Sparking Equity

When Presidents Get Pink Slips: Higher Ed Faces "Existential Crisis"

• Advancing Education Success Initiative

Share episode

The battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education has reached a critical tipping point. What began as targeted attacks on elite institutions has evolved into an existential threat affecting colleges and universities of every type across America.

When University of Virginia President James Ryan was forced to resign at the end of June in the face of pressure from the Trump administration for allegedly failing to dismantle DEI programs aggressively enough, it signaled a dramatic escalation in federal intrusion into academic governance. This unprecedented move follows executive orders requiring institutions to eliminate "race-based" or "identity-based" programs—without clearly defining what those terms mean. 

In this important discussion hosted by Lande Ajose, Sarah Brown from the Chronicle of Higher Education and Angel Pérez, CEO of the National Association of College Admission Counseling, explore what's at stake when higher education becomes a political battleground, and how institutions are fighting to preserve their core mission amid unprecedented challenges.


Sign up here so we can keep you posted on future podcasts on some of the most exciting developments in education.

Brought to you by the Advancing Education Success Initiative -- Coby McDonald, Producer; Louis Freedberg, Executive Producer and Correspondent

Lande Ajose:

Welcome to Sparking Equity, a podcast series focused on the best strategies to help all students succeed. I'm Londa Ejose, your host. In recent weeks, attacks on institutions of higher education have been propelled by the administration's critique of diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs. The administration alleges that they violate civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination against anyone based on their race, ethnicity or gender. It's a questionable assertion that has not yet been held up in the courts. The war on DEI reached new heights when the administration successfully forced James Ryan, the president of the University of Virginia, to resign. Administration officials alleged that he had failed to be aggressive enough in eliminating DEI programs on his campus. They threatened the university with the loss of all their federal funding if Ryan was allowed to remain in his post. No one can remember anything like this happening before the federal government essentially telling a university who should run it. It represents an extraordinary intrusion on the basic principles of academic freedom. To shed light on what many view as an existential threat to their institutions and to look at what this might mean for students themselves, I am pleased to welcome two guests.

Lande Ajose:

First we have Sarah Brown, who's been covering President Trump's war on higher education for the Chronicle of Higher Ed. Welcome, sarah, thanks for having me. Also with us is Angel Perez, ceo of the National Association of College Admission Counseling, known in the field as NACAC. He is also the author of a forthcoming book called the Hottest Seat on Campus. Welcome, angel, thanks for having me. Great, let's get into it. Most attention has been focused on Ivy League institutions Harvard, columbia, the University of Pennsylvania but obviously these are not the only institutions that have been targeted by the Trump administration. Institutions that have been targeted by the Trump administration, sarah. Can you give us an idea of the scope of the campaign the administration is waging against higher education in the moment?

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

There are a handful of highly selective research universities, mostly in the Ivy League, that have had research grants and contracts. They've had this funding frozen or terminated en masse over alleged civil rights violations. But beyond that, research universities beyond the Ivy League have had federal grants pulled because the projects focused on diversity-related topics or particular identity groups, so like projects focused on racial disparities in health care, for example, and that's affected dozens of institutions. And then, if you go beyond that and you look at, for example, trump's investigations into colleges over transgender rights and policies governing trans students yes, he went after the University of Pennsylvania and in fact, penn just agreed to a deal with Trump to resolve its investigation. But Trump is also reviewing institutions like Western Carolina University, san Jose State University. So this is not just an Ivy League fight and give us a sense.

Lande Ajose:

How are colleges responding to these attacks? Is there a uniform response? Is it campus by campus? Is it state by state?

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

I think we've seen just a wide range of reactions. Some institutions have tried to make various changes to not put the focus on them. Institutions have, for example, made adjustments to try to say look at all of these ways that we are supporting our Jewish students in hopes that to not get scrutinized over anti-Semitism. And then a lot of colleges have changed or eliminated their diversity, equity and inclusion offices. It does vary based on the circumstances and based on the state you're in. You know right, some states are much more hostile to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and have passed their own state laws restricting them. But you know, I think what we're seeing in the Harvard case and right, harvard is not representative of higher ed at all. But an institution like Harvard, which is the wealthiest institution in the US, even it's having a lot of trouble fighting the Trump administration.

Lande Ajose:

Yeah, I think that is the issue with Harvard is people feel like if they can't win at Harvard, who can win? Right, Let me bring in Angel Perez, CEO of the National Association of College Admission Counseling. Angel, you've been tracking these issues very closely. But before we jump in, give us just a quick bit about who your organization represents.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

bit about who your organization represents. Sure, we are an association of 28,000 members. They are high school counselors, admission officers, primarily basically anyone who helps shepherd young people through the college admissions process, either on the high school side or the college side. And so that's basically our community. We are a higher education advocacy organization.

Lande Ajose:

Tell us your assessment of the extent of the current crisis right now. Would you call it existential, as many college leaders have?

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

Absolutely. We are in an existential moment when college and university funding is being threatened. I know we're not here to talk about the bill, but this bill that is potentially going to be passing also has lots of implications for the future of finance for higher education, for the future of college access programs. So really, we are at a state where potentially, some institutions may not survive some of the implications, not only of the anti-DEI movement but I would say the backlash against higher education in general, not just coming from this administration but I would also say coming from the American public.

Lande Ajose:

So let's look at that a little bit more. I'm curious your views on why DEI has become such a flashpoint of controversy and such a target of the administration.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

You know one of the things that I am a firm believer in is that when you have wealth disparity, it actually leads to limited options for a lot of people, it leads to a lack of economic mobility, which leads to mistrust, and it leads to social fragmentation and political polarization. And that is where we find ourselves today, and historically, what we've seen and again this is why history matters is that when things like that happen, we begin to blame immigrants and minorities and marginalized communities, and that is what's happening in American society now. As a side note, I'd love to recommend I just finished reading the Age of Outrage by a professor at Oxford. Kartik Ramana is his name, and he does a beautiful job of basically talking about how did we get here? How did we become so polarized? And so DEI has been caught up in this anger that so many Americans feel that someone else has it better than we do. Someone else has a leg up and an advantage.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

That's one point I wanted to make, and the second is there's just a gross misunderstanding of what DEI is on college campuses. I spent 25 years as a leader on college campuses and you know DEI is about bringing a sense of belonging to people on campus, and all of the research shows that the students who are most successful on campus are the ones that find a sense of belonging. I'm also someone who believes that everyone is diverse. You bring your own unique experiences to college campuses, and so I'm deeply saddened that that term has been weaponized, because it's really something that has been used to help students be successful on college campuses.

Lande Ajose:

All students actually on campuses have the potential to suffer when we don't have the kinds of supports that some of these DEI programs have. You know, I want to talk a little bit about something you said about how colleges are addressing this moment, because a number of institutions have, in an effort not to attract too much attention from the administration, have changed the names of their DEI offices to offices of inclusion and belonging or some variation. To what extent is that shift really representing a shift in the nature of the work that's happening on campus, versus simply trying not to attract attention?

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

I think it depends on where you sit. I think if you're in Texas or Florida that have been actually ahead in the anti-DEI movement, it might look a little bit different. It might mean that institutions are absolutely erasing the work that they were doing to help students feel a sense of belonging and build community. But I think in other parts of the country and depending on the sector and, to be honest, the courage of the board of trustees and the leadership on the campus, you might see that it just looks and feels a little bit different. I know that a lot of college leaders have said to me privately that they still fundamentally believe in the work and that they are going to do everything they can to make sure that every single student that arrives on their campus has the resources that they need to be successful and that they are going to help them create a sense of belonging. But I think it's not just one swath across the country. I think it depends on where you sit and how your leadership feels about this.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

I can add to that the Chronicle. We have tracked over 350 colleges that have either eliminated or altered their diversity offices, programs or staff, and this is really across the board, right, it's public colleges in red states that have passed restrictions on DEI. It's also private colleges that are not subject to, generally speaking, the legislative whims of their states. Also, you know, community colleges. I mean, really this goes across the board and I think what we've seen is certainly in some corners of the country, like in California, for example, we have seen some institutions that have basically just changed the name, potentially to just something instead of being the diversity of inclusion office, that might be, you know, inclusive excellence or something like that. And even looking at places like Utah, they have not only gotten rid of public colleges in that state, have not only had to get-centered supports that were forced to be closed because that was the university's interpretation of what state law was requiring them to do.

Lande Ajose:

You know, I want to look at this through the lens of some of the things that are happening currently in colleges and universities. So far, a lot of these attacks have been directed at colleges with significant endowments. You mentioned Harvard University, for example, but of course, what we saw in the last week was the University of Virginia, which represents a departure in some ways in terms of the type of institution, and I'm wondering if either of you could speak to how you think public universities with fewer resources than some of those well-heeled colleges will be affected in.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

I actually think the landscape has fundamentally shifted. President Trump actually issued another executive order to all colleges and universities and I think the language he used was American organizations of influence. That actually includes associations. So I am watching very carefully to make sure that anyone who receives federal funding is not going to be engaging in anything related to DEI, and so public institutions are absolutely watching this, are absolutely going to be affected basically anyone who receives federal funding or who does advocacy for higher education and so I think the landscape has fundamentally shifted. We're all deeply concerned about how this is going to impact all institutions across the country, and now we're seeing that it's spreading to other organizations as well.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

I'll just add to that to say on the University of Virginia case. In addition to the fact that it was kind of an unexpected target, I think so much attention has been focused on the Ivy League, but UVA I think for a lot of people it felt like it came out of nowhere. The Chronicle has been reporting on this UVA case for weeks and in fact months, and so this wasn't a huge surprise for us. But the nature of the Trump administration's scrutiny of UVA is interesting because President Trump signed two executive orders aiming to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts both across federal government as well as in colleges and lots of other organizations.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

He did this within his first week this is a central tenet of his agenda Department then issued two different guidance documents, kind of interpreting those orders and how they feel they should apply to higher education and effectively, these directed colleges to dismantle all programs, activities etc that could be seen as race-based or identity-based. And you know, the UVA board responded to that by passing a resolution in March saying we're going to dismantle our diversity office. We're going to take that step and for the Justice Department, who then started scrutinizing UV conservative alumni group as well as among others who were watching this case, there was a perception that UVA had not actually eliminated DEI, whatever that means. And part of why the Trump administration was able to really, I think, hold UVA's feet to the fire on this is because the Trump administration has not really defined DEI. What does it mean by DEI?

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

Right, and so it could kind of use that vagueness to ask for a whole host of changes at the university and then ultimately it goes on for weeks, there's sort of back and forth and it culminates in this moment where, on for weeks, there's sort of back and forth and it culminates in this moment where apparently, reportedly, the Justice Department demanded that President Ryan step aside because he had not done enough to dismantle DEI, and I think that is really important because, again, UVA had actually eliminated its diversity office.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

From the Trump administration's perspective, that was not enough to constitute the quote unquote elimination of DEI. And that sort of points to this larger issue, which is that what we're hearing from colleges is they have no idea how to comply with the Trump administration's directives because the government has not defined what they mean by quote unquote illegal DEI. They say, oh, it's all possible activities, programs related to race or identity, but there are a lot of things that colleges do that could or couldn't fall into that bucket, and so I think that's a really confusing environment for colleges to be in.

Lande Ajose:

To what extent is this issue of defining what DEI is being taken up in the courts?

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

issue of defining what DEI is being taken up in the courts. I am not a lawyer, to be clear, but what I can tell you is that obviously there are legal challenges, both directed at Trump's executive orders directing the elimination of DEI as well as the two guidance documents from the Education Department that told colleges you know you must get rid of all DEI or you will lose your federal funding. The executive orders have been challenged in court. They are currently in effect. Right, there was a preliminary injunction. It's no longer in effect, so technically the orders are in effect. The guidance, which is the more specific here, is how the Trump administration is interpreting these executive orders for colleges.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

Those are currently blocked in a court, and I think one sticking point for some of the federal judges who have been scrutinizing this is that issue that Trump has not defined DEI, and so that makes it really hard to know what to do to comply.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

And, if I can add to that, I'm also not a lawyer. But one of the concerns that every college president that I speak to and higher education leader is not just what will come of these cases that are being tried in court, but will the administration actually follow through if they lose? We are seeing precedent now that they are not necessarily following through on some of the cases that they are losing, and so there's a lot of fear right now around whether or not even using legal methods is going to be effective in protecting higher education.

Lande Ajose:

One of the recent actions that took place was the administration's attempt to bar international students from attending Harvard University. My understanding is that that had a chilling effect not only on those Harvard students but on international students writ large. Can you talk about that case and what the impact has been for students who would come to the United States to go to college, and where are you seeing that in the colleges and universities amongst your membership in terms of international students.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

I'll go back to where we started. This is existential. The United States higher education system is dependent upon international students, not just for revenue and tuition dollars, but also for the rich diversity that they bring and experiences to the college campuses. Right now, there has been an extraordinary chilling effect across the globe. I have spent a lot of time I'm actually heading to our international conference very soon, in a couple of weeks there is such concern amongst higher education leaders.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

How are we going to convince young people and their families across the globe to send their children to study in the United States when there is the possibility that they could be deported or that, you know, in the middle of their studies, perhaps they are told your visa is no longer valid? That level of uncertainty think of yourself as a parent is something that is really creating an extraordinary chilling effect, and so we worry about what that's going to mean for global student mobility. We have already seen that applications are up in Canada, the UK, Australia, so our loss will be their gain, and so we will see how this all plays out in the courts and what the effect is in the coming years. But right now there's an extraordinary amount of fear across the globe for sending international students to the United States.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

Do we have a?

Lande Ajose:

Do we have a sense of the economic effect on colleges and universities.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

Yes, it's actually in the billions, because the international students across the globe really have a multi-billion dollar impact, not just on colleges and universities, but the local communities where these students are actually going to colleges as well. And so you know, it certainly is not a decision that I believe was made with a lot of intention and care, and there's going to be a lot of economic sacrifices that come as a result.

Lande Ajose:

And my understanding is that many international students are full-pay students, so it also has a very pronounced effect on the bottom line of these colleges, who were looking at their balance sheets and trying to figure out where they put financial aid, where their full pay students are, etc.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

Yes, and that's why we keep using the word existential, because if you add on top of that, we were already facing a demographic cliff, which means that there are fewer high school students in the pipeline to higher education. And if you're taking away research dollars and you're creating a public narrative around, higher education is not worth it or is not worth the cost. It's getting harder and harder to manage enrollment at colleges and universities.

Lande Ajose:

Sarah, talk to us a little bit about this big, beautiful bill and what the implications of that might be for colleges and universities and for students.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

As we think about some of these issues related to college, persistence attempt to increase tax burdens on a handful of very wealthy colleges, and sure that doesn't really implicate most of higher ed it's really limited to just a handful of institutions but it does affect their ability, as the colleges will tell you. It affects their ability to provide adequate financial aid for lower income students to attend those institutions. So a lot of private colleges with large endowments do use their endowment interest to pay the way of students who can't afford to pay tuition, and so that's something that is worth following. The final version of the bill does exempt smaller colleges under 3,000 students, so that is a big win for them. Another thing that's been really top of mind in this bill has been adjustments to student financial aid, and so this is something that Angel has, of course, been following and can certainly speak to it.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

But where we stand right now is that the government is basically trying to scale back income-driven repayment programs.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

There's an effort to shutter the loan program that graduate students use to borrow larger amounts to go to medical school and law school, for example.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

Lawmakers did consider imposing restrictions on the Pell Grant, the really important program for low-income students, and those restrictions have not made it into the final bill, but I think there are concerns. If you talk to folks on campuses, there are just a lot of concerns about could there be less access to the financial aid that students need in order to afford college? And then really, the last thing that colleges are really paying attention to is this effort to try to hold them accountable for unpaid loans. The gist of it is that it could have an impact on institutions bottom lines, and I think we're already in a moment where colleges will tell you that they are dealing with just a lot of uncertainty, and so we're in a moment where colleges are really struggling to do the sort of basic things that they set out to do, which is sort of educate students and do important research only is impacting low-income students, students of color, but also LGBTQ students, women.

Lande Ajose:

It seems like a fairly hostile environment. I'm wondering how college counselors are responding and what this is meaning as we look at where students might go, as we think about the fall.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

You know, I call our members warriors right now because I think they are in such hostile environments yet they show up every day to do this extraordinary work because they know how important it is for us to have an educated citizenship, or citizenry rather, in America there's an extraordinary amount of fear, there is an extraordinary amount of anxiety. I will say higher education leaders, deans of admission, enrollment leaders it's why my book is called the Hottest Seat on Campus, because right now it is such a challenging environment to enroll a class, for all the reasons that we just discussed. But I would say the message that I'm hearing from high school counselors is the extraordinary psychological impact that this is having on young people, particularly young people from marginalized communities. You know they may not be as in the know about what's happening in higher education they're not like me, who reads the Chronicle every single day but I think the message they take away from the mainstream media is colleges don't want me. And so college advisors all over the country are working really hard to make sure that students stay in the pipeline, that they're filling out their application forms, that they're still trying to get into the pipeline despite all of the challenges that they are hearing.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

So the uphill battle is real. I worry that a lot of college access programs are going to be taken away and, as we know, the college application process is complicated and nuanced and students need as much help as possible. And so what are we doing for this next generation of young people? I am so deeply concerned we are not creating intentional pipelines so that students of color in marginalized communities are in the pipeline to higher education. We're actually hurting America's economic future. I probably don't have to tell Sarah, because she studies this at the Chronicle, but by the year 2040, the majority of students in this country will be students of color. Hispanic, latinx students will be the highest represented, and then multiracial students right after that. And so we have to be intentional about cultivating them, because they are the future of the them, because they are the future of the workforce and they are the future of our tax base.

Lande Ajose:

Angels, can you tell us how is it that students currently on campus are responding to some of these dynamics and what are you seeing in terms of college students or students who are applying? Is it affecting where they're thinking about, where they may want to go to college? Are applying.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

Is it affecting where they're thinking about, where they may want to go to college? Absolutely, both are really important. What I find interesting is the students who are on campus. There is such an extraordinary disconnect between what this administration wants to do and what students actually want to see happening on their campuses. Students, for the most part, want a diverse campus. For the most part, want to feel a sense of belonging, want programming that is going to help uplift them on their campuses, and so you know, being an administrator right now on a college campus is really difficult, because they're also managing the emotions of these young people who are saying but this is not what we want on our campus, and so we are trying to balance those of us who are leading this sector, what the administration wants and what students actually want to see.

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

The prospective students, the ones who are coming up the pipeline absolutely this is all creating tremendous amounts of upheaval, anxiety for them. We talked about international students, but domestic students are also thinking about where should I go to college? I think some of them are saying, let's say, you were thinking about applying to Columbia or Harvard. I'm hearing from some of them. You know it seems to be ground zero for politics right now. Should I aspire to that institution? What will my experience be like if I get there? And then for some of my high school counselors who work in states like Texas and Florida, they're looking at what the institution's policies are around DEI for young women. Some of these young women are thinking about what are the abortion laws in states, what is my health going to be like and my opportunities? And so politics is playing a larger role than ever in actually the location, the states and even the cities that students are choosing.

Lande Ajose:

As a final question, ask you both where you think the future is, if you see any kernels of hope as we look towards the coming year. Everything so far has been fairly dour in terms of what's happening in colleges and universities, but are there opportunities that can be forged out of this current crisis?

Angel Pérez, NACAC :

I am an optimist by nature, despite the challenges we are currently facing. I will say a couple of kernels of hope. One is this generation of young people gives me an extraordinary amount of hope. I was on a campus last weekend actually speaking to rural students from all over the country who are about to enter college, and they are still so hopeful and they are still so excited about these opportunities, and they were very clear we hope to fix all these problems that you adults have left us, and so they give me a lot of hope, and also that I am seeing a lot of creativity happening in higher education and a lot of new programming and new ways of doing things, despite all of the challenges. And so I think one of the things that may come out of this is that we might look a little bit different on the other side, lots of programs might look different, but every higher education leader and college access leader that I speak to says the same thing we are going to continue the fight.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

I speak to says the same thing. We are going to continue the fight. I think that something that comes to mind when I think about where are we going from here. I think when I've reported on these and I've been reporting on the sort of anti-DEI sentiment that's been building at the state level for a decade and, like this is not a new conversation it's certainly built quite a bit in the last three years or so but I think when I've reported on different states and different colleges and even people who disagree vehemently about what colleges should be doing and should be teaching, etc.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

At the end of the day, this is that there is common ground, which is that what is the goal here? The goal is to graduate more students. That is what a college should be doing right, and I think that even higher ed's most fierce critics, at the end of the day, they want students to succeed. Or how could you really disagree with the idea that you want students to succeed?

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

And all of these conversations about, again, what colleges should and shouldn't be doing and practicing and teaching and researching, et cetera. At the core, this is about students and student success and creating campuses where more students can succeed, and there were fierce debates in higher education about the best way of doing that before the Trump administration and state lawmakers started weighing in, like there have been debates about how to do DEI on campus for years and years and there is not consensus on the best way to do it, and so that's perhaps a note of some. Hope is that ultimately, this is a very politicized moment, but there is common ground to be found, I think, when you're looking at what is the core of what colleges are doing, and that's they're supposed to be uplifting their students, and we can all agree that not enough colleges are graduating enough of their students.

Lande Ajose:

I want to thank our guests Sarah Brown from the Chronicle of Higher Education and Angel Perez, ceo of the National Association of College Admission Counselors and author of the forthcoming book the Hottest Seat on Campus. Thank you both for your insights in this extremely difficult time for higher education.

Sarah Brown, Chronicle of Higher Education:

Thank you.

Lande Ajose:

Our producer is Coby McDonald and our executive producer is Louis Freedberg. Also thanks to our sponsors, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and School Services of California. Please let us know about the challenges colleges and universities you are closest to are facing by writing us at sparkingequity at gmailcom. That's sparkingequity at gmailcom, and be sure to subscribe to Sparking Equity wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Landea Jose. Thanks for listening.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Lande Ajose

Host
Head Shot

Pedro Noguera

Host
Head Shot

Louis Freedberg

Producer