The Education Department won’t be able to enforce its guidance that declared all race-based programming and activities illegal following two court orders Thursday.
Federal judges in New Hampshire and Maryland handed down the rulings after finding plaintiffs in the two separate lawsuits were likely to succeed in proving that the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter violated procedural standards and the First Amendment. Prior to the orders, colleges and K-12 schools that failed to comply with the letter risked their federal funding.
“Although the 2025 letter does not make clear what exactly it prohibits, it makes at least one thing clear: schools should not come close to anything that could be considered ‘DEI,’ lest they be deemed to have guessed wrong,” the New Hampshire judge wrote. And since loss of federal grants could cripple institutions, “it is predictable—if not obvious—that [they] will eliminate all vestiges of DEI to avoid even the possibility of funding termination,” regardless of whether it is an example of executive overreach.
The New Hampshire court’s preliminary injunction, which was issued first, was limited to institutions that are members of the plaintiff association, leaving many colleges and universities vulnerable. But just hours later, a Maryland judge filed her opinion that prevented the letter from taking effect until the case is resolved, which essentially serves as a nationwide injunction.
The injunctions do not, however, block all of Trump’s attacks on DEI. The Dear Colleague letter was just one aspect of the president’s multipronged strategy.
In a separate lawsuit from the NAACP challenging the department’s guidance and actions related to DEI, a District of Columbia judge blocked the department from requiring that K-12 schools certify that they don’t have any DEI programs. Thursday, April 24, was the deadline to comply. The department threatened to withhold federal funding from K-12 schools that didn’t meet the certification requirement. The judge ruled that “because the certification requirement conditions serious financial and other penalties on insufficiently defined conduct,” the plaintiffs were likely to succeed.
Since its release, the Dear Colleague letter has sent K-12 and higher education advocates across the country into an uproar as lawyers and others argued that the document was a prime example of Trump abusing presidential power.
The Education Department said in the guidance that the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned race-conscious admissions, also made any race-based programming, resources and financial aid illegal. The department gave colleges two weeks to comply. A few weeks after the letter took effect, the Office for Civil Rights opened dozens of investigations into colleges, accusing them of violating the guidance in the letter.
Some colleges and universities, in an effort to comply with the letter, began to retract, or at least rebrand, their DEI activities, resources and scholarships. Some institutions, including the Universities of Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Alaska, responded by scrubbing their websites of words like “diversity” and “inclusion.” Others, including Ohio State University, shuttered DEI offices and changed the eligibility requirements for certain programs entirely. (Those changes were made despite the advice of some academic associations to avoid pre-emptive compliance.)
On March 3, the Education Department released an FAQ that watered down and provided clarity on some of the letter’s bold orders. But still, higher education groups continued to push back, and by the end of the week, both lawsuits had been filed.
The one in New Hampshire was led by the National Education Association, the nation’s largest K-12 union, and the other in Maryland was from the American Federation of Teachers, a union that includes many higher education faculty.
The unions argued that the letter and its threat to cut federal funding violated the First and Fifth Amendments, using vague language that exceeded the Education Department’s statutory authority. They also alleged that the scrubbing of DEI programs as well as the potential funding cuts would weaken schools’ and universities’ ability to act as tools of socioeconomic mobility.
“This letter is an unlawful attempt by the department to impose this administration’s particular views of how schools should operate as if it were the law. But it is not,” the AFT complaint stated. “Title VI’s requirements have not changed, nor has the meaning of the SFFA decision, despite the Department’s views on the matter.” (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
At a recent hearing in the Maryland case, the Department of Education argued that its letter was merely a reminder that existing civil rights laws protect white children from discrimination just as much as children from a minority group, Maryland Matters reported.
“It’s highly unlikely that they’re going to go after a school because they taught a certain book,” U.S. attorney Abhishek Kambli said. “All this letter does is just clarify what the existing obligations are under Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act].”
But the Maryland judge didn’t buy that argument, and she sided with the plaintiffs, as did the New Hampshire judge.
The New Hampshire judge said the policies outlined in the letter failed to appropriately define DEI and therefore threatened to erode the “foundational principles” of free speech and academic freedom.
The Maryland judge, on the other hand, approached her case from a perspective of “substantive and procedural legality,” saying the Trump administration’s letter failed to hold its own on that front as well.
“Plaintiffs have shown that the government likely did not follow the procedures it should have, and those procedural failures have tangibly and concretely harmed the Plaintiffs,” Gallagher wrote. “This case, especially, underscores why following the proper procedures, even when it is burdensome, is so important.”
And though the orders are just temporary holds and litigation will continue, education stakeholders consider it a win.
“The nationwide injunction will pause at least part of the chaos the Trump administration is unleashing in classrooms and learning communities throughout the country, and it will provide the time for our clients to demonstrate clearly in court how these attacks on public education are unconstitutional and should be permanently stopped,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, a pro bono legal group that is representing AFT in Maryland.
AFT president Randi Weingarten added in a statement that “the court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself.”
For the NEA, the New Hampshire decision was “a victory for students, parents, and educators” that blocked an “unprecedented and unlawful” effort to control American schools.
“Across the country educators do everything in their power to support every student, ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future,” NEA president Becky Pringle said in a news release. “Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.”
The Department of Education did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment prior to the publishing of this story.
Life with a disability or chronic condition is inconsistent.
On good days, personal and professional obligations are met, and a reasonable, if not uninterruptedly good, quality of life is enjoyed – there is the mental and physical capacity to interact with others.
On bad days, the limitations suddenly imposed lead to frustration, and obligations narrowly met, if at all.
Interacting with others outside the immediate family is impossible, constituting a demand on personal resources which are fully deployed just trying to make it through the day.
As a disabled researcher, staying motivated while pursuing an academic course lasting for several years while at the whim of fluctuating health conditions can be a complex and often lonely process.
In my experience, trying to communicate this reality to colleagues and providers is met with compassion initially.
However, a more comprehensive response over time to the shifting sands of life with a disability is often lacking. This is redolent of how professionals react to change in the workplace, when it is introduced at a strategic level – when long-established processes and systems are in place, lip service is paid to new initiatives but in reality, says psychologist John Fisher:
…people maintain operating as they always have denying that there is any change at all.
When everyone says – and often mean – “Poor you”, but then carry on regardless, this does little to enhance motivation for the disabled colleague for whom being at the mercy of their condition is a real, and lasting, psychological drain.
Making a difference
So what can a higher education provider do to reduce this sense of being a burden, and bolster motivation for disabled students, researchers and colleagues?
David McClelland advances the theory that people are motivated by achievement (n-ach), by authority (n-pow) or by affiliation (n-affil) to varying degrees, and says the responsibility lies with the organisation to create the right conditions to motivate, arguing convincingly that:
…any behavioural outcome is a function of determinants in both the person and the environment.
This means that the responsibility rests with the organisation to provide optimum conditions for every individual to be motivated and to perform, and this is an on-going process – not a once-yearly day of “awareness” for a particular condition.
The 21st of March is World Down Syndrome Day, but does sending our children to school in odd socks really transform people’s thinking about the condition? Disability support should be a strategic, year-round priority which informs the culture of organisations – and shouldn’t higher education providers, as the ultimate symbols of knowledge and understanding in our society, be leading the way?
This is not to say that changing any organisation’s culture is a quick or an easy process. Noel Tichy and Stratford Sharman identify three crucial steps which must be followed by strategic leaders seeking transformation – “awakening; envisioning; re-architecturing”.
The awakening stage involves a crucial shift from complacency in the status quo, by creating a shared understanding that the establishment cannot and should not continue in its current incarnation and needs to evolve. In the case of disabled colleagues, this deep understanding of the changes needed can only be achieved in consultation with those who are experiencing – first-hand and over time – the issues with the working environment and the general approach towards disability support.
Making this a “whole organisation” approach to consultation can be an opportunity to promote understanding and integration between disabled and non-disabled colleagues; research has found this to be:
…particularly powerful in bringing about change as it removed the onus from the individual and avoided disabled people being singled out.
While many universities have initiatives and working groups to consult with, and support, disabled students, researchers and staff, the socio-political landscape within which we are all immersed is impossible to ignore.
The current toxic, divisive rhetoric about people claiming sickness and disability benefit, and how they are costing the hard-working taxpayer too much money, could not be further from the positive vision of whole-organisation consultation on disability support.
The cuts to benefits which were announced by the government last month have resulted in widespread alarm amongst the disabled community – Scope says they constitute “a catastrophe for disabled peoples’ living standards and independence”.
The recent statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that “taxpayers are paying millions more for the cost of failure” through “spending on working age sickness and disability” actively promotes resentment and social division between those who can work, and those who cannot.
Universities can change communities
Against this backdrop of blame and misinformation, it is difficult for those of us with disabilities to feel that we are not viewed by at least some individuals as burdensome and problematic. However, in the absence of a cultural shift coming into universities from society, perhaps university-led initiatives can begin to build cultures which will, over time, impact their local communities.
“Access Insights”, a project by Disabled Students UK, encapsulates this idea beautifully in their tagline, “We believe in the power of disability wisdom to better society”.
They recognise that disabled students have a deep understanding of how accessibility can be achieved in the university environment and offers institution-specific recommendations to universities who become Access Insight members. Using a evidence-based approach, they consult with disabled students to evaluate their experiences and pinpoint what is going well, as well as what needs to be improved.
In the same way, it is only via consultation with the disabled community and a shift in mindset away from “us and them” to “all of us together” that true accessibility in society can be achieved.
The higher education landscape has a responsibility to set the tone and the approach to disability awareness and support – the Access Insight model provides a blueprint for how organisations can begin to consult on, and take accountability for, their strengths and weaknesses in relation to disability support.
For me as a disabled student, I have a responsibility to speak up and show my university how they can make my course truly accessible; and my university has the responsibility to listen and to respond.
The question now is – can there be a wider impact for communities and society, if higher education providers demonstrate what truly inclusive environments could look like? The answer is out there for the taking – one conversation, one blog piece, at a time.
It’s 1959, and Durham University is still a federal university, with colleges in Durham and Newcastle. And expansion in Durham was underway. Elvet Hill, just south of the River Wear, had already seen St Mary’s College move in 1952 from its old site; and now a new college was being built.
The college was to be named Grey College, after Charles Grey, Prime Minister when the university was founded (Grey may also have been the earl who inspired the eponymous tea). The name was subject to some controversy: the alternative was Cromwell College, after regicide and Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell; Grey won by one vote.
And then on 6 March, catastrophe. There’s lots of detail in the report in the Shields Evening News, but the long and short is that the building was burned out. Notwithstanding the reviving tea that the firefighters were able to get. It was due to admit its first students in the next academic year, just six months later. And it did!
Clearly a get up and go spirit was needed, and that appears to be what happened. The college opened; the master paid from his own pocket for the hall to be panelled. Felix the Phoenix was adopted as a mascot.
The college expanded rapidly – this is, of course, in line with the general growth in UK HE at that time. By 1964 it had over 350 students, all men – a sevenfold growth in five years. And in 1966 it became the base for the USSR football team during the world cup. Their group games were played at Ayresome Park in Middlesbrough and Roker Park in Sunderland, so staying in Durham made sense. This was the USSR’s most successful world cup: they made it to the semi-finals, where they lost to Germany. There’s a nice – if somewhat long – telling of the story here.
Grey admitted its first women students in 1984. The title of its head changed from master to principal when Professor Sonia Virdee was appointed to the role in 2023. Heidi Alexander, at the time of writing Secretary of State for Transport, is an alumna; Nish Kumar, comedian, is also among its alumni.
Two federal judges issued separate rulings Thursday that together dealt a major blow to the Trump administration’s recent guidance threatening to strip federal funding from colleges and K-12 schools that consider race in any of their policies, including scholarships and housing.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled that the U.S. Department of Education did not follow proper procedures when issuing the Feb. 14 letter and postponed its effective date nationwide while the legal challenge against the guidance plays out.
The order came in response to a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and other groups, which alleged that the guidance “radically upends” federal antidiscrimination law and is too vague for colleges and K-12 school officials to understand what conduct is prohibited.
The guidance interprets the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious college admissions to extend to every aspect of education, including financial aid, administrative support and graduation ceremonies.
According to AFT, the letter also implied that a wide variety of “core instruction, activities, and programs” used in teaching students — from diversity initiatives to instruction on systemic racism — could now be considered illegal discrimination.
The Feb. 14 letter asserted that colleges and K-12 schools had “toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices.”
The Education Department appeared to walk back some of the strictest aspects of its guidance in a March Q&A document, but Gallagher wrote that the Q&A still lacked “sufficient clarity to override the express terms of the [Feb. 14] Letter.”
Gallagher, a federal distict judge in Maryland, said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their arguments that the letter exceeds the Education Department’s authority by attempting to exercise control over curriculum.
“The government cannot proclaim entire categories of classroom content discriminatory to side-step the bounds of its statutory authority,” Gallagher wrote.
“This preliminary injunction pauses the chaos caused by targeting and attacking vital communities and temporarily protects the critical funding schools, from our K-12 schools to our higher education institutions, rely on,” Campbell said.
The order came the same day as another federal judge made a similar ruling in a separate case brought against the Feb. 14 guidance.
The National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate and the Center for Black Educator Development sued the Education Department in early March, arguing the guidance undermines the free speech rights of educators.
Although the plaintiffs had sought a nationwide injunction, federal Judge Landya McCafferty, ruling for New Hampshire district court, only blocked enforcement of the guidance for federally funded colleges and schools that employ or contract with the plaintiffs’ members. NEA alone has about 3 million members, including higher education workers.
The Michigan attorney general’s office revealed Thursday that the police searches Wednesday in Ann Arbor, Canton and Ypsilanti were part of a yearlong investigation into “evidently coordinated” vandalism, including pro-Palestine graffiti and in some cases shattered glass at the homes of the University of Michigan’s president, provost, chief investment officer and one regent, Jordan Acker.
In a news release, the office of Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said there were many “related criminal acts.” It listed 12 locations where incidents—spanning February 2024 to last month—are under investigation, including the four university leaders’ homes.
“It is currently estimated that the total damage from these incidents is approximately $100,000,” the release said. “In all cases, the crimes were committed in the middle of the night and in one case upon a residence wherein children were sleeping and awoken. In multiple instances windows were smashed, and twice noxious chemical substances were propelled into homes. At every site, political slogans or messages were left behind.”
No arrests have been made yet.
Police—including local, state and the FBI—raided five homes connected to university pro-Palestinian activists Wednesday, according to Lavinia Dunagan, a Ph.D. student who is a co-chair of the university graduate student union’s communications committee. She said at least seven people, including at least one union member, were detained but not arrested. All are students, save for one employee of Michigan Medicine, she said.
The union—the Graduate Employees’ Organization, or GEO—said in a news release Wednesday that “officers also confiscated personal belongings from multiple residences and at least two cars.”
The state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a release Wednesday that “property damage at residences took place, and individuals were handcuffed without charges during the aggressive raids.”
The attorney general’s office did say Thursday that “in one instance, an entryway was forcibly breached following more than an hour of police efforts to negotiate entry to satisfy the court-authorized search warrant.”
Some higher education experts slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to reshape the accreditation system, raising warnings about government intrusion into academic matters, while the accreditation sector defended its work.
The president took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity and equity while calling for new requirements of what he called “intellectual diversity” in faculty. He also called on U.S. Secretary Linda McMahon to “resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability.”
The order was part of a bevy of higher education-related executive orders that Trump signed late Wednesday night affecting different aspects of the sector, including workforce development and historically Black colleges.
Dive Insight:
In his order on accreditation, Trump decried the quality-control bodies as “the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.”
He accused the organizations of having “failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers,” and also of having “abused their enormous authority.”
In the order, Trump launched into a 350-word castigation of accreditors’ diversity, equity and inclusion criteria.
He specifically named the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical programs, and the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which accredits law schools.
“Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” Trump said in the order, without specifying which DEI criteria and laws may come in conflict.
Trump also directed McMahon to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating of accreditation powers for those who “fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.”
His order specifically mandates that accreditors require institutions to use program data on student outcomes “without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.”
Other elements of the order would smooth the path for federal recognition of new accreditors.
The order also includes a provision directing McMahon to ensure “institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”
Trump’s accreditation order drew a fierce rebuke from the American Association of University Professors, among others.
Accreditors have been “important mechanisms for ensuring that academic institutions areaccessible and inclusive, and provide high-quality education for all students,” the faculty group said in a statement Wednesday.
It added, “This executive order, however, uses the administration’s cruel and absurdist weaponization of antidiscrimination and civil rights law to prevent accrediting agencies from requiring that institutions take basic steps to ensure they are accessible to and inclusive of all students.”
AAUP President Todd Wolfson described the order’s call for “intellectual diversity” as “code for a partisan agenda that will muzzle faculty who do not espouse Trump’s ideological agenda.”
Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, similarly condemned the order, saying that it “undermines the aspects of the accreditation process that are designed to protect classroom instruction from political interference.”
Gadkaree also panned the order’s ban on using demographic data to evaluate programs, warning that without that option “accreditors — along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers — will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.”
Responses from the accreditation sector were quieter, but they defended the work of accreditors.
Accreditor’s DEI standards are “predicated on institutions implementing such requirements in accordance with applicable state and federal laws,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions said in a statement Wednesday.
C-RAC called for the order’s required changes to be worked out through the Education Department’s negotiated rulemaking process, which brings together higher education representatives to hash out policy details. The organization also pointed to the regulated process for removing accreditor recognition, noting, “Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.”
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an industry group that both vets and advocates for accrediting bodies, issued a statement Wednesday largely describing the work, standards and innovation already in place at accreditors and institutions.
“Our focus is and always will be academic assurances,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, the organization’s president. “CHEA-recognized accreditation organizations meet those standards.”
She closed by saying, “The independence of the accreditation process is essential in order to preserve and protect the integrity of quality assurance in higher education.”
Columbia University officials said Wednesday they would immediately remove any future encampments on campus and threatened demonstrators with arrest amid reports that students were planning another wave of pro-Palestinian protests.
“We have been made aware of possible plans to establish encampments on Columbia’s campuses,” the New York institution said in a public safety notice. “We want to clearly communicate that camping and encampments on Columbia’s campuses are prohibited by University Policy.”
More than 100 people wearing masks to hide their identities met Tuesday to discuss establishing multiple encampments at Columbia this week, according to an NBC News report based on anonymous sources and a recording of the meeting.
At the time, the protesters intended to begin demonstrating at Columbia’s main campus in the Morningside Heights neighborhood on Thursday, followed by the Ivy League institution’s Manhattanville location on Friday, NBC reported Wednesday.
The planned demonstrations would come about a year after Columbia students first erected an encampment to protest the Israel-Hamas war and call on the university to divest from companies with links to Israel. The encampment at Columbia kicked off similar demonstrations across the nation’s colleges, stoking anger from conservative lawmakers and leading to hundreds of student arrests.
Since then, the university said it has hired more public safety officers, increased campus patrols and restricted access to its main campus.
Still, President Donald Trump threatened to pull federal funding from colleges that don’t crack down on “illegal protests” in a March social media post that drew backlash from free speech and civil rights advocates.
The Trump administration made good on this threat when it pulled $400 million in federal contracts and grants from Columbia in March, claiming it was yanking the funding over concerns the university hasn’t done enough to protect Jewish students from harassment. The administration has since pulled large swaths of funding — or threatened to — from other well-known colleges over similar allegations.
A growing number of lawmakers, free speech experts and academics are accusing Trump of weaponizing antisemitism to target colleges.On Thursday, five Jewish Democratic senators lambasted the president for using “what is a real crisis as a pretext to attack people and institutions who do not agree with you.”
“By doing so, he not only fails to address the threat of antisemitism but also exploits it to delegitimize higher education, while often ignoring or downplaying the rise of antisemitism within his own party,” they said in a statement.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, along with other federal officials, has praised the university’s compliance.But the Trump administration has yet to publicly reinstate its funding and is reportedly pursuing a consent decree against Columbia, which would give a federal judge oversight of the institution’s compliance with the administration’s demands.
If protesters establish a new encampment at Columbia, the university vowed to immediately remove tents and other structures, restrict access to the campus and instruct demonstrators to leave, according to Wednesday’s announcement. If they don’t leave, they could face “removal from campus and possible arrest,” Columbia’s notice said.
“We value free expression and the right to protest,” the notice said. “These activities must be conducted in accordance with University Rules and Policies to ensure the safety of our community and that academic and other campus activities can continue unimpeded.”
Is your institution’s marketing truly reaching today’s students, or are you shouting into the void? Higher education marketing is undergoing a seismic shift. With rapid changes in student behavior, the rise of AI and mounting constraints on institutional funding, marketing leaders can no longer rely on yesterday’s strategies to meet today’s challenges. Student expectations have evolved. Budgets are tightening. And yet, many institutions are still using outdated strategies that fail to resonate with the Modern Learner.
To stay competitive, institutions must embrace the new era of higher education marketing—an era defined by personalized engagement, brand-building and data-driven decision-making. In a world where marketing dollars work must work harder than ever, rethinking your strategy is no longer optional. It is essential to long-term success.
Students no longer passively wait for information. They actively seek it across multiple channels, from social platforms to AI-powered search tools. Their behaviors are more self-directed than they were even a decade ago, and the expectations they bring to the table are shaped by instant access, transparency and digital convenience. Modern Learners want institutions that reflect their values and aspirations. As a result, branding plays an even more critical role in decision-making than ever before. Trust, authenticity, and alignment with personal identity all contribute to conversion. Meanwhile AI is accelerating these shifts by analyzing behavior in real time and delivering tailored experiences at scale.
These changes are not on the horizon—they are already here. Institutions that fail to adapt risk being left behind.
This evolution is shaping the standard of higher education marketing, and redefining what it takes to attract and engage Modern Learners. Today’s students are not yesterday’s prospects. They are savvy, value-driven and self-directed. Marketing strategies must evolve to meet them where they are—not where they used to be.
At EducationDynamics, we are not here to maintain the status quo; we are here to challenge it. We rethink, rebuild and drive your institution into a future where growth isn’t just a goal—it’s a guarantee. With solutions designed to empower, we are continually adapting to the evolving needs of our partners to equip them for long-term success.
Evolving Student Behavior: Implications for Higher Education Marketing
The Changing Search Journey
Today’s students are no longer waiting to be guided; they are leading the charge. With a strong sense of autonomy and purpose, Modern Learners navigate the enrollment journey on their own terms. Their decisions are shaped by what EducationDynamics identifies as the Three C’s: cost, convenience, and career outcomes. These components are central to a student’s decision to apply or enroll. The challenge for institutions is not just to deliver value, but to demonstrate that value clearly and quickly in the digital environments that students operate in.
The student search journey has undergone a fundamental shift. No longer do students begin with degree or program keywords. Instead, 58 percent of Modern Learners now initiate their search with specific school names, according to EducationDynamics’ 2025 Engaging the Modern Learner Report. If an institution is not top-of-mind, it is already at a disadvantage.
Compounding this shift, nearly 60 percent of education-related searches result in no clicks. Students are making faster decisions, often based on AI-generated overviews that appear directly within search results. Currently, 65 percent of education searches trigger these overviews. This marks the rise of zero-click search and the emergence of Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) as a critical strategy.
The message is clear: if your institution is not immediately visible and delivering value within the search experience, it risks being excluded from the student’s consideration entirely.
Search engines like Google are prioritizing quick, curated answers, reflecting broader shifts in how users engage with content. Education-related searches have become more intricate, with students asking detailed and personalized questions. They are no longer browsing—they are making decisions. A static, cumbersome website is not just outdated; it is actively repelling Modern Learners. Institutions must create digital experiences that are responsive, student-focused and seamlessly accessible across all digital touchpoints. A lack of dynamic, intuitive design is no longer an option; it’s a failure to meet Modern Learners’ expectations.
In today’s search environment, visibility alone is not enough. Institutions must deliver relevance, clarity and authenticity across channels that Modern Learners use. Institutions that want to remain competitive must not only be present at the beginning of the search journey, but also deliver information with the speed, clarity and authenticity that Modern Learners expect. Those that rise to this challenge will earn attention and trust, while those that don’t will fall behind amid competition.
The Demand for Authentic and Engaging Content
If your institution’s content strategy still leads with rankings, tradition or campus accolades, it is missing the mark. Modern Learners are not making enrollment decisions based on institutional prestige alone. They are looking for evidence of belonging, support and authenticity. Colleges and universities must shift from promotional messaging to content that mirrors the lived experiences of their students. Modern Learners want to see real people, real stories and a real sense of community.
Video content, especially in short-form, is now one of the most powerful mediums for delivering the connection that Modern Learners seek. Today’s students are not flipping through text-heavy brochures or watching ten-minute promotional videos. They are forming impressions in literal seconds, with the rise of TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts. These channels are avenues where your institution’s brand can come to life, showcasing content that is concise, compelling and aligned with the pace of student attention. Highlighting faculty, student testimonials, campus culture and day-in-the-life content in thirty seconds or less can drive significantly more engagement than polished but impersonal campaigns.
Authenticity is not a trend—it is a requirement for building trust. User-generated content (UGC) plays a critical role in building credibility. When students and alumni share their own stories, they give prospective students a transparent view of your institution’s impact. An honest glimpse into campus life helps cultivate connections and bolster credibility in ways that other marketing mediums cannot achieve.
At the same time, social media is no longer just a place for amplification. Increasingly, it is becoming an integral steppingstone in the student research journey. Modern Learners actively use platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook to evaluate how your institution aligns with their lives and goals. Marketing strategies must evolve to include social-first storytelling and platform-specific content that makes the institution feel approachable and relevant.
At EducationDynamics, we don’t just help institutions meet the demand; we empower them to exceed it. We deliver Creative Solutions that are not only strategic but deeply human. Our approach centers on compelling storytelling, a student-first mindset and content designed for the channels where prospective students are making key decisions. Whether through video, social campaigns or user-driven narratives, we equip colleges and universities to show up in ways that make real impact and drive measurable results. We help our partners shape the future, rather than follow it.
Key Shifts in Higher Education Digital Marketing
Website Marketing Evolution
In today’s higher education environment, your website is not just an accessory to your digital strategy; it is the central nervous system of your brand, the engine behind your reputation and a key driver of student engagement and revenue. With deep expertise in enrollment marketing, our team of experts transforms websites into high-performing conversion machines. Through data-driven UX, advanced SEO, GEO and conversion strategies, we ensure your website continuously evolves to meet the changing demands of the industry. If your institution’s website isn’t delivering results, it’s not just underperforming—it’s limiting your growth potential.
To remain competitive, website marketing must shift from static, siloed approaches to dynamic, user-centric experiences. As student behavior changes and new digital platforms emerge, institutions must design websites that can withstand these digital disruptions and provide seamless navigation, personalized content and clear pathways to action.
Search engine algorithms are now more sophisticated and volatile, requiring deeper alignment with how students search and engage. Website optimization now requires more than traditional SEO tactics. It demands an integrated approach that combines content marketing, user journey optimization and brand amplification. A seamless student experience is essential, but so is a strategy that ensures your content reaches prospective students across multiple platforms.
The role of an institution’s website as the front door of your brand remains as vital as ever. However, the digital space has evolved beyond simply driving traffic through SEO. Today, success hinges on ensuring your content is discoverable across a wide range of digital channels, and understanding how that content is delivered to students within the search engine results pages (SERPs).
AI has become a pivotal force in content discovery and visibility within SERPS. Visual shifts in the SERPs now prioritize rich media and first-person expertise, meaning your content must not only reflect relevance but also showcase real-world experiences to stay competitive. First-person expertise, such as student stories, faculty insights and user-generated content, is increasingly favored by search engines, underscoring the growing demand for authenticity. Rich media—images, videos and interactive elements—boost engagement and click-through rates. As visual content continues to dominate SERPs, your strategy must adapt to harness these trends effectively.
Looking to 2025 and beyond, SEO will demand a comprehensive, integrated approach that encompasses both on-site and off-site elements. Institutions that focus exclusively on on-page SEO or create content in isolation risk falling short of maximizing their potential. The most successful strategies will seamlessly connect content across multiple digital channels, driving not just visibility but also meaningful engagement.
Modern website optimization will be multi-faceted and multi-channel, anchored by four key components:
SEO: Search Engine Optimization will remain foundational, still being a critical part of driving organic traffic to your website but now must be paired with user-focused content creation. A strategic blend of blog posts, video content, graphics and articles will ensure that your website remains relevant and discoverable in a competitive search environment.
User Journey Optimization: Understanding the student journey is essential for converting traffic into applications. A data-driven approach that identifies usability roadblocks and tests the optimal path to conversion is key. A/B testing and ongoing adjustments will ensure that every touchpoint on your website drives students to take meaningful actions.
Brand Amplification: Strong content deserves to be seen. To achieve this, institutions must invest in amplifying their brand through content promotion, social media engagement, local profile optimization and PR. Engaging in user-driven discussions on forums and social media platforms will strengthen your brand’s visibility and credibility, allowing your message to reach broader audiences.
Content Marketing: The creation of high-quality content is a cornerstone of digital marketing. By producing content that directly speaks to student needs, you reinforce your institution’s position as a trusted authority. Strategic content creation is not just about filling your website but aligning content with student expectations and ongoing digital trends.
With these changes, institutions must take the driver’s seat in shaping their digital presence and optimizing web strategies. Meeting the moment requires a proactive approach to evolving digital trends, ensuring that your institution remains competitive, relevant and positioned for long-term success in an increasingly dynamic online environment.
The Transformation of Paid Media
The transformation of paid media has been just as significant as the evolution in organic search. With AI now playing a central role in optimization, marketers have had to rethink not only where they invest but how they manage campaigns. Gone are the days of manual bids and rigid keyword targeting. In what was once a highly controlled environment, advertisers would apply uniform bids across all matching search queries, rely on static text ads, and build campaigns around exact or phrase match keywords. These strategies offered precision but lacked adaptability and scalability.
Today, optimization is driven by automation, data and real-time decision-making. Smart bidding adjusts bids dynamically based on user behavior, intent and context. Responsive search ads tailor messaging to the user’s query, while improved broad match capabilities allow for more relevant and flexible reach. This shift demands a new approach, one away from managing structure and more on shaping signals for AI-based optimization.
Performance Max (PMax) campaigns exemplify this change. By consolidating efforts into a single campaign that spans Google’s full inventory, advertisers can let AI optimize toward specific outcomes. Institutions are increasingly shifting towards investments in branded PMax campaigns, using them to drive awareness and conversions across the funnel. Unlocking their full potential, however, requires consideration on inputs such as audience insights, quality creative and defined performance goals.
In this environment, marketers must shift their focus. Rather than managing granular campaign structures or keyword-level bids, success depends on a streamlined structure. Over-segmentation is now the enemy of AI—limiting data flow and stalling machine learning algorithms. Instead, consolidation, automation and audience-centric strategies are key to maximizing performance and achieving scale. The more robust your audience signals and creative assets, the more effectively AI can optimize for effective campaigns.
The Central Role of Brand in Modern Higher Education Marketing
Brand as a Differentiator
In a competitive and crowded marketplace, brand is your most powerful differentiator. As enrollment pressures intensify and prospective students become more discerning, a clear and compelling brand narrative is not an accessory to success; it is essential for it. Yet many institutions struggle with perceived value leaving prospective students unsure of what truly sets them apart.
According to Hanover Research’s 2024 Trends in Higher Education report, 66% of Americans believe colleges are “stuck in the past” and no longer meet the needs of today’s students. This perception gap presents a unique opportunity for institutions to not just rebrand but redefine the role and relevance for higher education in the modern world.
Brand marketing plays a transformative role in addressing these challenges. Brand is not merely visual identity or taglines, it is about storytelling that resonates across platforms and inspires connection. With students engaging across an increasingly fragmented digital landscape, institutions must show up consistently across every touchpoint.
The emotional connection is especially important today, as higher education faces intense scrutiny from multiple forces. Amid ongoing conversations about cost, access and accountability, there is a pressing need for institutions to reshape the narrative. By investing in brand marketing, institutions can demonstrate their alignment with the needs of Modern Learners, reinforce their commitment to student outcomes and build trust in a time categorized by uncertainty.
Brand and reputation go hand in hand. One reflects your promise. The other reflects your proof. When balanced well, they shape a perception that drives enrollment, builds revenue and sustains long term success.
Today’s higher education marketers must engage students before they start their search. This requires delivering authentic content across channels that builds trust and awareness over time. The Modern Learner’s journey begins with emotion, not just information. Your brand must be visible, relatable, and memorable.
In an era marked by uncertainty and choice overload, institutions must lead with empathy, clarity, and purpose. Showcase a brand that resonates, builds confidence and drives action.
Balancing Brand and Performance Marketing
In higher education marketing, finding the right balance between brand and performance marketing channels is crucial for long-term success. Historically, higher education institutions have leaned heavily into performance marketing, driven by the immediate need for results like inquiries and applications. However, this strategy is becoming less sustainable in today’s dynamic and competitive landscape. While performance marketing continues to be essential for driving immediate conversions, it cannot be the sole focus.
Brand marketing plays an increasingly important role, especially in the upper funnel, where students are still in the process of exploring and considering their options. This phase of the student journey is more about building awareness, shaping perceptions and creating emotional connections, rather than expecting immediate results. Students are making life-changing decisions that require time, research and deep consideration, so brand-building efforts often take longer to produce tangible outcomes.
To navigate this, higher education marketers must strategically allocate resources across both brand and performance media. A suggested allocation might be 20-35% for brand marketing, including channels like Connected TV (CTV), OTT streaming video and audio, out-of-home (OOH) ads, display ads, and paid social. The remaining 65-80% can be allocated to performance marketing, focusing on paid search, paid social and website marketing. This balance allows for consistent brand presence while still driving immediate performance goals.
However, finding the right mix will depend on your institution’s unique needs and goals. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. It’s important to embrace a testing mentality when allocating your budget, understanding that this is a multi-year investment. Brand marketing’s impact often requires indirect measurement and time to mature, with a holistic cost per enrollment being a long-term goal.
By adopting a balanced approach and a willingness to test and iterate, institutions can achieve the right blend of short-term performance and long-term brand growth.
Adapting to Thrive in the New Era
The higher ed landscape is evolving and so are your students. Marketing strategies that once worked are no longer enough. To succeed, leaders must challenge the status quo, evolve their higher education marketing strategies, and fully embrace the behaviors, tools and technologies that are shaping this new era.
Now is the time to invest in transformation. Whether that means rethinking your website, shifting your media mix or consolidating campaigns to improve performance, the path forward begins with taking action.
The transformation does not have to be navigated alone. A higher education marketing agency can be a vital partner in this evolution. At EducationDynamics, we bring together proprietary research, full-funnel strategy and decades of expertise to help institutions like yours grow with confidence.
Let’s shape the future together. Connect with an EDDY expert to assess your current strategies and identify new opportunities for growth.
The institutions that succeed will be the ones that are bold enough to evolve—strategically, creatively and with purpose. Now is your opportunity to lead that change.
A federal judge in New Hampshire delivered a significant legal victory Thursday for proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in education by granting a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Education’s controversial February “Dear Colleague” letter that critics had denounced as an unprecedented attempt to restrict DEI initiatives nationwide.
The ruling temporarily blocks the Education Department from enforcing its February 14, 2025, directive against the plaintiffs, their members, and affiliated organizations while litigation continues. The court determined the directive potentially contradicts established legal protections for academic freedom and may violate constitutional rights by imposing vague restrictions on curriculum and programming.
The February directive had sent shockwaves through higher education institutions across the country, with many administrators and faculty expressing concern that their diversity programs could trigger federal funding cutoffs. According to court documents, some educators reported feeling targeted by what they characterized as a “witch hunt” that put their jobs and teaching credentials at risk.
“Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,” said National Education Association President Becky Pringle in a statement following the decision. She further criticized the directive as part of broader “politically motivated attacks” designed to “stifle speech and erase critical lessons” in public education.
The coalition of plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit on March 5 includes the National Education Association (NEA), NEA-New Hampshire, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Center for Black Educator Development.
Sharif El-Mekki, CEO and founder of the Center for Black Educator Development, emphasized the significance of the ruling beyond its immediate legal implications. “While this interim agreement does not confirm the Department’s motives, we believe it should mark the beginning of a permanent withdrawal from the assault on teaching and learning,” he said. “The Department’s attempt to punish schools for acknowledging diversity, equity and inclusion is not only unconstitutional, but it’s also extremely dangerous — and functions as a direct misalignment with what we know to be just and future forward.”
Education legal experts note that the case represents a critical battleground in the ongoing national debate about how issues of race, identity, and structural inequality should be addressed in educational settings. The preliminary injunction suggests the court found merit in the plaintiffs’ arguments that the Education Department overstepped its authority and potentially violated First Amendment protections.
Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, called the ruling “a victory for students, educators, and the fundamental principles of academic freedom,” adding that “every student deserves an education that reflects the full diversity of our society, free from political interference.”
The lawsuit challenges the directive on multiple legal grounds, including violations of due process and First Amendment rights, limitations on academic freedom, and exceeding the department’s legal mandate by dictating curriculum content. The plaintiffs argue that the directive created a chilling effect on legitimate educational activities while imposing vague standards that left educators uncertain about compliance requirements.
Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, emphasized the importance of the ruling for educational inclusivity. “The court’s ruling today is a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have a right to an inclusive education free from censorship,” he said. “Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school – and that can’t happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand.”
The injunction comes at a time when many colleges and universities have been reassessing their diversity initiatives amid increased public scrutiny and policy debates. Higher education institutions have expressed particular concern about maintaining both compliance with federal regulations and their commitments to creating inclusive learning environments.
The Department of Education has not issued a public response to the court’s decision. The case will now proceed to further litigation as the court considers whether to permanently block the directive.
