The 2024 U.S. national election

The days before the 2024 national election brought varying reports of how Senate and House elections would go and diverse predictions related to the "toss up" between Harris and Trump. The days before the November 5 final balloting included increasing threats that a Trump administration would undo the U.S. Education Department, warnings in Pennsylvania that public campuses couldn't restrict election-related speech, some faculty bringing the election into the classroom and others canceling classes, campuses in swing states mobilizing students to vote, and VP Harris bringing her message back home to Howard University on election-watch night.

The stakes for higher education were very high with Trump declaring during his campaign, "We spend more money on higher education than any other country, and yet they're turning our students into communists and terrorists and sympathizers of many, many different dimensions." Campuses turned to a variety of strategies to calm anxiety and election day included youth enthusiasm that many hoped would carry the ballot. But by election night that anxiety moved to a sour mood at Howard University where Harris supporters had hoped to celebrate. The mood shifted from sour to devastation as Harris conceded to Trump. As citizens, and particularly faculty, staff, and students on college campuses, woke up to a Trump win, questions began to emerge about where the U.S. government is headed. America joined the rightward shift of wealthy countries around the world and the reality that fundamental change is ahead was on many minds. The second Trump presidency raises major anxiety and speculation as educators reflect on public concerns over the value of postsecondary education and resentments about culture issues. Part of higher education's focus, research, is perhaps at risk as a result of Trump's preference for attention to research security and federal budget reduction.

Value and resentment are front and center for the base who brought Trump back for four more years. After the Trump win, campuses will need to figure out how to support Black students if the Education Department is reduced in scope or eliminated. Trump's consideration of who will serve as Secretary of the Education Department is immensely important. The proposal to appoint Linda McMahon, who vows to deliver on Trump's campaign promises, confirms the likelihood of significant moves to control higher education. Prior to McMahon's appointment, some suggest that fears are overstated.

The complaints of Trump and his supporters are animated by socio-economic class bifurcation that is related to higher education access. Those with college degrees are destined to a knowledge class that "tends to invest heavily in their children's education, sending them to private or high-performing public schools and reinforcing a cycle of privilege. This group's tendency to marry within its class further consolidates resources, status and cultural capital with the upper tier, contributing to the reproduction of class advantage." The dynamic of class is evident in the pattern of blue and red states in the 2024 election, reinforcing the perception of urban and coastal elites.

The opportunity to express opposition is one of the biggest areas of concern. Many faculty and staff have expressed political opinions during the 2024 campaign and some have expressed dissatisfaction afterward. Staff don't have the same protections as faculty, as demonstrated by a University of Oregon staff member being placed on leave after posting a derogatory video message about Trump's election. An active opposing voice during the 1st Trump administration, the President of Trinity Washington declared that neutrality is impossible during the 2nd run. Presumed neutrality is particularly problematic if institutions seek to maintain a commitment to open inquiry.

The winds of change coming from Trump's election coupled with emerging AI, tariffs, and demographic shifts will challenge many, if not most, campuses. Presidents of higher education institutions are trying to figure out what to expect and whether or not to be public in opposition when their institutions are placed at risk. More reactions are likely to unfold as institutions attempt to preserve a commitment to free speech while discouraging political activism that could exacerbate reactions among conservatives to anti-Trump sentiment.

Not all those in higher education are disappointed in the Trump win. Even though the majority of the college educated youth vote supported Harris, support for her dropped and shifted to Trump with young white male voters primarily responsible for the shift. Republican Brian Harrison leveraged the Trump win to rein in "the rogue administrative state" at Texas A&M with the first example being the elimination of the recently launched program in LGBTQ studies.

Hang on, higher education. Rough waters ahead!

Higher Education's return on investment

The perception that seeking and achieving a higher education degree pays off has driven enrollment for generations of U.S. and international students and resulted in the dramatic growth of colleges and universities in the 20th century. The return on investment was assumed with local, state, and federal government initially contributing a significant proportion of the cost and students/families picking up the remaining, and more recently growing, proportion of the expense.

Enter a time of demographic shifts that have resulted in U.S. institutions relying on surging international enrollment and attracting students from U.S. families who have previously not had the privilege of higher education opportunity and suddenly the return on investment question is front and center. One-third of students attending college today are immigrants or from recently immigrated families. But for these students the economic mobility pay off is delayed for at least 2 to 3 generations from the first family member who pursues a college degree. For students of color from immigrant family backgrounds, the pay off is even slower than for those who are white. The executive director of the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education warned that these students "are driving enrollment growth" and that it is "in the business interests of higher education institutions, of communities and states, because immigrant-origin students are also helping to drive workforce development."

In the face of one research report indicating that one-quarter of current students regret the decision to go to college, it is critical that differential costs per student and by type of institution be addressed. With taking on debt a common and growing burden, regret has to be replaced by a clear path to ensure return on investment. A task force composed of representatives from 32 states is beginning to outline a plan to bring state and federal efforts together to address the ROI question. The focus of the National Conference of State Legislator's report is the first effort to address national higher education concerns since 2006. Education Department under secretary James Kvaal noted that policy conversations are often in isolation and that the NCSL initiative offers the opportunity to build consensus around "a system that is open to everyone who needs additional skills and credentials, is affordable, and gives everybody a fair opportunity to graduate and go on to a career of their choice."

Reports of falling trust in U.S. higher education may not be as pivotal as some (particularly conservative opposition) have asserted. Medical systems, religion, public schools, and TV news have suffered greater losses in public trust than higher education. The meeting of international educators in Japan in November of 2024 includes focus on countering the partisan attacks around the world that focus on undermining educational progress. Addressing the purpose of the International Association of Universities (IAU) meeting, its secretary general Hilligje van't Land said, "We need to explain to society why it is so important to provide high-quality education and foster critical thinking and open up world views to equip students with the ability to connect with different knowledge systems around the world."

In an effort to encourage greater focus on retention and graduation, the U.S. Department of Education recognized 200 institutions with a "student success" designation. Although the process of selection was questioned by some, the fact that recognition is valued is a positive move. The student success recognition served to redefine high performance as serving diverse student populations rather than elite status based on resources or reputation.  Bridging the gap between education and work is likely to be another area that will reap recognition and the Belmont Fast Forward example may be a good benchmark.

Overt commitment to student success is reflected in the number of staff specifically charged with improving students' experiences and achievement, a function that often falls in the student affairs division of colleges and universities. A survey of 199 student success leaders was largely positive, with almost all believing that the quality of students education was good or excellent and the majority believing that their institutions were effective in supporting student success. While this survey was of staff who have a vested interest in their institutions being perceived positively, the optimism of this group may help to counter the skepticism expressed by dissenters.

While the idea of return on investment is most often focused on preparation for work, the roots of higher education in the 19th and 20th centuries also included preparation for a reasoned and purposeful life beyond employment. Higher education was advocated as adding quality to graduates' overall life and well-being. Steve Mintz' Inside Higher Education essay advocated that "big picture" courses not be forgotten. His admonition also recognized the difficulties with these courses which include lack of faculty expertise to teach them, student preparation for them, and superficiality when big issues are the subject matter. 

Understanding immigration

The U.S. Presidential election is animated again by the controversy of immigration. I counted them and there were eight examples in the Harris v. Trump debate where Trump diverted the topic to immigration and how the influx of "others" is destroying our country.

The response to immigration fear-mongering includes declarations that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants and that immigrants are generally quite successful in pursuing their dreams and building a life in their adopted country. However, declaring transition to U.S. citizenship and seeking the American dream does little to quiet the opponents who, descended from immigrants themselves, believe that their welfare is being undermined by other immigrants seeking to take their place.

Steve Mintz of Inside Higher Education raised the question of how to portray the immigrant experience in a recent essay that may help. He used as one of his examples the Tenement Museum of New York City. I've been there and viewed the tiny apartments where families were crammed into small spaces yet made their way eventually to a better life. The images one gains are of resilience, persistence, and heroism. Portrayals such as these are not incorrect but allowing them to be used as justification for how immigrants have been treated over time and around the world today is inhumane. Even worse, demeaning immigrants as criminals and the worst of humanity, as Trump has done, goes beyond all limits of empathy and compassion.

As one of the U.S. sanctuary cities, Chicago, Illinois, has seen over 40,000 refugees and immigrants from Venezuela and elsewhere arrive seeking a new life. The documentary Desdo Cero: The Migrant Journey in Chicago is an excellent summary of what happened. The film candidly portrays both the strain and the accommodation of Chicago and surrounding suburbs as compassionate citizens attempted to help immigrants bussed to the area by Governor Abbott of Texas in a political stunt during the winter of 2024.

Related to understanding immigration from the U.S. southern border, over 1 million internationals are studying in the U.S. at present; perceptions and the reality of hostility toward them influences their decision making in a variety of ways. During the Trump presidential years, higher education struggled to maintain an image as a welcoming place for students who wanted to study in the U.S. We are back again to images and strategies that could influence if international students come to the U.S. for study and for practical training after receiving their degrees, a vital pipeline to advance research and innovation in the U.S.A.

As Parag Khanna so ably documented in Move, migration has been occurring for millennia and is accelerating in the modern age due to environmental, economic, political and other turmoil. Thinking carefully about how immigration is portrayed and how politicians, activists, educators, and others should respond is key if the U.S. and other countries around the world are to be able to quell the controversies that are tearing communities apart.

Activism on path to continue

I continued to visit questions about activism in relation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and the continuing war between Israel and Hamas over the last year. As campuses open for the 2024-25 academic year, activism on these two topics is likely to continue and may accelerate and spread to other issues. Looking back at the height of turmoil, campuses like UCLA were unprepared to handle everything from decision making to intervention to intervention. Although proposed as competencies that college presidents should possess in order to handle current campus dynamics, the ability to build trust, resilience, communications savvy, team building, emotional intelligence, courage, and resource management are likely to be helpful in managing protests and crises as well as be broadly applicable to daily campus management. 

Communications management is essential when the waters are turbulent. With the inevitability of disturbances continuing, campus leaders should clearly communicate what qualifies as violations of policy, advocate for restrained freedom of expression, and should streamline bureaucracy by forming a small crisis team ready to go into action.

Interest in the U.S. Presidential election in academic circles rose to a new level when President Biden stepped aside to make way for VP Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee. The American Council on Education took out a NYTimes ad to assert the value of higher education leading up to the national election. Although 8% of new youth voters say they won't cast a ballot, the stark contrast of possible Harris v. Trump presidencies has animated many younger voters. The proportion of students in college who plan to vote surged after Harris replaced Biden at the top of the ticket with Harris leading Trump by a whopping 38 points. To counter the youth movement, voter suppression laws have been enacted in 27 states. Text messages to potential youth voters in Wisconsin threatened out of state students with fines and jail time and misinformation could dampen the prospect of students voting in Pennsylvania. Removal of on-campus voting at Purdue University sparked outrage across campus. A Student Voice survey indicated that 38% of students plan to vote and that institutions could accommodate this number or larger through a number of strategies. Election stress is a prominent feature for everyone, sparking calls to support well-being in an anxious time.

Youth vote and appealing to those who value higher education is critical as the potential authoritarianism of a 2nd Trump U.S. Presidency looms. Both Trump and Vance have amped up their rhetoric by painting higher education as part of the "evil within" that they will attack. Former Secretary Voss under Trump, who resigned in protest of his role in the January 6 insurrection, renewed her connection by donating to Trump's campaign and said she would return in his administration if she was free to abolish the Department of Education. The rise in negative sentiment toward higher education, and elite institutions in particularly, appeals to the reactionary MAGA base and has been used to woo Jewish voters who have been persuaded that anti-semitism is rampant and unaddressed by education leaders. European university leaders warn that the U.S. is importing bad models that restrict academic freedom as institutions thread the needle between public opinion fueled by complaint-based politics versus the long-standing commitment to free inquiry.

Central to the difference is Trump's accusations about border security and what he declares as a failure of the Biden/Harris administration. Undocumented students know that they are particularly at risk because immigration is so clearly a mobilization tactic among Trump supporters. With these dynamics so obvious, campuses need to find a way of portraying and educating students about immigration over history and in the present day. Opposing immigration is integral to white Christian Nationalism, a view that the U.S. is a refuge for white citizens who came to America to establish a Christian nation. By contrast, the United Methodist Church advocates the inclusive and compassionate mandate of Christianity and denounces political violence and authoritarianism.

Activism is dependent on campuses being able to create a culture of free expression. Heterodoxy in viewpoint, especially related to history that may include reprehensible moments, may need to be part of the mix. While recent reports indicate tensions about student speech, 70% of students indicate that they are comfortable in expressing their views. The American College Student Freedom, Progress, and Flourishing Study examined perceptions of viewpoint diversity, how college shapes students' learning, capitalism and socialism, and the Israel v. Hamas war. As an indicator that tolerance for different views is fragile, the report found that 71% support reporting professors for offensive comments and 56% support reporting fellow students, these percentages down only 3% from the previous assessment. PEN America noted encroachment through 29 legislative proposals designed to dismantle institutional autonomy, much of it focused on DEI or seeking to usurp control of curriculum from faculty.

Diversification in higher education is advocated by many in the general population, including 77% who believe that historically underrepresented groups should have access to study beyond high school. When this general sentiment is disaggregated, 91% of democrats and 62% of republicans agree. As conservative attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion have spread throughout the country, the links between diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and anti-immigrant rhetoric is clear. Discourse around these two issues feed into accusations that higher education is hostile to conservative points of view. 

The Heritage Foundation launched a new rating system to serve conservative students and families in selecting colleges "prioritizing freedom, opportunity and civil society." The rankings, using a green and red light signal as indication, placed New College of Florida at the top and Harvard at the bottom. The red light institutions presumably "exhibit a pervasive hostility toward diverse viewpoints and lack robust core curricular requirements." Unveiled divisive activism such as this are likely to drive students with different political perspectives even further down their rabbit holes.

Retrenchment in DEI initiatives is more substantial than many realize but a commitment to its principles can be achieved through more seamless integration. This impact, and the tension between those who advocate and oppose a continued focus on diversity and inclusion highlights the importance of addressing the perception that DEI advocates are hostile to other perspectives. "What's next for DEI" suggested four central concerns including; DEI advocates are perceived as incurious, are progressive activists, patronizing, and have adopted the role of language police. Fair or not, these perceptions must be addressed if a meeting of the minds is ever to become possible.

Creating a climate that supports the free expression of diverse views is challenging, as demonstrated in this compilation of cases. Research conducted by FIRE documented increasing partisanship and difficulty in expressing opinions, specifically related to the Hamas v. Israel war. Differentiating activist speech v. deliberative dialogue may help to clarify the purposes and potential impact of approaching expression in different ways. Yale University's neutrality directive is an apparent attempt to reduce institutional statements that reflect partisan perspectives; although some view the statement as vague, supporters assert that the goal of neutrality will foster more deliberative conversation. Bridge USA convened constructive dialogue at Georgetown University including pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian participants that resulted in active debate but managed to keep everyone in the room and reduced intolerance. The tensions of free speech and demonstration have been met by claims of police brutality on one end and campuses walking back restrictions on where speech and protest is possible on the other.

The election of Todd Wolfson to be President of the AAUP signals the possibility of the organization becoming more politically active. Wolfson made it clear that he would lead a national movement to restore respect and confidence in education. His political perspectives are also nuanced around his identity as an American Jewish intellectual who has expressed pro-Palestinian sympathy. Having led unionization efforts at Rutgers University, Wolfson exclaimed, "All those who care about higher education, academic freedom and the future of democracy should prepare for the fight ahead by organizing their campus communities." Wolfson expressed disappointment and pledged that there is no way for AAUP to remain neutral in the face of Trump's victory in the 2024 election.

Preparing the campus through new student seminars, such as that of USC, could help. Professors at Harvard protested new policies against chalking and other expressive acts as inhibiting free expression. Two dozen Harvard faculty were suspended from the Library for mimicking a previous student protest. Some faculty are withholding political comment in the run-up to November balloting as Republicans persist in legislation that attacks "wokeness" in higher education. The House of Representative legislation is likely to complicate free speech as well as make it more difficult to protect students from harassment, which is ironic in the face of Republicans threatening accreditation be revoked over accusations of anti-Semitism.

An October 7, 2024, collection of pictures from the previous year and essays reflected how tumultuous the past year has been. Educational leaders offered opinions that demonstrated that how to proceed is very unclear. Institutions have been damed if they do and if they don't in responding to protests that turned to demonstrations that led to accusations of tolerating both anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic sentiments. Citing tensions over DEI and the Hamas attack on Israel and its retaliation in Gaza and the West Bank, educational leaders expressed the need to free higher education from the tightening vice of partisanship. John Dewey's time-honored "admonition that threats to democracy are only successful when breeding hate, suspicion and intolerance becomes a substitute for 'giving differences a chance to show themselves'" may be more important now than ever.

Campus responses to observances of the October 7 1-year anniversary of the Hamas attack proved to be challenging. The University of Maryland chose to allow only University-sponsored events rather than risk what would happen if protest groups staged events to observe the anniversary. Maryland's decision was criticized for limiting pro-Palestinian expression as well as other forms of dissent. Maryland's approach was blocked by a Federal District Court ruling, a decision the University will follow even in the face of safety concerns that "remain a source of ongoing attention and focus." While honoring the court directive Maryland's Governor expressed that the pro-Palestinian demonstration was inappropriate.

The University of Michigan student government withheld student activities fee allocation in order to pressure the University to divest from support of Israel. The Michigan student organization funding was later restored even in the face of severe backlash from pro-Palestinian groups. This is a new strategy that could take hold at other campuses. If it does, it could become a new spark for pro-Israel groups to claim anti-Semitism as well as serve as fodder for criticizing the liberal take-over of institutions.

Arrests at Michigan's activities fair, disruption of Pomona's opening convocation, the arrest of 3 protestors at the University of Chicago, and Temple University's suspension of Students for Justice in Palestine for disrupting a job fair are examples of the variety of ways campuses are experiencing protests. Cornell banned 4 students from campus for 3 years for disrupting its career fair. Two Columbia University demonstrators were arrested when they protested at the main gates to the campus and a pro-Israel assistant professor was barred from campus. Career fair disruption is another way to press divestment by pressuring companies with ties to Israel.

The focus on divestment in military support to Israel appears to be having little impact on most campuses. Brown University and Chapman University rejected divestment demands. However, the resignation of a Brown University board member over the prospect of a divestment vote demonstrates that in some cases, protest pressure works. Both Columbia and Brown received commendation letters for a coalition of Attorneys General for not divesting in Israel. Brown suspended Students for Justice in Palestine after they protested the University's decision not to divest.  Higher education in Gaza has been effectively destroyed. Protests among Israeli universities demanding that the government negotiate for a cease fire and return of hostages has seriously impacted educational progress there as well.

Litigation accusing numerous institutions of tolerating anti-Semitism will be a focus in the media. Columbia University is particularly visible, especially after an internal task force report alleged "serious and pervasive problems." House Republicans used October 7, 2024, to remind institutions that they would be held accountable for not addressing anti-Semitism and followed up with a 325 page report claiming that universities needed to restore order. The focus of these efforts is to draw attention to presumed illiberal progressivism that is asserted to have become dominant in higher education.

New York Governor Hochul called private and public university representatives together to prepare for the potential of continuing campus unrest. With New York centered due to the demonstrations at Columbia and the diversity of the state's population, it may become a bell-weather indicator for other state officials. There is much to be said for advanced preparation that focuses on deescalation at the same time that it maintains a commitment to free expression.

Vanderbilt's 2nd campus

Amidst the backdrop of colleges and universities establishing satellite campuses across the world, Vanderbilt University is set to establish a "2nd campus" in West Palm Beach. Innovation is the apparent focus, complementing the reputation of West Palm as the U.S. Wall Street South.

While the motivation of universities that establish international campuses might be compromised by financial benefit, a U.S. campus setting up shop in another state and doing it in a highly privileged area makes the priority clear. My guess is that the West Palm Beach 2nd campus is substantially about positioning the institution to tap into future economic benefit of alumni from privileged backgrounds. The academic focus might be a way to counter the privileging message of the Vanderbilt 2nd campus but, unless there is very aggressive diversification efforts, privileged students will be able to accelerate their privilege with a Vanderbilt degree and a focus on innovation.

U.S. study abroad numbers

One of the leading ways to attract students to various types of programs is word of mouth. Particularly related to U.S. students who might go abroad, there are both real and perceptual barriers that discourage increased numbers of students to pursue international opportunity. With the decline of studying abroad that occurred during the COVID pandemic, there are fewer students presently on campus who can speak in favor of and serve as role models for study abroad.

With the U.S. heavy influenced by isolationist political views and skepticism about higher education, study abroad is one of the few, and potentially most influential, strategies to bring experience-based reason back to international understanding. The study abroad ambassadors who are available may have declined but they are precious and should be given ample opportunity to talk about their experience. Without their advocacy, study abroad could decline to a privileged few much as it was in the early 20th century.

My experience and observation is that international learning can start at a very modest place but usually results in enough increased curiosity that students will go back for more. International educators need to find ways to start small if they must, but start somewhere to get students on an internationally aware path.

Qatar Foundation's Education City: Early capacity building for an education hub

The International Journal of Education Development (Volume 107, May, 2024) includes my reflections of living and working in Qatar as Education City was in the early phases of developing its higher education partnerships. "Qatar Foundation's Education City: Early capacity building for an education hub" includes background on Qatar and its purposes in establishing its knowledge and innovation hub, Education City. Recommendations for conditions that will improve success in hub initiatives include; "cultural learning and dexterity, critical examination of educational practices, building shared capacity, and agreeing to and measuring desired outcomes."

The International Higher Education journal of Boston University included articles about education hubs and posed questions about whether they will continue to expand or not. Long and Danvers (p.23) offer the opinion that the competing forces of isolationism versus neoliberalism seen throughout the world will complicate the potential of sustaining and growing more international education partnerships. While complicated, capacity building through higher education may also be used to enhance regional and international influence as suggested by Adam & Adam (International Higher Education, Number 120, Fall 2024, p. 22-23). Some closures are simply the result of flawed design and implementation as in the example of Harrisburg University in Pennsylvania, where it was more attributable to failed financing strategies. In the latter example, the Harrisonburg Dubai campus entered a saturated market of international campus ventures.

The prospect of closing U.S. higher education programs anywhere is a great loss to diplomatic opportunity. Pressures by conservative organizations that do not understand, or deliberately misinterpret, Qatar's role in the Middle East targeted Texas A&M in Qatar and were successful in convincing its Board to discontinue their agreement. The former U.S. Ambassador to Qatar asserted that Qatar's six U.S. university relationships "build respect and admiration for our country, and thus America's ability to shape the world in our interests." While the "soft power" advocated in this article might better be conceived as knowledge diplomacy, engagement that attends to mutual rather than self-interested benefit as described in my previous article, the defense of U.S. institutions partnering around the world is a view that I heartily endorse.

As the new academic year opened for Education City, President Francisco Marmolejo wrote of welcoming new students and reiterated the importance of points I made in the Journal of Education Development article. The lack of aspiring engineers among the new students resulting from Texas A&M's withdrawal from their agreement was noted as threatening education collaboration throughout the world. Education City, in Marmolejo's opinion, is important "because the great challenges facing us today, from climate change and disease to poverty and technological disruption, do not respect national borders. Without global collaboration in education and research we cannot effectively tackle these issues."