The impact of Trump's university crackdown

As the daily attacks continue hitting higher education in the U.S., it takes herculean effort to stay on top of the latest crisis. We have to be reminded that 4 years out of office, animated by the designs of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, allowed the time to put together the executive orders and loyalist appointees to impose Trump's agenda. We do not live in "normal times" when it comes to the state of the U.S. government.

The podcast "Why Trump's university crackdown is driving professors off U.S. campuses" provides excellent insight from a Yale professor who is leaving for Canada. Many of the statements in the podcast are deeply disturbing and the fact that they come from a professor who has already made the choice to leave the U.S. has to be acknowledged. However, the evidence even if only half warranted, is surely cause for concern.

One of the most shocking assertions is that the allegation of anti-Semitism in higher education is only a tool for taking control of higher education institutions. As the interviewee says, "The idea of protecting Jews is a pretext for abusing the rights of other people. Then, when people get infuriated that their rights are being abused their anger can be directed against the Jews who can then be skapegoated for the abuses of an abusive regime and there's nothing that this regime would relish more than watching that happen... we have to see that as a set-up."

The realization that "The administration is similarly using Jewish concerns to cloak more aggressive aims in its efforts to defund American universities" was noted in the April 4, 2025, Atlantic article by Yair Rosenberg. The article also quotes one of Trump's favorites, Stephen Miller, who very bluntly asserted at an October 2024 Trump rally,"America is for Americans and Americans only." V.P. Vance commented in 2021, prior to joining the MAGA movement, "I think if any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country." The point of the Atlantic article was that American Jews are being used and many, if not most, are not going with it.

The attack of universities continued with anti-Semitism as the pretext in the vague directive to Harvard, some believe intentionally vague so that administrators will over-comply. Northwestern University's legal assistance program has been specifically targeted for having helped demonstrators in a pro-Palestine demonstration last year. The probe of the legal assistance program is above and beyond the broad anti-Semitism allegations that already faced.

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.

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 mix of all these issues, reflected to varying degrees and examples across broader U.S. higher education, may eventually result in a new mantra "We are all Columbia" among higher education supporters.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Is defense of higher education imminent?

My reflections on the 2024 election cycle and Trump's 2nd coming included a lot of gloom and doom. One of the issues that drove the gloom was the seeming lack of push back to Trump's tidal wave of executive orders, a barrage that frequently tests the boundaries of separation of powers as well as the very foundations of the U.S. Constitution. Law suits to challenge Trump's directives are so numerous that Inside Higher Education is tracking them in updates. One of the first challenges to reach the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration withdrawal of funding to 8 states' grants for DEI teaching training.

The Education Department's "Dear Colleague" notice to eliminate all DEI within 2 weeks created uncertainty about what was viewed as DEI, making the task of scrubbing exceptionally challenging. The lack of specificity and timetable are complicated by the fact that the directive contradicts established case law, which raises the question of whether the directive was serious or just a way to sow chaos and create fear. Self-regulation in the face of threats led to wide reduction or elimination of diversity-related programs; even the DEI programs at the University of Michigan were shuttered. The response from the University of Maryland law faculty clarified a number of issues in response to the directive. Part of Trump's anti-DEI directive was blocked by a Federal Judge who offered the opinion that the "language related to canceling equity-related grants was too vague and invited 'arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement'" and the NEA sued to block it as well. The nationwide injunction against Trump's orders was reversed, but the 3 appeal judges opined that how broadly or narrowly the Dear Colleague letter was enforced was the primary issue to watch.

Shawn Harper, diversity scholar at the University of Southern California, offered 11 recommendations for institutions to retain a commitment to DEI in the face of the Education Department's "Dear Colleague" letter, which lacked details and will require considerable time and effort to enforce. Subsequent Education Department guidance allowed observances such as Black History Month, "so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination." Condolezza Rice's declaration from years ago that it was "inappropriate to teach about structural racism... because it makes white students 'feel bad for being white'" seems trivial in comparison to Black students' experience when they were the first to break through segregation in higher education.

Perhaps the defense of higher education is emerging. Reading the summary of the recent American Council on Education meeting included the declaration of the organization's President, Ted Mitchell, that "We're under attack" and "These executive orders are an assault on American opportunity and leadership." This ACE meeting included a lot of hand-ringing but closed with the hopeful voice of Freeman Hrabowski, ACE Fellow and president emeritus of the University of Maryland Baltimore County. Hrabowski admonished those in attendance to "use our heads and our hearts," a lesson he learned from participating in the civil rights march in Birmingham, Ala., 60 years ago. "Faith and determination" convinced him that "we would be OK." Faith-based institutions may be able to invoke 1st Amendment guarantees to resist imposition of DEI bans.

The irony of the ACE meeting location could not be more profound - The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. where musicians and artists are resigning their posts and performers are cancelling appearances in the face of Trump's take-over with cronies in board seats and himself as the chair. Audio of Trump's meeting with the board he installed pledge replacing the "wokey" perspective of the center with something that will be "hot" again, like he has made the U.S. Presidency. The Brookings Institute warned that control of free expression in music and other arts organizations is classic authoritarianism. Trump's take over of the Kennedy Center as well as executive orders that prohibit diversity programs among National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities puts all arts at risk. Targeting another critical area, J.D. Vance will be in charge of implementing Trump's "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," which will include investigating the Smithsonian and National Zoo.

As an amateur musician who has performed with the National Symphony Orchestra at the Kennedy Center under the baton of Antal Dorati and enjoyed a lifetime of music patronage and participation, taking over the Kennedy Center is one of the most bizarre and dangerous moves of a President in pursuit of authoritarian and restrictive rule. My hope and prediction is that artists throughout the U.S. and around the world will call out Trump's take-over for what it is - censorship of the arts.

Trump has signaled his intent to reshape education for many years. The campaign promise "to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical left and Marxist maniacs" was one of Trump's clearest statements of his intent. It's fairly easy to see that beneath the guise of fighting anti-Semitism, including redefining it to conform to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, was more about ideologic control than anything else.

With a few notable exceptions, presidents of higher education institutions have remained oddly silent during the early stages of Trump's intervention though survey results of sitting presidents confirm their concerns over the elimination of the Education Department and credibility among the public. The President of the Council of Independent Colleges says that, while diverse in perspective, many presidents are responding with quiet resistance. Adaptive leadership that considers the context of each institution may be one way to formulate a response to the chaos. Self-censorship is not a strategy for self-preservation is the advice offered by some faculty who believe that the threats to higher education have reached a turning point. Student responses in defense of higher education have been limited thus far and any future resistance is complicated by lack of public support. Unions may be one of the most important sources of resistance, relying on pulling concerned individuals and groups together.

Trump's attack, and capitulation by Columbia University's President Armstrong, is not a good sign and could establish a precedent that will impact other institutions. Education Secretary McMahon's pronouncement that Columbia is on the "right track" to restore funding may actually not be helpful in the face of faculty who pushed for confrontation rather than appeasement. It is unclear if the push-back caused Armstrong's move back to leadership of the Med School and subsequently to take a sabbatical leave. The AAUP filed suit on behalf of Columbia faculty asserting that the threat of funding cuts were a "cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control." The announcement of Claire Shipman as interim-President in the aftermath of Trump administration demands on Columbia signals a variety of things and what happens going forward will be one of the most interesting higher education leadership cases to watch in the coming months.

Public opinion is an important driver of the conversation about education and the majority do not support funding cuts for education. Responses will need to mobilize grass roots organizing principles that draw diverse groups to act together. Numerous institutions have begun to adopt statement neutrality in an apparent effort to avoid accusations of viewpoint bias. A Heterodox report lauds neutrality by saying "these policies represent a critical step toward restoring universities as trusted spaces for free inquiry and intellectual growth."

Perhaps the current complacency is the result of fear, perhaps disbelief that the chaos is serious. The energy to fight back may be building with possible activism coming even from conservative corners in reaction to Musk, whose leadership of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency has been sloppy and resulted in numerous reversals. McMahon announced a meeting to brief employees on the "final mission" of the Education Department, which was then cancelled after rumors of Trump's executive order to eliminate it. Approximately half of Education Department staff were fired on February 11, 2025, with promises to return responsibility to the states. A court order required the Education Department to rehire some probationary employees as more law suits followed from education groups. Dismantling research capability and financial assistance to students are at least two areas where impact is most likely. The false starts and changes are Trump's hallmark and demoralize everyone involved. Education Department staff reeling in the face of lay-offs is only one example. Democrats have begun to actively criticize McMahon's cuts to the Department staff.

With Trump signing the Executive Order to eliminate the Education Department on March 20, 2025, the question of defense of higher education elevated to a different level. Although an Executive Order cannot undo an act of Congress, Republican legislative action is sure to follow.

The problem with travel

I've previously reflected on travel on my other blog with the post traveling with a critical perspective. The insights I gained from my own travel and observing others has seeped into some of my published articles and particularly at the recent Leadership Educators' Institute (LEI) conference.

Rick Steves' insights on travel reinforce the insights I've gained through the privilege of travel. The New York Times podcast should be viewed by anyone preparing for travel as a way to inspire courage and curiosity.

Observing travel of others, and reflecting on my own decisions revealed an evolving understanding of what travel can mean. My travel started where Steves says most people start - the safe environs of Europe. However, as he says, the more transformational travel experiences were to settings that were very different than his (and my) cultural background in the West. Two of my best stretch-travel experiences were with my youngest daughter, Darbi, when we traveled to Morocco and the second was with Diane when we were guided through the Kerala region of India with Sha as our personal guide. Steves' characterization of travel pilgrimage is so important - seeking to engage with reality by being immersed in things we never expected. As an illustration of his point, some of my favorite travel experiences have involved getting lost or stumbling into a musical event that was not anticipated.

Steves advised travelers to skip all the crowded destinations where tourists clamor to the same spots for their FaceBook and Instagram shots. These are the commercialized places that are typically void of any real historical artifacts. He advised finding a way to put yourself in the places where there are real people and engaging with them in direct human encounter.

While I don't judge others' motivations or experience in travel, I've come to the belief that any travel in the future for me will be shaped by intention, preparation and a critical perspective. In order to achieve that, I've committed to travel that signals curiosity and humility, preserves natural resources, and adds to, rather than detracting from, the welfare of local people and preserves culture.

A good life for all

I often reflect on the good life that I've been privileged to have and wondered how I got here. I've actually begun to compose a life story that charts the experiences and events of my family's life that resulted in my two brothers and me having dramatically different lives, yet each including purpose and fulfillment and ultimately a life well lived.

Higher education philosophers and luminaries have long characterized one of its primary purposes being to help students learn about, and acquire habits to be successful in pursuing, a good life. As contemporary educators move through the current period of skepticism about higher education's effectiveness, with its disparity in outcomes across institutions, cultural groups, and socio-economic statuses, some way of understanding where we've fallen short is imperative. And if you are wondering what "fallen short" means, the State of the Nation report provides ample evidence and specifics. The report asserts that, while the U.S. has become increasingly wealthy, life expectancy and key quality of life elements have declined in comparison to other advanced countries.

Steve Mintz of Inside Higher Education recently posted two thought pieces that captured my imagination. The first was an opinion on how the erosion of meaning and connection has undermined achieving a happy and good life for many in the contemporary age. Mintz cites classic authors who blamed "consumerism, technological advancement, careerism and hyperindividualism" as having eroded aspiration for and achievement of meaning and happiness. Countering the preoccupation with work and loss of leisure and community ties can be achieved by "fostering engagement with nature, community and the arts."

Drafting these simple points from Mintz' first article felt elitist in many ways. After all, who really is able to escape preoccupation with work and pursue more leisure and community ties other than the elites of most communities? Especially in the face of his second article, one focused on the shift in understanding racism and violence, it is clear that prejudices and systems of oppression are in place to make sure that not all people have access to the good life. Inequality, hate, and prejudice may seem to be new but have been debated by scholars for over a century - proof that the systems are entrenched in ways that are difficult to challenge. Sustaining these systems is fortified by legacies of colonialism, capitalism and racial inequality, and neocolonialism