Friday, June 27, 2025

Resistance and ingenuity are essential while under fire

It's hard to find reason for optimism about the future of U.S. higher education these days. As higher education faces its greatest challenges in decades, including the 9-11-25 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, it's critical to identify evidence to instill hope. Several revelations may warrant optimism:

These are only small wins. There is no question that the everything, everywhere, all at once attack is still underway and reflects a pattern of confusion and weaponization of the DOJ to create fear.  The claim of Antisemitism in higher education is challenged by provosts, who see the assertion as creating fear in expressing free speech. Deeper learning and discussion is the only way forward on any bias or discrimination rather than policy directives and punishments. Fear has spread as a result of secret surveillance to identify faculty and staff who don't toe the line on conservative edicts. Teaching under intimidation of being reported makes it extremely difficulty for faculty.

Attacks on higher education leaders, such as University of Virginia, show that the focus is on both public and private institutions. The results can lead to dramatic outcomes such as the resignation of UVa's President due to conservative alumni pressure who were strategically appointed by Governor Youngkin. Youngkin's appointments were overturned but appeal to Virginia's Supreme Court returned the issue to Circuit Court. As UVa issued public calls for nominations for an interim President, one has to wonder who would be willing to go into the crucible of conservative activism. Democratic state legislators demanded answers about the circumstances surrounding the resignation of UVa's President and warned against compliance with the "compact" that Trump subsequently proposed. Virginia's newly elected Governor Spanberger called for a pause in the UVA Presidential search within a week of her victory. With new cover now available from Spanberger's election, former UVa President Jim Ryan broke his silence and accused the Board of misrepresenting the reasons for his resignation.

Other university presidents are watching, with the UVa ouster a frightening signal that more conservative targeting could come their way. George Mason University's President has been seen as the next target but its Board showed its support by giving President George Washington a raise. Trump administration officials charged GMU for violation of civil rights, but the President declared that George Mason's diversity of enrollment is part of its identity and later refused to accept the Education Department demands. GMU professor James Finkelstein warned that caving to the Education Department would damage GMU's reputation and contribute to further encroachment there and elsewhere. The House Judiciary Committee later accused GMU's President of misrepresentation when he was called before the committee. Virginia democrats accused Charles Stimson, a GMU rector who previously affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, of having conflicts of interest. George Washington University was targeted for its deliberate indifference toward Jewish students. A UVa professor observing the arrival of new students warns that the Trump administration will not stop with just attacking presidents. Both UVa and George Mason suggest a pattern that Trump will continue to use - threaten funding, challenge admissions process, and sweeping demands such as prohibiting DEI work without defining what is really being prohibited. The DOJ and UVa settled the investigation into recruitment/admission practices and DEI initiatives but the agreement does not preclude future investigations. Democrats fought back by denying 14 Youngkin appointments to university boards throughout the state.

The Supreme Court's approval of Trump and McMahon's firing of Education Department and the House  reduction of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding by 23% demonstrate a blatant disregard for the importance of education in the U.S. and around the world. It's not difficult to see the Supreme Court's support as integral to the Department of Labor taking over Education's oversight of adult education, Education's abandoning minority-serving institutions (MSI), or the GOP proposal to reduce Education Department funding by 15%. Moving oversight of Tribal Colleges to the Department of the Interior has leaders on edge, fearing both shifting policy statements and reduced funding.

Declaration that U.S. institutions should join McMahon in making higher education great again ironically reflected the present condition that many higher education leaders assert already exists. Using the government shut-down over Congressional spending authorization as an excuse, the Education Department fired 500 employees. Ironically, Trump's gutting the Institute of Education Sciences will make needed or desired reform more difficult. The AAUP might agree with some reforms but assuming opposition creates automatic and entrenched resistance. With persistent department reductions and legal challenges underway, leaders reassure that the Education Department is under attack but will survive.

Reductions in staff at the Education Department will impact numerous programs and policy implementation processes. For example, reduction at the Office of Civil Rights could provide an opportunity for alternative policy enforcement at the state level. However, states stepping in to protect students from discrimination will automatically result in uneven enforcement and opportunity. Additionally, the Fund for the Improvement of Secondary Education has issued its priorities but who's left to review applications, make decisions, and manage the administrative process of implementation? The FIPSE priorities are in artificial intelligence, civil discourse, accreditation, and short-term programs particularly related to workforce development.

As the feuds over federal funding extended through October 2025, campuses struggled to fill the gaps where funding lapsed. Judicial actions helped in some circumstances such as Federal District Court Judge Illston blocking the Trump administration firing of federal employees. Illston's decision asserted that the "actions were likely unlawful and that the plaintiffs had a good case for arguing they were politically motivated." The government shut down ended on November 12, 2025, but it remains to be seen if the Education Department staff will return to their positions.

Investigation of University of Michigan's foreign funding and the growing number of campus presidents brought before the House Committee seems to never end. Add to these barriers the restrictions being placed on international students and the future of U.S. scientific and knowledge exchange is dim. Host to a large number of undergraduate and graduate international students, the University of Chicago received a request for admissions information from the Department of Justice and Homeland Security. Isolation and restriction does not create shared prosperity and in fact push innovation to other places. For example, China is on its way, or may already outpace funding of research and development in the U.S.

The financial extortion of U.S. higher education, mostly focused on elite institutions, is creating widespread chaos. The Trump funding cuts were imposed and then negotiations were undertaken to restore them. Trump's directive for his political appointees to review all existing and future grants will not only create a bottleneck but will introduce ideology into final reviews. Taking it from individual institutions to a systemic level, Trump may tie federal funding to fulfill his agenda rather than basing awards on scientific merit, de facto privileging Trump's ideological viewpoint.

Trump's proposed Compact for Academic Excellence was used to seduce 9 selective institutions he singled out. The President of the U of Texas system board enthusiastically embraced Trump's proposal but other Presidents were more cautious with broader higher education leaders decrying the initiative. An important first move that will help others was MIT's rejection of the compact followed by Brown. MIT's rejection included assertion that it already met many of the Compact conditions. UPenn and USC rejected and offered feedback to the Trump administration on alignment and disconnects of the Compact proposal. Mirroring other rejection letters, UPenn's President indicated "Penn seeks no special consideration beyond fair and merit-based funding."  UVa and Dartmouth followed by rejecting the Compact, leaving only 3 of the original institutions to respond. On the last day for requested response, University of Arizona declined the Compact by saying it didn't need preferred treatment and that the supremacy of U.S. research relied on open competition. Although not on the initial COMPACT invitation list, but as one of the most prominent public selective institutions, UNC's President preemptively said "no." Redirecting research funding to Compact institutions would punish regular recipients and high performers.

In order to help the public understand what the Compact includes, the "No Kings" movement urged follow-up to rallies across the world in a webinar. The "Unpack the Compact" virtual conference on October 27, 2025, was the beginning of a student movement to resist the Compact. Over 1,500 participants were advised about how to organize campus protests with the first on November 7, 2025. A recording of the virtual conference is available and can be accessed by passcode (4G.a?fMA). Educators who wish to support students in protesting the Trump compact should spread the word about the November 7 protest movement. Faculty, staff, alumni, and retired educators should support students by attending the protests and helping to protect against enforcement efforts designed to silence opposition.

A few of the conditions in the Trump Compact are; not considering identity markers in hiring and admission, freezing tuition for 5 years, capping international enrollment at 15%, defining sex by reproductive and biological determinants, and shutting down departments that "punish, belittle" or "spark violence against conservative ideas." When buy-in crumbled among the initial nine institutions, Trump invited the entirety of U.S. higher education to join the Compact, but adversaries warn that the default position should automatically be "no response."

Freezing tuition for 5 years is a condition of the Trump Compact that is sure to find support among students and their families. Especially in the case of elite institutions that have billions in their endowments, a reasonable question is why not cap tuition by using a portion of those resources? Regardless of signing on to the Compact or not, it is in all higher education institutions' best interest to deal with rising costs rather than cede control to the Trump administration.

Selling out to advance Trump's agenda will likely be a defining moment that will compromise academic freedom and institutional autonomy. "No university that is committed to independently searching for the truth, or to producing students who can think for themselves, should submit to the deliberate and possibly illegal humiliations contained in the compact" opined Post and Ginsberg, senior law professors at Yale and Chicago. As reactions continued to unfold, California's Governor Newsom vowed to cut funding for any institution that agreed to Trump's Compact. Although the evidence indicates that acceptance of the Compact is illegal and violates fundamentals of higher learning Trump solicited more institutions to join. Offering the Compact to all included both carrots and potential sticks but the central requirements of viewpoint diversity, institutional neutrality, and student expression are fraught with complicating "viewpoint" bias. The hope is that few will take the Compact offer although some governing boards are encouraging compliance. Seeking safety, the voices of most university presidents were muted as they struggled to determine their options and repercussions. Institutions chose different ways to articulate not adopting the Compact, some leaving the door open to future consideration, which provides a mosaic of their unique purposes and values. Inside Higher Education's map of responses will continue to unfold in the coming days.

Not surprisingly, New College of Florida was at the head of the line in accepting the Trump administration invitation to join the Compact. Incidentally, Florida's DOGE analysis revealed that New College is already out-pacing other Florida institutions in per student cost. The second to embrace the Compact was Grand Canyon University in Arizona and the 3rd was Valley Forge Military College that enrolled 83 students in 2023. St. Augustine intends to help shape the Compact model and Oakwood University joined as the 2nd HBCU to sign on. I will continue to update the list of institutions that choose this path.

November 21 was the original date set for institutions to express intent to join the Compact. Public universities have been reluctant to reveal their intent and the overall pattern demonstrates little interest in commenting on or joining the Compact movement. With 17 outfight rejections, 4 expressing interest, and the rest not responding, extension of the deadline might be a possibility, However, extending the deadline might just prolong the pain of the ultimate outcome - disinterest.

The financial implications of Trump's interventions are too numerous to list but some institutional examples follow. Nearly 600 voluntary separations from Duke University are part of its resettling its finances, exacerbated by the potential loss of $108 million loss in federal grants and contracts. Northwestern is laying off 425 staff to attempt to balance the books with $790 million reduction in federal funding. The funding cuts, appearance at Congressional hearings, and other turmoil led to Northwestern's President resigning. Northwestern settled with the Trump administration for $75 million, a decision that caused critics to say that the institution was not only complying with Trump demands but actively collaborating in the demise of institutional autonomy. The Northwestern cave won't be the last because holding out can cost more than institutions are willing to pay. Brown University is taking out a $500 million loan to fill funding gaps but it may not be necessary since the Trump administration restored $510 million in exchange for non-monetary concessions. The University of Chicago is freezing all but 2 Arts & Humanities graduate program admissions in anticipation of budget reductions. The University of Chicago impacts both the institution and all its prospective graduate students. As the list grew to include more institutions, Washington University in St. Louis cut or declined to hire 500+ positions to save $52 million. The list of institutions cutting staff and budgets grew even more by October 2025.

Manipulation of programs that have helped students fund their higher education is another lever being pulled by the Education Department. Democratic Senators pressed Secretary McMahon on pausing income-based debt relief provisions saying that the move was creating uncertainty for borrowers who have been paying their loans off for decades. The Department of Education's proposed changes in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program would impact individual students by limiting forgiveness to students who choose employers that adhere to Trump's political objectives. Denial of SNAP benefits, and subsequent restoration of 50% of the funding, left campuses scrambling to meeting students' needs.

Which institutions are next? UNC was asked to submit 70 courses for examination by the Oversight Project that is funded by the Heritage Foundation. UCLA was informed by DOJ that they are being investigated for violation of Civil Rights Law and, indeed, funding was withdrawn under the premise that UCLA's priorities do not align with NSF priorities. Trump hopes UCLA enters into a voluntary resolution and Trump wants a $1.2 billion payout, the details of which were made public in response to a law suit filed by UCLA faculty. A blow to Trump's UCLA intervention, a Federal Judge ordered restoration of an undisclosed amount of NSF funding and later court action restored $500 million in grants. The  University of California system is "in dialogue" about its $584 million in research funding while cuts to funding for minority serving institutions was a death blow to the California State system. The DOJ continued to push by suing California over its policy of offering in-state tuition rates for undocumented students.

Heaping on at the state level, 22 states have initiated laws censoring higher education. Texas lawmakers created an oversight body to monitor compliance with their mandates and then abolished Faculty Senates, replacing them with toothless boards. The President of Texas A&M resigned under pressure about DEI initiatives; his resignation drew mixed reactions due to the controversy over student allegations against a professor for teaching non-conforming gender ideas. Texas A&M implemented review of any courses that include race and gender-related issues. The University of Texas sought to limit speech based on state legislative mandate, but judicial review prohibited its implementation. In the face of diminishing impact, perhaps Trump's efforts to reform are losing steam.

The DOJ declaration that DEI is unlawful clearly paved the way for more allegations and investigations on the horizon. The crackdown resulted in the closing of 120 TRIO Programs that target equalizing enrollment of male and female students. Trump officials demand for admission data, an attempt to prove race-based decision, met uniform resistance. The 30 year tracking of campus climate for students of color demonstrates that the need for DEI attention will not go away, regardless of attacks and dismantling of programs on many campuses. Department of Education demands for access to race-based admission data signals enrollment mix as central to the anti-DEI initiative. However, the Federal District Judge's ruling against the anti-DEI order will complicate the attack. Usurping the power to appointment Board members, Indiana's Governor asked for investigation of plagiarism by Indiana University's President. Under anti-DEI investigation, Ohio State began to limit conference participation with affinity-related organizations.

Columbia's capitulation to the Trump administration in a $221 million settlement is a difficult pill to swallow. Columbia received in exchange the release of billions in research funding that will benefit the institution, its students, and the general public. However, buckling under pressure has been condemned as "playing along with a narrative of widespread antisemitism... going along with a narrative rather than challenging it." Secretary McMahon seemed to twist the knife in her declaration that "Columbia's reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate." The settlement stopped the investigations and restored some research funding but included everything from the financial penalties, to eliminating DEI, review of admission policies, and program reviews.  The settlement is a huge win for authoritarianism and a threat to all U.S. higher education.

Mutual support among institutions is emerging and may be the result of Harvard challenging Trump on several grounds. DHS appears to be moderating in their demands related to international student enrollment. One has to hope that Harvard will not "take a deal" but, even before negotiations could conclude, Trump administration officials came back with more threats. Any negotiation or capitulation to Trump's administration yield to the bogus claim of antisemitism when Islamophobia is a far worse problem at Harvard. Throwing in the towel would embolden Trump to go for more, would undermine Harvard's reputation and, most egregiously, it would legitimize authoritarianism as a tool of governing. Fortunately, a measure of sanity may be unfolding due to Judge Burroughs' apparent inclination to favor Harvard's challenge to the withdrawal of federal research funds. The very public attacks on Harvard reveal a comprehensive plan to reform all higher education throughout the U.S.

Harvard considered settling with the Trump administration for $500 million. Simultaneous to the consideration of settlement, HHS referred Harvard to DOJ for investigation for thwarting its investigation. Raising the tensions further, nine Harvard alumni who hold seats in the Senate and House are threatening to investigate Harvard if it caves to the Trump administration. All of higher education celebrated when a Federal Judge ruled Trump's $2.2 billion extortion was unlawful. Although the Harvard case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, it is a victory for all of higher education and ultimately for the preservation of democratic systems. Piling on again after losing in Federal Court, Trump pressed Harvard to create a vocational training program as part of the settlement with the government. The Education Department initiative fiscal monitoring of Harvard, a move regarded as a continuation of the intimidation it has experienced under the Trump administration. Education also demanded admissions information from Harvard within 20 days. HHS is set to block Harvard from all grant funding, saying that the action is required to protect public interests. After all the flurry, Harvard's research funding was almost entirely restored by late October, 2025, but uncertainty remains.

The capitulation of multiple prestige institutions has been negotiated so far outside the law that most institutions could easily win law suits against the government. Acquiescing to lawless abuse of power is grounds for a warning to those considering or who have given in is that, "if you think Trump will ignore the law and violate rules, then trusting his regime to obey a legal settlement is just as crazy." Not only is capitulation an invitation to push further, it undermines the very dignity and stature of those who compromise in the moment and thus sacrifice their reputations in the future. The reputation of U.S. universities experienced a decline in national rankings even before Trump began his attacks. Out of caution or protest, international scholars are now avoiding the U.S. for travel. One can only hope that rankings do not drop even further as a result of attacks and attempts to regulate.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)