universities demanding that the government negotiate for a cease fire and return of hostages has seriously impacted educational progress there as well.

Litigation accusing numerous institutions of tolerating anti-Semitism will be a focus in the media. Columbia University is particularly visible, especially after an internal task force report alleged "serious and pervasive problems." House Republicans used October 7, 2024, to remind institutions that they would be held accountable for not addressing anti-Semitism and followed up with a 325 page report claiming that universities needed to restore order. The focus of these efforts is to draw attention to presumed illiberal progressivism that is asserted to have become dominant in higher education. The number of protests related to the Israel vs. Hamas war dropped as the year unfolded, perhaps the result of protest fatigue but also due to policy changes on various campuses.

New York Governor Hochul called private and public university representatives together to prepare for the potential of continuing campus unrest. With New York centered due to the demonstrations at Columbia and the diversity of the state's population, it may become a bell-weather indicator for other state officials. There is much to be said for advanced preparation that focuses on deescalation at the same time that it maintains a commitment to free expression.