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 and the balance sheet of wins and losses reflects a very bad 2025 year, contributing to the exit of numerous presidents from their positions. 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. Responding is sometimes dangerous but public condemnation is essential to offer a counter-narrative. 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. Ultimately, Youngkin's board appointments were overturned which will allow Spanberger the opportunity to start over. Before new UVa Board members could be appointed, the Business School Dean was hired amidst controversy over the process of selection.

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 as it became clear that the Governorship may change. Accordinaly, Governor Spanberger immediately reshaped state institutions' board oversight with new appointments on her first day in office. The new appointments resulted in conservative Board member resignations and cleared the way for Spanberger to have an out-sized impact on the future of Virginia higher education. Countering the hope that Governor Spanberger will prevail against Boards threatening and/or firing Presidents, Virginia Tech's 12-year President announced his resignation in Spring of 2026.

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.

Monitoring presumed politicization through foreign donations to U.S. higher education continues to be an issue that conservatives pursue. Qatar is at the top of the list with recorded $9 billion in donations. The problem is that these are not donations at all - they are fee for service arrangements with partnering institutions with branch programs at Qatar's Education City.

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 and is set to expand as it acquires the campus of the former University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee campus. 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. Some of these institutions benefitted from the $169 million distributed by FIPSE for projects aligned with Trump's priorities.

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 outright 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. After resounding rejection in 2025, the Education Department is apparently planning for another try at a new Compact in 2026.

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. By February of 2026 the Chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee pushed back on President Schill's testimony that the city of Evanston was unwillingness to intervene to stop anti-semitic student conduct. 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 and the total across higher education reveals the loss of 9,000 jobs. Spring 2026 saw continued budget cutbacks at more institutions.

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 meet students' needs.

The ongoing research conducted by the National Student Clearinghouse has contributed important insight on students' learning, voting, and engagement. The Education Department directed participating institutions to stop using the data generated by the survey claiming that Tufts University had violated students' privacy rights. The underlying script is that information from the NSC survey could have an impact on students' participation in the 2025 mid-term elections.

Which institutions are next? UNC was asked to submit 70 courses for examination by the Oversight Project that is funded by the Heritage Foundation and the President of the NC system imposed public posting of syllabi. UNC system's new "Academic Freedom and Responsibility" policy passed review by the state Board but was condemned by state AAUP leaders. Peter Haas, the UNC system president, said "we hope to make it easier for everyone to appreciate the privileges and the obligations that come with serving our public universities." Conservatives advocated the creation of the School of Civic Life & Leadership, presumably to provide balance against liberal bias. Building the department became so controversial that a $1.2 million assessment was undertaken, which UNC then refused to release.

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 and later for allowing a hostile environment of antisemitism at UCLA. Pomona College and the University of California settled complaints with the Office of Civil Rights by promising program modifications.

Heaping on at the state level, 22 states have initiated laws censoring higher education, 21 of which were approved in 2025. Texas lawmakers created an oversight body to monitor compliance with their mandates and then abolished Faculty Senates, replacing them with toothless boards. Houston University now requires faculty to sign statements of critical thinking, which some faculty characterize as insinuating that they previously indoctrinated students in their teaching. 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 Women's & Gender Study department at Texas A&M was closed in January 2026. Relying on "tried and true" experience, Texas A&M named Susan Ballabina as the one and only finalist for President of the Texas A&M system, the third President since 2021. The Texas A&M action was followed by Texas Tech eliminating all of its gender and sexuality programs. Critics saw the Texas Tech action as falling at the extremes of controlling free academic inquiry and described it as a new level of intellectual tyranny. 

While bad news, these closures only reinforce the importance of gender and sexuality research and education. The University of Texas sought to limit speech based on state legislative mandate, but judicial review prohibited its implementation. UofT faculty criticize a new Board directive to "eschew topics and controversies that are not germane to their classes" as "vague and will, by design, encourage self-censorship." UT San Antonio complied by closing its race and gender studies program. Even in the face of persistent attacks, some hope that Trump's efforts to reform may be 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. The Education Department's prohibition of DEI may be waning as a central focus but they are still under state attack in examples such as the budget reductions imposed by Kansas Republic legislators.

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. Few educators reject that antisemitism is a problem on many campuses but the point is that addressing it will more likely be achieved through conversation and dialogue rather than imposition of policy and threats to institutional autonomy. 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. Somewhat predictably, the proposed vocational program settlement wasn't enough for Trump who then and came demanded $1 Billion in order to conclude negotiations. 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. DOJ was back at it by February 2026 with a law suit against Harvard for failing to provide admissions records.

The impact of settlements with the Trump administration cost higher education dearly, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. 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:

Thursday, May 1, 2025

Trump - 100+ days

If you read this blog, you know that I integrate emerging news into longer posts rather than short commentary. The posts about the Trump administration, specifically related to education, have become very complicated. However, I hope that they provide a way to understand themes and relationships. Yesterday marked the end of the first 100 days of Trump.2 and today I begin 100+ without a clear expectation of when all of this will slow down. The Brookings Institute perceives that unfolding imposition of Presidential power is a fundamental threat to democracy, primarily due to the erosion of separation of powers.

The American Council on Education summarized Trump's executive actions and Inside Higher Education offered a recap in their Key Podcast on how the higher education landscape was reshaped in the first 100 days. Although some legal challenges have been successful, such as the NIH suit to restore $2.4 billion in research funding, scientists are concerned about the overall future of research in higher education. The ACE advised, "Institutions will need to assess compliance obligations while remaining committed to their core missions of access, inclusion, and academic freedom."

Trump's direct attack, as well as the actions of those he has appointed to his administration, of higher education is in many ways unexplainable. Fareed Zakaria calls out the destructive impact of what has unfolded. He asks how undermining Harvard in particular and all of higher education in general helps to achieve anything close to making America greater than it has been. Trump persists and the passage by Republican's "Big, Beautiful Bill" ushers in a new era for higher education.

Various strategies are being used by the Trump administration to force compliance to his will - financial, ideological, and oversight. Financial extortion comes in the form of demands to report international gifts, $3 billion in cuts to NIH and NSF, and defunding the U.S. Education Department. Cuts to grant funding were partially restored by a federal judge who asserted that the NIH cuts were discriminatory. Trump asked the Supreme Court to weigh in after a federal district court ruled against the Education Department staff layoffs. The Supreme Court decision will partially hinge on the accusation that staffing cuts will prevent the Education Department from fulfilling essential services. Secretary McMahon defended her cuts at a congressional hearing where she was accused of usurped authority in a fiery exchange with Democratic representatives. McMahon claimed that intervention is justified by civil rights violations guaranteed through Title VI. NSF declared that it wouldn't fund any research at institutions committed to DEI or that allowed pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The House Committee followed with their sweeping plans to cut funding for education which included taxing endowments and overhauling student loan policy. The Senate version of the funding bill includes concessions that relieved some opponents but much still remains to be negotiated. Ideological control comes through using Title IX as a battering ram against trans rights. Using anti-Semitism claims to attack higher education institutions is now recognized by a majority of citizens as only pretext for the more significant goal of discrediting opponents and imposing conservative ideology. While Republicans remain supportive, others, especially those with college degrees, are concerned about cost and disruption of research. The Trump administration approach has been used by other autocrats and dictators to control those who oppose their directives. As proof, two significant voices, J.D. Vance and Pete Hegseth, echo Trump's criticisms. Vice President J.D. Vance expressed admiration for Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban's effectiveness in attacking higher education. Pete Hegseth has removed all references to diversity at the U.S. military academies, a series restriction of academic freedom.

Of course, in order to maintain solvency, U.S. institutions either have to cut budgets or find other sources of revenue. International students are a significant source of revenue for many campuses and they bring $43.8 billion in revenue to the U.S. in general. The State Department revocation of Chinese student visas threatens the 2nd largest national group studying in the U.S. In a familiar pattern and reversing his Secretary of State, Trump directed that Chinese students are welcome only 2 weeks later. Targeting international students not only impacts the revenue bottom line but, coupled with NSG grant funding cuts, risks research capacity. Interest in U.S. universities setting up foreign branch campuses is on the rise as another example of compensating for loss of revenue. As with many issues Trump seeks to influence, the multiple attacks on international enrollment are a "flood the zone" strategy to see what he can get away with. The multiple strategies clearly emerge from a plan, specifically Project 2025 as its contributors and authors flood the Education Department staff.

The problem of looking at branch campuses is that the Trump administration is also critical of international partnerships, which could bring more scrutiny to campuses that choose the branch campus path. But, of course, Trump just visited Qatar where he lavished praise on the country while seeking private deals to expand Trump real estate projects. Former Education Secretary William Bennett sent a letter to current Secretary McMahon countering criticisms previously made by her and other conservative politicians.

To gain oversight control, one of the more consequential targets is accrediting agencies. The Trump administration has positioned accreditation as key to dismantling DEI and going after poor quality institutions, both of which have been only vaguely defined. The intervention to control viewpoint is an impoverished view of the role of higher education. In oder to counter the influence of current accrediting bodies, the Education Department is making way for new accreditors to enter the arena and making it easier for institutions to change accreditors. McMahon doubled-down on Trump's criticism of accrediting organizations. In one of the first examples of the threat of accrediting agencies adhering to Trump's directives, the Middle States Commission warned that Columbia's accreditation could be in jeopardy. The Florida Board of Governors moved along with Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and the Texas A&M system to create of an alternative accrediting agency Florida Governors agreed to the proposal despite reservations about how it will work.

Elite institutions such as Harvard and Columbia were the first to feel the impact of compliance pressures. Columbia's accreditation was challenged as well as grants withdrawn. While Columbia's compliance with Education Department demands remained unresolved, Barnard settled and agreed to several of the Department's demands. A Harvard spokesperson said that the demands made in the initial letter from the Education Department "'would impose unprecedented and improper control' and would lead to 'chilling implications for higher education.'" Accusations and investigations at Harvard continued and led it to sue the government, which resulted in Trump freezing all grant contracts. How the law suit turns out is yet to be determined but, in the meantime, Harvard pledged to self-fund $250 million of the research that was withdrawn by Trump. Secretary McMahon of the Education Department blamed the victim by declaring that Harvard's lawsuit was the catalyst for approximately 1/3 of Harvard's total research funding being cut. With a stunning "guilty until proven innocent" assertion, Harvard's continued grant funding collapse was attributed to its "continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination." The Trump administration move to deny Harvard from hosting international students resulted in a temporary restraining order. which was extended to allow for deeper analysis. Northwestern and Cornell were still engaged in negotiating the return of research funding by the end of October, 2025. Cornell eventually agreed to a $30 million payment to the government and $30 million invested in agriculture research.

Meanwhile, prominent universities like the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology offered unconditional acceptance to Harvard's international students. In addition to HKUS&T, other Asian institutions may benefit from the growing perception of U.S. hostility. The reduction of research funding and the generally hostile environment emerging for U.S. higher education will likely allow China to blow the U.S. away in future research. The Education Department's tracking of foreign gifts resulted in a list of institutions whose external funding was presumed to reflect risks to institutional control. The irony is that Saudi Arabia is at the top of the list of donor governments, which is the first stop on Trump's first international trip, one riddled with as many business deals as foreign affairs negotiations.

Opposition or at least ambivalence about elite institutions and the privileged position they hold in political, economic, and social realms has emerged. The opposition has largely come from middle income citizens who resent the claims of meritocracy in Ivy League education, an assumed benefit that often extends privilege to those who are already very privileged. However, the intensity and repeated attacks from multiple directions has convinced even detractors to side with Harvard, especially since it has emerged as the primary institution to fight back. Asserting that Trump's attack on Harvard threatened all U.S. higher and democracy itself, over 50 other institutions and organizations now support Harvard's law suit against the government.  One of the ways that institutions have used to compare themselves is the IPEDS system, which the Education Department is dismantling. A federal judge declined to block Trump from cutting staff at the Institute of Education Sciences, the agency charged with collecting and analyzing K-12 and higher education. Why Trump appointees would want to eliminate an important data collection resource is yet to be determined, but it perhaps relates to a desire to eliminate systems that document the inferiority of institutions that are a risk to students and other constituents such as the now defunct Trump University.

Let this settle in - Trump's declaration on day 100 was that the U.S. economy is in great shape and its government is once again respected around the globe (neither claim documentable and evidence widely available to the contrary). Meanwhile, international student visas are being terminated and ICE officials are declaring that they can deport them at will, students on temporary occupational training visas are being threatened, the State Department initiated review of applications social media accounts of applicants for visas, undocumented students' tuition in sanctuary jurisdictions is being targeted, and all Fulbright applicants related to DEI are being denied. Every time a law suit prohibits the Trump team from its attacks, they come up with something else to disrupt international student presence. The hostility of moves such as these has motivated European countries to "offer refuge" to U.S. academics who are losing research funding and are fearful of losing their academic freedom. The precision of these attacks reflect obsession on detailed, partisan grounds rather than the general welfare of the U.S.  With layoffs and budget reductions across the nation, one has to wonder if the phrase "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" might be a just characterization for Trump administration neglect of its responsibilities to serve.

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