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.

In the face of the 2nd Trump presidency, question has been raised if higher education leaders are up to the task of defending their faculty, staff, and students. Particularly when it comes to protecting non-citizen students, campuses have to be prepared to take action if they are to maintain their integrity as institutions with a duty to care.

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, whose founding and leadership of the WWE is asserted as her business acumen, portends a different path for her versus her predecessor. Her persistence and success with the WWE suggests she could be up to fulfill Trump's campaign promises and would likely move to impose controls on higher education.

Prior to McMahon's appointment, some suggested that fears are overstated but Republican states' support for the elimination of the Education Department, the continued push of the House Committee to impose controls, and details of Project 2025 related to higher education are ominous. Virginia Foxx persistently pressed higher education during her leadership of the House Committee, even though she was unable to pass the College Cost Reduction Act. Tim Walberg's selection as the head of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce is likely to result in continued pressure for higher education to address cost and preparation for work. Lauding the House-wide efforts to assert influence over higher education, Speaker Johnson declared that more is to come. The uncertainty of Walberg's and McMahon's impact are derived at least partially from the vague but bold declarations from Trump, statements that may not ultimately be actionable.

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. Although most faculty fear discussing controversial issues, other 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 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. Students' express some concerns and blame either fellow students or politicians for escalation of tension over free speech. 

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. The University of California Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement offers assistance for those seeking to navigate shifting politics on campus.

Discussants at the November 2024 National Student Vote Summit bemoaned the 8% drop in youth voter participation, attributing the drop to apathy. Many believed the youth vote would be pivotal in 2024 and would result in a Harris/Walz victory, others were pleased with 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. Part of the new landscape of communication sources, students who voted for Trump were disproportionately activated by podcasts. 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. Ultimately, 57% of student voters believe that casting a ballot didn't count.

Hang on, higher education. Rough waters ahead!