Columbia University's acting President Shipman is one to watch

Columbia University named Claire Shipman, Board of Trustees co-chair, as acting President effective immediately on March 28, 2025. After a year of turmoil and following one of the most aggressive political attacks on any university in U.S. history, President Shipman is stepping into a very challenging role. Her education and experience are impressive - one of the first female graduates of Columbia College in Russian Studies, a masters graduate from Columbia's School of International Policy and Administration, and a journalist with a distinguished career. It's hard to imagine anyone better prepared for the Columbia Presidency.

What President Shipman's appointment signals is unclear and may never be understood. The third in a line of Columbia's female Presidents who voiced concerns about anti-Semitism at House of Representatives hearings last year, she may be better informed and credentialed to restore Columbia's reputation than anyone on the planet. Republicans said that removing former acting President Armstrong would improve negotiation and change. However, instead of backing off, Trump officials came back with another $250 million on top of the $400 million they were initially threatened to lose. The House anti-Semitism Task Force is also considering placing Columbia under a consent agreement to force accountability for promises the institution has made. By April 14, 2025, President Shipman appeared to reject the consent decree and joined Harvard in asserting that it would not yield its constitutional rights and independence.

The Israel v. Hamas war was the spark that ignited discontent at Columbia. As one of the most prominent Ivy League institutions in the U.S., Columbia's protests were notable in the early days after the Hamas attack "not just because of the scale or visibility of the demonstrations, but because the issues at stake - academic freedom, institutional neutrality, moral responsibility - converged so powerfully there." (quote from Steven Mintz of Inside Higher Education) Adding activism versus administration, stakeholder advocacy, and the tension between ideals and action derived or contrasted with them, results in a mix that made Columbia vulnerable to attack.

The expanding attacks across higher education may eventually result in a new mantra "We are all Columbia" among higher education supporters. Countering the possibility of any support, faculty at other institutions are considering a boycott of Columbia, citing the "university's active participation 'in an authoritarian assault on universities aimed at destroying their role as sites of teaching, research, learning, and activism essential to building a free and fair world.'" The dilemma is whether Columbia's treatment should evoke others rallying to its defense or if its acquiescence should be condemned by its presumed peers.

Mintz continued, "To understand the depth of this conflict on campus is to confront not only Middle East politics, but also the shifting terrain of higher education itself: how students find meaning, how universities manage pluralism and whether institutions can still be trusted to hold space for hard, honest conversations - without breaking." Shipman's appointment as acting President is significant for Columbia and for broader higher education in the U.S. Columbia will be a place to watch!

Executive Order - Shut it Down

President Trump's threat and campaign promise to move the responsibility for education to state discretion came to fruition with his March 20, 2025, executive order. Although U.S. Presidential action can't undo an act of Congress, Republicans are likely to echo Trump's promises and actions. In fact, legislation designed to take greater control over higher education are already in place.

For a ray of hope, listen to the "I worked at the Department of Education" podcast for a first-hand view of a former staff member. The interview includes the very consoling reflections on how the department strives to work across different U.S. Presidential elections, the complexity of its responsibilities, and the illegality of claims to eliminate its existence.

How dismantling the Education Department will unfold is yet to be determined. Some analysts say that breaking up the Education Department will preserve its programs but change who oversees them. More ominous and general predictions are that systems will be disrupted, student services will be impaired, and federal support of research fractured. The five specific areas where higher education will be impacted are applying for and dispensing grants and loans, students' civil rights, management of grant programs, data gathering on student progress, and general oversight. The irony of Trump moving to shut down the Education Department so quickly after the confirmation of McMahon as its Secretary is that aggressive staff cuts were already underway with little acknowledgement of the impact. Neal McCluskey, Director of the the Cato Institute, said, "We don't know how many people are actually needed to execute (the department's) jobs, and it's time to find out..." Rather than having a plan, it sounds like fire, ready, aim is the model.

The Education Department will be very difficult to dismantle because of legislative mandates that formed it and added to it since it broke out of Health and Human Services. The reduction in staff and elimination of some departments impairs the effectiveness of those who remain in their positions with the Education Department.

Democrats demanded transparency by seeking all documents related to the proposed shut down of the Education Department and Republicans refused the demand to see a plan. The resolution of inquiry filed March 21, 2025, requested memos, emails, and other communication about the reduction in workforce, a move that could impair the ability of the Education Department to fulfill its responsibilities. A specific area of responsibility, student loans, was proposed to move to the Small Business Administration (SBA), which opponents say is a clear violation of the intent of the funding.

Trump's chaos is seen in his business and product failures and in the damage to the U.S. in Trump.1. With the Education Department shut down rationalized by eliminating economic inefficiency, and Musk's project tearing through multiple federal offices, I'm curious who's keeping tab on the inefficiencies racking up as a result of funds wasted on early retirements, staff placed on paid administrative leave while cuts are imposed, and the proliferation of law suits attempting to slow Trump's progress in destroying the infrastructure on which many U.S. citizens relied. What is the ultimate cost of this to be and how much are citizens willing to tolerate?

2025-26 Enrollment predictions

Even in the face of massive turmoil across U.S. higher education as a result of Trump administration criticism, funding cuts, and executive orders, early indications are that applications are up for 2025-26. The 4% rise may partially be the result of increasing use of the common application. However, the increasing number of applications from underrepresented populations and lower socioeconomic backgrounds continues the trend of diversification seen in 2024-25.  The 2025-26 applications for underrepresented students rose 12% which contributed to a surprising 5% increase in prospective domestic students versus a proportional 1% decline in international students.

Some predict further decline of international student enrollment as a result of Trump administration threats to deport pro-Palestinian demonstrators and return to the travel bans of his 1st term. The 2024-25 international enrollment is down 11% and more students are being deported across all types of institutions, numbering 50+ by April 7, 2025. By April 21, 2025, more than 1,500 international students' visas had been revoked. The increased peril that they endure from Trump's rhetoric and executive orders is causing some international students to hesitate in their considerations of studying in the U.S. In the face of three hundred current international students' visas being revoked as of March 28, 2025, coming to the U.S. may not be worth the risk. International student advisors are scrambling to respond to fears about Trump's reversal on visas, especially targeting those from Muslim countries. Offering help is compromised by the fact that ICE officials are bypassing universities, including tracking international students' social media to identify those deemed a "risk" to U.S. security. University officials are challenged by the need to balance the possibility of retaliation from Trump officials as they seek to support international students by resisting visa revocations. The primary program that supports students and scholars international experience, the Fulbright program, is also threatened by budget cuts.

As we see institutions position themselves to yield the best class possible for 2024-25, Harvard and other elite institutions have begun to commit to tuition free for students with family incomes under certain levels. This kind of strategy can support a diversity focus based on income, which incidentally captures prospects of diverse cultural backgrounds. Dartmouth saw a decline in its applications after returning to a policy of requiring testing of its applicants.

Where these early figures will take U.S. higher education in the coming year will be critical to budgets but could also bring volatility in campus climate. Providing support to all students in the face of chaotic challenges and changes is an area where many campuses, such as American University, may begin to focus. Trump administration dismantling of DEI programs and initiatives and threats to international students that their study visas could be cancelled for participating in campus protests are destined to result in opposition. LGBTQ+ students in Texas expressed concern as a result of the elimination of DEI programs and supports.

Who stands up to oppose is the big question since diversity in peer-to-peer interaction is central to preparing for the multi-cultural environment of the 21st century. Considering the risk for students from diverse backgrounds, it will be interesting to see if white students engage as allies in support of their classroom peers. As students of all backgrounds take stock of what's happening, campus administrators will have to thread the needle of Trump-era controls versus student support and freedom of expression.

Student Affairs NOW started the Current Campus Context podcasts series to help student affairs educators navigate the complicated array of issues ahead. Suggestions in the 2nd episode included advising students as they attempt to discern and express opposition and relating campus issues to broader political eras and movements. Judiciary branch responses to campus issues is essential and, thus far, legal challenges have been successful in blocking the most egregious violations of separation of powers conventions and caselaw.