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 attempted to place 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. By May, 2025, Columbia laid off 180 employees due to "intense financial stain." The next move was the Education Department's assertion that Columbia's accreditation should be withdrawn.

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. Unfortunately, President Shipman's frustrations over accusations of anti-semitism in 2023 when she was on the Columbia Board made it into the hands of the House Committee.

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!

By July 2025 it appeared Columbia's settlement with the Trump Administration included millions in payments for alleged violations of civil rights, adopting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism, changes in DEI initiatives, modification of admission policies, and increasing campus safety for Jewish students. Later in July 2025, synchronous with additional reports of an emerging "deal" between Columbia and the Trump administration, multiple Palestinian protestors were expelled or suspended. The settlement with Trump officials affirmed, rather than challenged, the narrative of antisemitism and served to erase the concerns of pro-Palestinine protestors. The final result cost Columbia $221 million in a settlement that allowed the restoration of billions in research funding.  The settlement is a painful reminder of the power of money over principle and represents a threat to all U.S. higher education. The tension between the values of holding strong in defense versus the impact of abandoned research that can save lives is all too clear.

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. A judge's order directed the reinstatement of Education Department staff, noting that the dismissals essentially eliminated the department. 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. A counter-indication is that, although underrepresented student applications increased, fewer have been admitted. As fewer selective colleges report racial make-up it will be increasingly difficult to track diversity in enrollment.

The Spring 2025 enrollment increases, primarily in graduate and certificate programs, also raised hopes of strong Fall 2025 figures. Some colleges are boasting 2025-26 enrollment increases as a result of special programs that both retain and attract students. The Trump-supported funding of higher education would reduce borrowing limits, which will hit graduate programs in particular. Larger institutions such as NYU and USC have more graduate students than undergrads and these programs are very expensive. Reduction in borrowing will most certainly cause prospective students to hesitate to accept admission offers. As the summer of 2025 unfolded, financial aid packaging became precarious and the yield tool of tuition discounting rose to new levels. Higher education funding cuts being considered by Congress are likely influenced by the entanglement of personal and representational biases of policy makers.

From 2002-2022 aspiration to seek college degrees declined. Speculation of the cause varies but certainly cost and public attacks of higher education that have contributed to 70% of Americans believing that higher education is headed in the wrong direction are contributing factors. The decline among first-generation students fell by almost 50% compared to students in general.

Trump cut funding that assists migrant students, disrupting programs already underway to assist them. The DOJ is targeting undocumented student services at the University of Nevada at Reno. At the state level, Kentucky discontinued its commitment to in-state tuition for undocumented students. These moves are direct contradictions to Trump and McMahon's advocacy for career and technical training, which are often the preferred programs for migrant and undocumented students.

The decline of international student enrollment as a result of Trump administration threats might be offset by strong continuing interest to study in the U.S.A. The 2024-25 international enrollment was down 11% with more students being deported across all types of institutions, numbering 50+ by April 7, 2025. The projected enrollment of internationals was down by 19% by October of 2025. Visas revocations for international students included more than 1,500 by April, 2025, and 6,000 by August 20, 2025. Trump's edict to limit the duration of international study visas was almost immediately activated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); the move will most directly impact graduate students whose term of study varies so significantly. Higher education institutions and organizations opposed the Duration of Status changes. The increased peril that international students endure from Trump's rhetoric and executive orders is causing some international students to hesitate in their considerations of studying in the U.S. With this uncertainty, coming to the U.S. may not be worth the risk.

Although many of Trump's strategies to single out international students have been undone in law suits, every time one strategy is prohibited the Trump team comes up with more ways to restrict international enrollment and relations. Trump's relentless attacks represent a financial risk for many institutions that rely on international students' tuition to offset declining domestic students. Even a 10% drop in international students would result in billions of lost revenue and, while large publics enroll the majority, regional and small colleges will suffer the most for a decline in international students. F-1 and J-1 visa approvals have declined which predicts declining international student enrollment and the potential loss of international students represents the greatest financial risk to small, private, and religiously affiliated colleges but large institutions are at risk as well. For example, ASU with almost 18,000 international students, expects a 18% drop in 2025-26 numbers. The combination of slow review of visa approvals coupled with denials is causing some international students to defer enrollment to 2026 and many are stuck in a holding pattern. Regardless of the challenges, prospects from countries banned for travel still hope to study in the U.S.A. 

In a bizarre reversal of sentiment, Trump declared in November 2025 that U.S. institutions would be crazy to not continue the current level of international student enrollment. His rationale - colleges would go broke without the revenue from international students! In the face of so many obstacles that Trump's administration has created, how would you maintain consistent international student enrollment?

International student advisors are scrambling to respond to fears about Trump's reversal on visas, especially targeting those from Muslim countries. A law suit challenging Trump deportation of international students for expressing pro-Palestinian views was allowed to proceed and a federal judge ordered the release of 2 international students held by ICE officials. 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.

Threat to the primary program that supports students and scholars' international experience, the Fulbright program, resulted in its board resigning over political interference. Adding more chaos, Trump proposed raising the H-1B visa fee to $100,000 per person, accusing higher education and employers of abusing it. Florida's Governor DeSantis pulled the plug on all H-1B visas in state institutions to signal support of Trump's action. H-1B visa status is a significant incentive for international students to study in the U.S.A. and is an important driver of research and quality across sectors. The AAUP filed a law suit to challenge the H-1B visa fee increase and ACE, with 31 co-signers, joined in opposing the visa changes. Indian students, the largest group in U.S. higher education, are starting to look elsewhere. The U.K. immediately considered streamlining its visa process to take make it easier for scientists who are discouraged by Trump's move. Charting the H-1B visas in 2025 shows that higher education accounts for 5.5% with science and technology sector employers accounting for the vast majority of those issued.

Due to the potential of not being able to return to the U.S. from their home country if they left for the summer, some institutions encouraged international students to stay and provided assistance such as housing and work. Franklin University in Switzerland is offering an alternative for international students who are struggling with, or have been denied, returning to study in the U.S. Franklin, a member of the 44 institution consortium of Council of Independent Colleges, will offer temporary study until the students can return to their U.S. campus. Studying at a branch campus may become an increasingly attractive option as international students seek to complete their degrees.

As we saw institutions positioned 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. That strategy appears to have been another way to support a diversity focus based on income, which incidentally captures prospects of diverse cultural backgrounds. However, Harvard's enrollment of students from diverse and international backgrounds declined. Tuition-guarantee programs began emerging at other institutions such as Carnegie Mellon, Wake Forest, Reed, Emory, Macalester, and more. Another form of tuition-guarantee is Whitworth College's slashed sticker price that abandoned the "discounting" awards that so many institutions used. Critics say that discounting contributed to skepticism about the quality. Dartmouth saw a decline in its applications after returning to a policy of requiring testing of its applicants. Illinois adopted a direct admission policy for all public institutions except the University of Illinois and University of Illinois at Chicago in order to increase accessibility. A potentially complicating factor for Illinois' institutions is the imposition of a ban on consideration of race and sex in hiring, tenure, and financial aid statewide. The increase in U.S. students to study at U.K. institutions could present a threat to enrollment and to the eventual loss of talent.

Some institutions, including Harvard's decision to curtail graduate admissions, are rebalancing enrollment. Graduate programs can be expensive due to intensity of faculty engagement and the reduction in research funding at the federal level make it challenging to financially support graduates.

A key to opening the doors to higher education is connecting students to opportunity, particularly among those of first-generation background. The Student Voice study of students' awareness of costs indicated that only 27% reported a full understanding. Especially for students with less economic means, even small added expenses have the chance of derailing their retention and degree completion. Increased cost transparency now could help institutions avoid policy regulation later.

Where early enrollment figures will take U.S. higher education in 2025-26 will be critical to budgets but could also bring volatility in campus climate. Fortunately, fall 2025 enrollment was up a modest 2% primarily buoyed by short-term enrollment programs. Trump's tariffs will push a wide array of financial levers that require ongoing adjustments. Trump's executive action requiring all higher education to provide admissions data will likely uncover many questions adding to the chaos. 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. Early indications are that the politics of a campus and sense of belonging are important in prospects' decisions, which is especially important among California's recently immigrated students. Trump administration dismantling of DEI programs and initiatives, threats to international students that their study visas could be cancelled, and changes to Pell grants for students with financial need are destined to result in opposition. LGBTQ+ students in Texas expressed concern as a result of the elimination of DEI programs and supports. The other issue that education leaders will need to confront is concern of hiring managers that over half of current graduates are not prepared to know how to conduct themselves in the workforce.

Warnings that the enrollment cliff is more extreme than most institutions realize, preparedness of applicants looms as a big question. If the pool of applicants is less prepared, elite institutions will dip deeper into their pools thereby syphoning off students who would otherwise have attended less prestigious institutions.

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. As a result of the diminishing focus on transition programs for underrepresented students, where support will be found is up in the air. 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. Some institutions are beginning to focus on collaboration across campus by pulling committees together that are agile and comprehensive in addressing student success.

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.