As the higher education sector grapples with federal funding cuts and other disruptions, a growing number of colleges across the country—from public flagships to Ivy League institutions—are freezing hiring and spending and pausing graduate student admissions.
This week, Brown University, Duke University, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Washington and others joined the list of more than a dozen colleges that have temporarily paused hiring and vowed to hold off on some discretionary spending.
“It is meant to preserve our financial flexibility until we better understand how changes in federal policy will take shape and can assess the scale of their impact,” Harvard president Alan Garber wrote this week in a message to the campus community. “We plan to leave the pause in effect for the current semester but will revisit that decision as circumstances warrant.”
Garber added that Harvard will continue to advocate for higher education in Washington, D.C.
“Expanding access to higher education for all, preserving academic freedom, and supporting our community’s research, teaching, and learning will always be our highest priorities,” he wrote.
Colleges and universities started to curb costs last month after the National Institutes of Health said it plans to cap reimbursements for costs indirectly related to research—a move expected to cost colleges at least $4 billion. A federal judge has since blocked that proposal from moving forward, but the Trump administration has essentially stopped awarding new NIH grants, creating financial uncertainty for many colleges.
The latest wave of freezes comes after the Trump administration announced it was pulling $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia University, warning that other universities could see a similar penalty as part of the government’s crackdown on alleged campus antisemitism. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he was essentially shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has provided billions to colleges over the years. And the Education Department laid off nearly half its staff, which could cause disruptions for colleges, though the financial impact is not clear.
Congress is also considering proposals to put some colleges on the hook for unpaid student loans and to raise the endowment tax on wealthy institutions, among other ideas that could affect universities’ bottom lines.
Penn officials said this week that while the final impact of the federal changes and cuts isn’t yet clear, the university is already “experiencing reduced funding.” In addition to a hiring freeze, Penn is reducing noncompensation expenses by 5 percent and reviewing all spending on capital projects.
“The scope and pace of the possible disruptions we face may make them more severe than those of previous challenges, such as the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID pandemic,” Penn officials wrote in a letter. “With careful financial management, however, Penn is well-positioned to navigate them.”
At the University of Washington, officials are facing not only the federal policy changes but also potential state funding cuts. Officials have noted that the university is in a good financial position over all but said they need to take proactive measures—such as stopping all nonessential hiring, travel and training—to prepare for any losses.
“These risks together have the potential to jeopardize the full scope of our work, including existing and new research projects, patient care, instruction and basic operations,” university provost Tricia Serio wrote in a blog post.
Beyond hiring freezes, some colleges continue to re-evaluate graduate student admissions, particularly for Ph.D. students who are typically supported by federal grants.
On Wednesday, the Morningside Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School in Worcester rescinded provisional offers of acceptance to students who planned to pursue a doctorate, a spokesperson confirmed to Inside Higher Ed.
“With uncertainties related to the funding of biomedical research in this country, this difficult decision was made to ensure that our current students’ progress is not disrupted by the funding cuts and that we avoid matriculating students who may not have robust opportunities for dissertation research,” the spokesperson said. “All impacted applicants are being offered the opportunity to receive priority consideration without the requirement to reapply, should they wish to join our Ph.D. program in a future admissions cycle.”
Neither current students nor those at the medical school’s other graduate schools are affected.
Iowa State University also rescinded some acceptance offers, The Iowa Capital Dispatchreported, joining other colleges that made similar decisions in the last month.
As the list grows, academics worry about the long-term consequences of the cost-cutting measures. The hiring freezes and disruptions to graduate student admissions have thrown a wrench into the plans of early-career researchers, who are now looking to Europe and the private sector for job opportunities.
Puskar Mondal, a lecturer on math at Harvard and a research fellow, wrote in an opinion piece for The Harvard Crimson that the hiring freeze is “troubling.”
“The hiring freeze isn’t just a financial or administrative issue—it’s something that could have a ripple effect across all disciplines at Harvard,” Mondal wrote. “It could lead to fewer opportunities for students, more pressure on faculty, and a slowdown in research that could take years to recover from. And that’s not just bad for Harvard—it’s bad for all of us.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Kentucky lawmakers passed a bill Thursday that would prohibit public colleges from using any funds for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, sending the bill to the governor’s desk.
The state Senate passed the bill in a 32-6 voteWednesday night, largely along party lines. House lawmakers gave the bill their final approval Thursday morning, according to local media. If signed into law, public colleges would have until the end of June to eliminate all DEI positions and offices.
Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear, who has previously opposed efforts to limit DEI at public colleges, said Thursday that he intends to closely review the bill but appeared skeptical. “We certainly don’t want to impact the flexibility of our universities” to recruit and retain diverse student bodies, he said. However, Republican lawmakers have a veto-proof legislative supermajority.
Dive Insight:
In addition to the ban on DEI spending, the bill seeks to limit the classes that colleges could require students to take. It would prohibit courses designed primarily “to indoctrinate participants with a discriminatory concept” and bar the Council on Postsecondary Education, Kentucky’s higher education coordinating board, from approving degree programs that require students to take such classes.
The bill defines discriminatory concepts as those justifying or promoting “differential treatment or benefits conferred to individuals on the basis of religion, race, sex, color, or national origin.”
The bill would also prohibit colleges from using diversity statements — descriptions of one’s experiences with and commitment to diverse student populations. And it would bar colleges from requiring employees or students to undergo diversity training.
The legislation would exempt DEI training and programs required by federal and state law.
Additionally, the bill requires state colleges to undergo audits every four years to prove they did not spend funds on DEI.
State Sen. Stephen West, a Republican, said Wednesday that the legislation had been “fully vetted” and that every college that would be affected by the bill had the opportunity to submit input.
In support of the bill, West, the chair of the Senate education committee, cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious admissions practices.
While the court’s ruling exclusively addressed admissions, West applied it to higher education more broadly — an interpretation also adopted by the U.S. Department of Education, and one that is becoming increasingly popular among conservative critics of DEI.
Similarly, West raised a common criticism of college DEI — alleging that it holds White students responsible for a past in which they did not play a role.
He cited his youngest son during Wednesday’s hearing. “He’s responsible for himself and should not be made to feel less than, and this applies to every student, no matter what your race, creed, national origin, sex,” West said.
Democratic State Sen. Keturah Herron pushed back against West’s argument.
“I know that you said that you are not responsible for the sins of the past, and you’re not,” Herron told West on Wednesday. “You’re not responsible for the things that have happened to my mother or my life experiences either. However, you are responsible, and we are responsible — this whole body is responsible — for what we do today moving forward.”
Student and faculty groups have also opposed the bill, saying it would eliminate grants and programs that are crucial to the success of students from underrepresented backgrounds.
But even with Beshear’s anticipated veto, some Kentucky college leaders have been operating under the assumption that HB 4 — or a bill like it — would become law this year.
At the time, Eli Capilouto, president of the University of Kentucky, said lawmakers signaled their intent to restrict diversity efforts, forcing his institution to prepare.
“Kentucky legislators have made clear to me in our conversations that they are exploring these issues again as they prepare for the 2025 legislative session,” he said. “If we are to be a campus for everyone, we must demonstrate to ourselves and to those who support and invest in us our commitment to the idea that everyone belongs — both in what we say and in what we do.”
In addition to having sufficient clinicians and trained professionals to support students in crisis, finding ways to deliver wellness support to students before they’re in crisis is critical.
One strategy is embedding mental health counselors into student spaces or academic departments. By integrating services into a physical location, such as a student center, clinicians can connect with students in informal and intentional ways, gaining their trust and supporting specific pockets of the campus community. Around 32 percent of college counseling centers employ an embedded clinician, according to a recent survey by the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors.
In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader spoke with Estevan Garcia, chief wellness officer at Dartmouth College, to learn more about public health approaches to mental health support on college campuses. Later, hear from Casey Fox, associate director of integrated services at the University of South Carolina, who leads the university’s integrated mental health program, about how efforts have scaled.
An edited version of the podcast appears below.
Inside Higher Ed: The focus on health and wellness is an ever-present and growing concern in higher education, as more institutions realize the potential that negative health and wellness can have on student retention and outcomes and their thriving throughout their college experience. We’ve seen more recently, mental health has grown as a concern; students are telling us that, national data is showing that.
I wonder if you can talk a little bit about the public mental health crisis that we’re seeing among young people, especially college students, and just this ever-growing need for more support and more resources to help our young people?
Estevan Garcia, Chief Wellness Officer at Dartmouth College
Dartmouth College / Katie Lenhart
Estevan Garcia: To think about where we are today, and a little bit about how we got here, as far as young adults, adolescents, teenagers as well, and the challenges around mental health, the way I look at this is probably, for the last 10-plus years, we’ve seen an increase in mental health concerns, an increase in depression, anxiety.
I’m a clinician; I work in emergency departments. And in about 2012, 2014 in that area, I started seeing children and young adults coming in in crisis with mental health crisis. This is not something that we saw before.
I tell folks all the time that I did not have a significant amount of training around emergent mental health crisis in children and young adults—even though my specialty is pediatric emergency medicine, which is this area where we take care of kids in the emergency department—and I say young adults, because we really do cover till about age 25.
So this was not looked at as a need for the training back then, and I trained in the ’90s up to about 2000, but then we saw this really increased need, I think, and most researchers believe that this coincides significantly with the use of a cellphone or the use of an iPhone, and the idea that social media has become so pervasive in everything that our children do.
That is something that we know is a contributor. There’s quite a bit of evidence that suggests that. So what we’ve understood, that we were in crisis for several years, we were starting to see these needs of our children, adolescents and young adults, and then the pandemic hit in 2020 and that really tipped us over.
The reason that happened, and we all understand this now, at the time, I was a public health practitioner and so really was an advocate of, “Let’s make sure we’re not spreading COVID. Let’s close those schools,” and do all of the things that we thought were the way we kept our kids safe and our faculty safe.
What happened is, any of those social connections that students had really dissipated during the pandemic. They were not allowed to be in school together. They weren’t allowed to even play outdoors. We were so worried about the pandemic. That was kind of the fraying of the social fabric that was supporting many of these kids.
So that’s when this really did peak, and what we’ve noticed since then—it wasn’t as if those students in college in 2020 to 2024, it’s over once they graduate. That’s not it at all. Because there were children in middle school who weren’t able to go to school. They were children in elementary school, those kids in high school that clearly impacted their ability to have social cohesion and support from peers.
And what we’ve seen in colleges now is there is a leveling off of the anxiety and depression numbers we were seeing—and that’s good news—since about 2021, 2022. And we’re hopeful that what that means is that we’re starting to see some correction here, but it’s still significant. There’s still a significant need. We’ve kind of returned to that pre-pandemic level of anxiety, depression and need, and that is ongoing. It’s across college campuses, whether you’re an Ivy League or you’re a community college. It’s across high schools, junior highs, and there’s real need for us to pay attention, to support students through this process and happy to talk about that some more, but that need is there. It’s real, and we need to really focus on how we address those needs.
Inside Higher Ed: We know from research also that sometimes college students who have the most need are not the ones accessing resources, as well. We see students from historically marginalized backgrounds, who may come from less resourced communities, feel more independent where like they can solve problems on their own.
I’m thinking of our first-gen students who are historically rewarded for being independent and solving their own problems, and then get to college and might not access those same resources. Providing access to support for these students with greater mental health concerns is a growing issue.
I wonder if you can talk about the clinician role in helping students break down those barriers to accessing mental health resources and understanding the role that they can have in their recovery and their support throughout college.
Garcia: I think it’s important to divide our efforts into two camps, or two ways of really approaching this.
You have individuals who have clinical needs, and at Dartmouth, that’s about 20, 25 percent, and those clinical needs are clinical diagnoses of anxiety or depression … and that is what we provide on campus and a bunch of different ways. I’m happy to address those.
In addition to that, I think we need to work with the rest of the student body from a preventative wellness approach, to make sure that they understand that they have access to wellness activities, to things that build resilience. It’s a toolbox or a tool kit of ways to manage daily stressors in life, failing a test, breaking up with a significant other, potentially loss of a family member—all of the things that they’re going to encounter, in addition to being in academics and being in college.
We need to build their portfolio of resources. That’s also, I think, very important in the way we approach this kind of mental health crisis, is to really look at it from a preventative lens.
So to your point about making sure that we are addressing the individual needs of communities, especially marginalized communities, potentially first-generation communities, I think it’s important to not paint this with a broad brush. We need to be individual, and we need to work with the individuals. We need to look at our individual groups and really understand what they need.
This is when we partner with our students: Our students are telling us what they need, and we can’t assume that they’re going to come to us; we need to come to them. We need to make sure that we’re embedding mental health resources where the students would access them and not [saying], “Come to the counseling center, and that’s when we’ll meet with you.”
One example that I give is our really integrating our ability to support students and their mental health in our athletic programs. And at Dartmouth—we call it DP2, it’s really our Dartmouth Peak Performance—and we are embedding within the varsity sports, but also our club sports intramurals. About 60, 65 percent of students participate in athletics at Dartmouth.
We are really trying to embed within those different systems supports that make it easy for a student to reach out and to talk to the coach, we then help the coach understand how to identify a student in need, what to do if they if they have higher needs, and [if] the coach and or the athletic trainer is comfortable managing, we do training and mental health first aid.
We also do something we call Campus Connect, that allows us to identify the resources for students, and then obviously they can engage my office if there are real concerns about students, that they’re afraid, that need immediate support, and we do that as well. So that is just one example of how we embed within the activities that students are doing every day that they may not think have a wellness component or have this potential counseling component, and they’re there.
Inside Higher Ed: I’m so glad that you bring up this network of supports for students, because there is no silver bullet when it comes to supporting student mental health, and every student’s needs are going to look a little different. It really does take a public health approach to addressing student needs, because they’re all different.
I want to go back to your example of athletics-embedded resources, because I think that’s a really interesting student population that we have where they’re very competitive, they’re driven, they’re engaged, they’re super involved on campus. And sometimes that can result in some of these challenges when it comes to juggling mental health and academics or their personal lives or things like that, and how those targeted resources can address those specific needs that those athletes might have compared to the general student population.
The benefit that it brings, one, to the students, but also to the practitioners who are working with them, and that intimate relationship that they get to cultivate with those athletes. So I wonder if you can just talk about that a little bit more, the relationship between how embedded resources are targeted but also personalized and intimate.
Garcia: For our athletes, and certainly our varsity athletes here, we do have a fairly robust set of offerings. There are two embedded psychologists that have expertise in sports psychology, embedded for the varsity teams and the varsity athletes.
But in addition to that, there are performance coaches, which is a different level of support, but focusing on what the needs are … You would understand that some athletes maybe need nutrition and sleep coaching and support. We have embedded nutritionists; we have sleep support. We have an entire module and support around leadership. So these are all areas across the campus that we’re offering to our athletes.
Initially, this was offered really to our varsity athletes, but as we’re growing our understanding of what our … intramural students participating in sports need, we’ve selected a couple of our really winning supports, and we’re going to be able to expand those in the future to the larger population of athletes on campus. That includes that leadership component, the sleep and nutrition and mental performance. Those are three areas that we will be then taking best practices from varsity athletes and expanding the trainings, the offerings and the supports to other athletes.
Then our ultimate goal is to be able to share these resources with any student on campus who is interested in learning in this way.
There is a direct link from, of course, from our sports psychologist to our overall counseling center. And if they believe someone needs more in-depth counseling, or if they’re identifying other concerns, maybe an eating disorder, we’re able to utilize our system of care here on campus to support the students that have those needs identified through the sports psychologists and performance coaches … and if they need, they’re then moved to our counseling center. We have a close relationship with Dartmouth Health, which is actually our health system here, even being in a rural location, and so we have access to experts across the field, and we’re able to engage with them as well, so that that really does tie in here.
Inside Higher Ed: Placing access where students are is one way to remove barriers to formal mental health care. Are there other strategies or interventions that you’re all considering when it comes to helping students move past the stigma of utilizing mental health resources?
Garcia: Interestingly enough, the stigma for college students is real. It’s still there. It’s probably more significant for male college students than female college students. But it’s clearly something that we see. We mentioned a little bit about marginalized groups and their use of mental health services. I will say one thing we’re proud of at Dartmouth is that our use of mental health services is the same for that 20, 25 percent, depending on the year, is [reflective] of all students. Our first-generation students or historically marginalized students do not utilize health services at a lower rate than anybody else here. We’re really proud about that.
We’ve made the idea of mental health services part of who you are. We’re integrating the idea of wellness into academics. I think that’s something that we forget. Oftentimes people feel like you can move it separate: You’re a student at one point, and then when you’re depressed, you’re not a student, or you’re not somebody who’s worried about the academics. And we clearly know that the pressures of academics for college students and being successful will impact them as well.
So certainly, I think it’s important to understand that you want to go back and you want to see where the students are and meet their needs. But one thing that I think is really important is the idea of peer support.
We have a mental health student union here on campus, and last year, they held a town hall for students, and … four individual students who had mental health concerns and diagnoses came forward and talked about those individual concerns they had and how they were able to receive the help they needed on campus, as well as through the networks, and really bringing forward the idea that it’s OK to have these conversations. They shouldn’t be talked about only in an office. They shouldn’t be talked about in whispers; we really do need to make it clear that if you have concerns or and need support, it’s here.
We train students to be peer advisers and peer supporters, and we do it in many different areas across campus, but that is also very important, because often students will go to a fellow classmate first before they come to us. And I think that’s really important to understand. Our peer supporters get good training. They’re not expected to be counselors. They’re expected to be a shoulder to lean on, and then they understand what the resources are and available on campus. So peer support is really important as well. And I think we need to continue to strengthen those engagements between students as well.
Inside Higher Ed: I’m so glad that that’s something that you touched on, because I think at Ivy institutions specifically, there can be a stereotype or a misconception that students are hypercompetitive. They are obviously high-achieving students, but that they are able to perform those interpersonal relationships and be vulnerable with each other about the struggles that they’re going through as well, I think really helps break down that barrier of “Everybody else is doing just fine, but I’m not,” or “I’m the only person who’s struggling with this” and really creates a community of care where students can lean on one another, and, like you said, be referred to more resources as they need.
The University of South Carolina is one institution that has designated embedded counseling supports as a focus for holistic student care. Casey Fox from Carolina shares more about the campus work.
Inside Higher Ed: When we talk about the integrated services program, what does that mean on a practical and logistical level?
Casey Fox, a licensed marriage and family therapist, professional counselor and professional counselor supervisor, as well as the associate director of integrated services at the University of South Carolina.
University of South Carolina
Casey Fox: Right now, we have integrated clinicians in four spaces across campus. We are a large urban campus, and we have a central hub where we provide our counseling services.
In 2022 we identified a space in the law school, so we embedded a clinician over there, and she has been there doing wonderful work since then, but we now have clinicians that are in three other spaces across campus. So we’ve got the First-Gen Center, we’ve also got Global Carolina, and then we’ve got an embedded clinician in the engineering and computing school.
The idea of integrated services is really just looking at the barriers to access. One of the pieces with that is, when you look at the central hub for coming over for services, a lot of students, depending on positionality, are not able to get to this location. Maybe it’s the parking, maybe it’s the gaps between their classes, maybe they don’t live on campus, and just even coming to that main space is difficult based on all of their competing values.
What we’ve looked at is ways that we can spread staff out in order to address that and remove some of those barriers, so that we’re welcoming students in some spaces that maybe they’re more likely to walk into.
Inside Higher Ed:You mentioned that you started with the law school, and that’s a population when it comes to embedded counseling I haven’t seen quite as much. We talk a lot about athletes or underrepresented minority students. What are some of those barriers for law school students that they’re not engaging at that central facility?
Fox: When we’re looking at the barriers for law school students, I think historically, if we look at the nature of what it is like to be in the law school and be a law student, there’s a lot of time in between courses that students are really just in that space studying.
But the other side of that, we’ve got students who, in many ways, are not traditional students anymore. Law school is not undergraduate, and so there’s a lot of things that are competing for time. There’s some law school students that are parents, there’s some law school students that have families that they attend to, and so coming over to the other side of campus for counseling services, I think can be really difficult.
But the other piece of that, not just time, but I think there’s some perceived stigma. I think that there’s a competitive nature to being a law school student, and with that, I maybe don’t want to say that I feel weak, or this idea that I need the support or help, because this is supposed to be stressful. Then there’s this perception, I think very often, of, like, “If I need any form of mental health resources or services, that must mean that I’m not doing well, or there’s something acutely wrong with me.”
I think what’s really beautiful about embedding someone in that space in particular, is that we’ve been able to do some of this wraparound care and mental health literacy, to really address, right, that, like, “Hey, it’s really normative to need these services.” Our embedded clinician there has become a part of that team and unit, and it’s really normalized what it means to have a conversation with someone in the world of mental health, what it means to maybe acknowledge that mental health has multifaceted layers, and that there’s a lot of areas around prevention. Like, if I’m feeling overwhelmed, maybe I need to talk to somebody to develop some coping strategies so that I can better manage this, so that it doesn’t become something that is maybe acute or pervasive.
Inside Higher Ed: I love the relational element of integrated counseling services, because, like you’ve mentioned, it’s not just that one-on-one time. They’re also not omnipresent, but very present in those spaces, and can build relationships. I wonder if you can talk about that element and how that also decreases barriers to access.
Fox: The relationship part is one of my favorite parts. I am over in the First-Gen Center, and I love the relationships that I’m building, not just with the students in those spaces, but also with any faculty or staff member.
What’s really important to acknowledge is, if we look at students, if we look at faculty and staff, I think everyone genuinely cares about the Carolina community and wants to support each other, but sometimes we don’t know how. I think with faculty staff as well, there’s a lot of things that are competing for our time and energy, and if we feel like maybe we don’t have that skill set, we might not know how to navigate a difficult conversation or sit with a student in distress.
So the relationship building, in particular, for me feels so important, because I’m able to then become a friendly face that students are like, “OK, I chatted with her about the cookies she brought in, and so now I’m feeling a little overwhelmed, and maybe I can go and chat with her about this thing that I’ve never shared with anyone.”
Really similarly with faculty and staff, where they want to help students, but maybe are feeling like they’re not sure how. If they know me, if they’ve met me and had a conversation with me, they are much more likely to say, “Casey, I’d like to consult with you,” which is a significant part of an embedded clinician’s role is: to offer space to consult.
The other piece that I talk about a lot is we consult with a lot of students who actually are wanting to care for friends—sometimes family, too—but friends that are students here. I have people who come in and they’re like, “I’m really worried about my roommate, and I don’t know what to do. I don’t think I need counseling. But can I talk to you about what’s available to me or how I navigate this?” I love that preventative component of this. Not only are we building relationships with a lot of stakeholders and campus partners, but we’re actually out there with students, and I think experiencing, too, some of the emerging needs and really paying attention to some of the specific components of what it means to be a law school student or engineering student.
Yesterday, I was at a career fair for the engineering students, and I watched people walk around, and I thought to myself, “This is really intimidating, right?” I think even being in those spaces, and getting a feel for what that might be like for students allows for me to walk into a space feeling more informed and navigating that with that student.
Inside Higher Ed: There’s obviously benefits to the student, and like you mentioned, the faculty and staff by having you be present in these spaces, but for you as a clinician as well, it helps build your knowledge of what those student needs might be, and gives you an ear to the ground on campus. Can you talk a little bit more about that?
Fox: I believe that is part of our role. We are looking at, what are the trends, what are the themes? Law school students in particular, something our clinician has done there, has named that like during different parts or stages of the semester, there’s things that I want to home in on because students are really focusing hard on all the things they have to do. Some of their courses are comprehensive exams that can be really stressful. There are initiatives that are put in place to provide support and care with awareness of how that structure academically maybe looks different than other structures.
Another, I think, really important piece to acknowledge is that our embedded clinician law school is aware and privy to information on, what does the bar [association] need? Another barrier right is that sometimes people are like, “Well, if I do come in for counseling, is that going to be reported to the bar? Am I not going to be able to then sit for the bar—like, what are the implications of this?”
Our embedded clinician knows the ins and outs of that, knows how to walk students through that and to offer care and comfort around “Hey, like, this is a normative experience, and this is how this process looks, and this is what you need from me,” so that students can get the care they need without feeling that worry on the front side that really is misinformed. Like, “Oh, I can’t do this, because if I do this, then it’s going to mean this thing,” but without that information, or somebody really speaking to that, like, on the ground, I don’t know how students would know otherwise.
Inside Higher Ed: We’ve talked a little bit about how having somebody in the ecosystem with relationships can benefit students and that access, but I also wonder the physical element of just being in student spaces like the first-gen center, and how that can create relationships and, again, remove that barrier to access. Can you talk about the physical environment as well?
Fox: It’s a different environment. Our central hub is part of our health center, and so students feel sometimes, “If I walk into the health center, that means I’m going for this thing that I need.” So whether I’m not feeling well, or I’m going in for therapy, or whatever they might be coming to this space for, and I think it’s really important, when we’re in these communities with students, what we’re doing is we’re not only saying this is really normative and becoming a part of just the culture of that space, but we’re also building relationship and connection for them to feel like they can broach a conversation.
The First-Generation Center in particular is a living-learning community, so there’s a lot of students who live in that space. So I’ll sit in the lobby sometimes with students, and they’re playing board games, or they’re just hanging out in that space eating pizza, and I’m chatting with them again, not even about anything mental health connected, but just being a face and someone that they can maybe feel connected to and feel willing to then come and talk to.
I try to open that up all the time, of, like, if you ever need something from me, if you ever want to talk about anything you might be experiencing, if you have questions, if you’re not sure how to navigate something, let me know what I can do to support you. And again, I think the difference is that’s a really different environment. They’re really comfortable, they’re lounging, they’re eating pizza, or they’re coming to me and saying, “I don’t know if I want to talk to you, but I saw you had cookies,” and I’m like, “Take a cookie. You don’t have to talk to me. I ask nothing of you, other than for you to know that I’m here and I care.” And I think that has been really powerful in itself.
Inside Higher Ed: I think taking those baby steps to understand what mental health services could look like or could feel like is so important for students, especially who might have never engaged with those services previously, or have a misconception of what that looks like and what that means for them. So that’s wonderful that you get to do that.
When it comes to identifying groups that are receiving embedded counselors, how does the university go about that process? Or what are some of those priorities when it comes to identifying where to place counselors?
Fox: We are continuing to develop that process. Moving forward, I think that the demand will continue for this resource.
The law school identified an interest and has a significant amount of care and the mental health of the students there, so it makes a lot of sense that that was our first launching of an embedded clinician. And the other ways that we’ve identified is looking at maybe students that we want to pay a lot of attention to around retention, so wanting to be really on purpose with what we offer, wanting to have somebody who can really advocate for and speak to that.
I think there’s a lot of assumptions we make about the time students want to be seen. If we were to look at just freshman students, there’s this idea of like, well, they want to be seen in the evenings. We often will base some of what we navigate in a counseling center on information that doesn’t maybe comprehensively link to all needs. I think identifying that there’s some unique needs, there’s some unique needs in being an engineering and computing student, and so that has been how we’ve navigated it thus far, is really looking at like, again, we want to retain these people. We want to offer support.
Honestly, the other piece of what we’ve done has been based on this awareness from faculty and staff that have shared, like, “You know what? I think that we maybe need this.” I also want to acknowledge that a lot of these requests are coming from the departments or units themselves, which I feel is really powerful, because for me, that shows this culture of care that is within those units or schools. I really love that. I know engineering, right, like, they really want us in that space, and I can say the same for all of these locations, but we’re welcomed. There’s a lot of care around mental health and sustainable well-being for students, and that is coming from everyone that is working in those units. That feels really powerful, that ask of, like, “I really want to support these students in these spaces, and I’m aware of these unique needs.”
It has been this concerted effort that we’ve made, not just with counseling [services], because this wasn’t necessarily coming from our end. I think that that’s really important to acknowledge these requests [that] were coming from these departments or units or colleges, and that is a really powerful piece, too, where then they’re showing their care for their students.
I have a lot of love for that idea, or concept of, like, not only are we showing up and offering what I believe to be really good-quality care and concern for students, but for them to know that my college, or this part of my identity, cares so much about me being here, that they’re advocating and pushing for a clinician to be in this space, I feel like even just that sets a standard of just welcoming conversation around needs.
Inside Higher Ed: It also seems like the only way to really create these successful partnerships is to be in community with the faculty and staff and really have that trust and relationship. National data has told us that faculty and staff see these issues, but being able to make that partnership and bridge that gap is so critical. So it’s wonderful that you all have that community of care that is able to do that successfully.
If you had to give advice to a practitioner who is looking to get either into this space by finding an embedded counselor to work alongside, or a clinician who’s interested in becoming an embedded counselor, what sort of insight or advice would you give?
Fox: I think as an embedded counselor, we are wearing many hats, and so I think that you have to enjoy wearing many hats. My role shifts so much. Of course, there’s my associate director piece of what I do. But outside of that, I am sitting in spaces where I’m doing one-on-one counseling. I am then walking into [student] tabling [events]. I am walking into maybe some strategic group spaces where we’re looking at some really targeted intentional workshops based on different needs for the population. I’m sitting in these spaces with our stakeholders where I’m, like, talking about what we’re doing and advocating for that and mingling.
Throughout my day, I love that variety, and I think if, you know, somebody were to say, “Would this be something I would want to do?” I would ask that question of, “Do you think that you would enjoy wearing many hats and maybe being in multiple spaces throughout the day?” I boogie around campus. I’m in several places throughout a day as well.
The other piece is this love or care for mental health literacy. I have been at this university for going on seven years, and anyone who knows me here laughs when I say mental health literacy, because it is like something I’ve said a million times since I’ve been here. I love the idea of mental health literacy, the idea that every person who is employed by the University of South Carolina is a critical piece of all students’ sustainable well-being. If I can change that for faculty and staff or a student caring for another student, or student caring for themselves, that feels so incredible to me. This awareness that I can influence not only the individual I’m sitting with, but influence a college or unit or the system in a really meaningful, sustainable way. Anyone who loves that idea of mental health literacy and informing and educating all campus partners on that, this would be a really interesting role that they would probably enjoy.
Historically, some of the data has shown us that these positions at times have led to some feelings of maybe being siloed or separated from the main center, and there’s something really magical about our main center. I love being in that space, because I can consult with all my colleagues that I just think are wonderful and are doing such great work.
When you’re in embedded sites, it makes so much sense, and I’ve worked really hard to do this since I’ve taken on the associate director role of checking in with my embedded staff to make sure that I’m attending to their needs. I don’t want them to feel alone. I want them to feel supported and cared for. But I think when you’re out there and you’re wearing so many hats, and you’re transitioning so much throughout the day, that can be hard to even know to ask for that or when to ask for that. Then you’re also building the relationship with the faculty and staff and the spaces you’re in. And so again, how much of my time and energy do I have to then shift gears for this other need? So I think there has to be a lot of intentionality in how we care for staff in these spaces.
But I am really excited about our move. My position is new, and so we’ve not had anyone in this space, and so that I’m meeting with the staff in those spaces, we’re meeting collectively. We’re meeting individually, and I’m working really intentionally, to make sure that they’re feeling the support and care that you would feel if you were in this main center.
Inside Higher Ed: We’ve talked a little bit about [how] your position is new, and there’s a lot of new things happening on campus when it comes to embedded in integrated counseling. But is there anything else new we haven’t talked on that you want to share?
Fox: I think, over all, embedded counseling is a really important initiative, and I’m really happy that the University of South Carolina is looking at ways that we can expand this. We are looking at a variety of options. I don’t know that there’s a one-size-fits-all [approach].
I’ve talked to so many wonderful people doing the role that I’m doing at other universities across the U.S., trying to inform myself of what some of these best practices are and what I’ve learned. I keep showing up the table saying, “I don’t know that there’s a one-size-fits-all.”
There’s so many nuanced components to what it means to be in some of these spaces and to do this work—what we’re going to do in the School of Computing and Engineering is very different than what we’re going to do in a first-gen center. I have really appreciated getting to maybe understand the flexibility that we need to have, and how we view this.
I think the University of South Carolina is holding a lot of care for this idea that we want to care for all of Carolina, and we want to be really strategic in how we do that. I believe as we move forward, we will continue to be able to collect some really good data that shows the benefit of this.
I speak a lot to the piece of prevention, and I love this idea of “let me have a conversation with someone before this becomes so problematic that now I’m feeling it physically in my body, let me know that it’s really normal that during final exams, I am just really struggling and I’m feeling overwhelmed.”
I think one of the things that embedded clinicians are really able to do in these spaces is normalize a whole lot of concerns for students, faculty and staff, and then really highlight, too, like, the mental health awareness component of when do we need to have some conversations and just care for each other, and when does somebody need therapy? I think that’s a really powerful thing that we need to address as we move forward, that I think embedded is going to be a part of, is really acknowledging that.
The statement that’s come out a lot is we could never hire enough people to meet the need, and I think that what we’re doing is trying to acknowledge that we’re aware of the needs. How can we normalize, how can we offer skills? How can we offer all of these things on the front side, so that students can feel empowered and equipped to navigate what they need for themselves, and to trust that when they do need a higher level of response or more individualized services, or one on one, that they can trust in the care that they will receive, but also trusting in their capacity to care for self when they can, or trusting that I could also have a conversation with a faculty member or staff member? Because all of the University of South Carolina cares about the Carolina community.
At the same time, we asked OCR to give colleges additional guidance so they have a better idea of what type of speech or conduct might run afoul of its “Dear Colleague” letter. OCR has not yet done so, and with the compliance deadline set for tomorrow, we fear institutions will over-correct and engage in campus censorship.
In fact, we’ve already seen evidence of exactly that.
Grand View University in Iowa, for instance, reportedly cancelled its planned International Women’s Day activities, allegedly to comply with federal DEI directives. This, even though Bondi’s Feb. 6 memo exempts “educational, cultural, or historical observances — such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events — that celebrate diversity, recognize historical contributions, and promote awareness without engaging in exclusion or discrimination.”
This type of overcompliance — in this case, cancelling activities or events that are expressly exempted from enforcement — unnecessarily degrades the extracurricular educational environment at higher education institutions and harms the student learning experience.
As we said last week: OCR is bound by the First Amendment and cannot order or compel colleges and universities to violate it. If there is a conflict between federal guidance and the First Amendment, the First Amendment prevails. Whether institutions are overcomplying out of fear of losing federal funding, or in an attempt to prove a point about the directive’s vague language, colleges and universities like Grand View must not preemptively shut down speech.
OCR’s new Title VI letter: FIRE’s analysis and recommendations
News
The Department of Education should provide more clarity about its ‘Dear Colleague Letter’ to ensure protected speech isn’t censored on campus.
This isn’t the first time institutions have overread government directives to justify censorship. In 2021, for example, Idaho passed the “No Public Funds for Abortion Act.” In implementing the bill, the University of Idaho demanded that faculty not “promote or advocate in favor of abortion” or discuss “abortion or contraception” in classroom conversations unless they remained “neutral.” FIRE wrote to the university explaining that such a reading was flatly at odds with the First Amendment. In a thorough memorandum, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador agreed, explaining that the “plain text of the Act does not prohibit public university employees from engaging in speech relating to academic teaching and scholarship that could be viewed as supporting abortion,” thus ending that censorship policy at the University of Idaho.
In that same vein, OCR cannot force schools to violate the First Amendment, a point we’ve hammered since the Obama-era OCR’s “Dear Colleague” letters forced institutions to adopt harassment policies that did exactly that.
OCR must be clear about the type of conduct that runs afoul of its new directives so that institutions are on notice about what’s permissible and what is prohibited. The office has yet to address vagueness in the “Dear Colleague” letter about “institutional programming” that might violate Title VI. That silence is creating a lot of confusion and preemptive censorship, especially when paired with President Trump’s Jan. 21 executive order declaring that government contractors — which includes many institutions of higher education — cannot “operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
FIRE again urges institutions to hold the line on defending the free speech and academic freedom rights of their students and faculty. And we again ask OCR and the federal government to respect those same rights by immediately clarifying that their directives don’t require colleges and universities to violate those well-established rights.
Last week, a federal court enjoined two executive orders — including the Jan. 21 executive order — that prohibit, among other things, “promoting DEI” in violation of federal anti-discrimination law. The district court held the orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments because they discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and content, and are unconstitutionally vague.
While the government will likely appeal and we won’t know the final resolution for some time, the court’s analysis properly identified the orders’ ambiguity as a damning constitutional flaw. What, precisely, constitutes “promoting DEI” in ways that violate anti-discrimination laws? Can colleges host or sponsor speakers on DEI-related topics? Can institutions advertise DEI-related coursework or promote academic research? Restrictions on these activities would violate the First Amendment, but government attorneys were unable to clarify the meaning of the order when asked by the judge. Precision matters, especially when it comes to restrictions on expression. Vague pronouncements that sweep in protected debate, discussion, and programming raise constitutional and practical problems.
The best way forward for colleges is obvious, even if it might not be easy: Irrespective of the federal DEI directives, ditch speech-restrictive, orthodoxy-enforcing DEI bureaucracies and stand up for free expression and academic debate — in every political season.
As Len Gutkin, editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education, recently wrote: “Colleges should draw a sharp distinction between, on the one hand, DEI used in hiring, promotion, and training, and, on the other, curricular and disciplinary offerings.”
That’s the right balance. FIRE again urges institutions to hold the line on defending the free speech and academic freedom rights of their students and faculty. And we again ask OCR and the federal government to respect those same rights by immediately clarifying that their directives don’t require colleges and universities to violate those well-established rights.
The clock is running out on colleges as they mull how to respond to a sweeping federal order to end all race-based policies and programs.
In the face of an imminent Friday night deadline, college leaders are scrambling to determine how to navigate the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter issued by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which declares all race-based educational programs and policies discriminatory and illegal. When they sent the letter on Valentine’s Day, department officials gave institutions two weeks to comply or face investigations and, possibly, the loss of federal funding.
Institutions aren’t going to lose federal funding overnight. The investigative process is notoriously lengthy, and the Education Department has never revoked a college’s federal funding over civil rights concerns. The OCR may also be rendered impotent, at least temporarily, if a judge decides to halt enforcement while considering a lawsuit filed Tuesday challenging the letter.
But college leaders are anxious about the threat of federal funding cuts, which would be catastrophic for the majority of postsecondary institutions. Ray Li, who previously worked as an attorney at the Office for Civil Rights, said he expects the office to launch investigations shortly and that many colleges will buckle under the pressure, shedding practices that fostered campus diversity and belonging.
For now, colleges seem to be taking a slow and cautious approach, removing language about race and DEI buzzwords from the names of programs and launching internal policy reviews.
University of Nebraska president Jeffrey P. Gold said system campuses are in the midst of a comprehensive review of programs and policies, but no changes have been made yet. The Nebraska Board of Regents discussed possible tweaks to its bylaws at a recent board meeting, like removing references to “cultural diversity” and revising language on equal opportunity in employment, but no final decisions were made.
Gold said that as the review process continues, he doesn’t expect to “turn up anything that looks or feels like discrimination,” as the letter describes.
But it’s possible “we will turn up some things that require some language changes or possibly some changes in titles, changes in offices … that could be misinterpreted by the Department of Education just because of [the] use of specific terminology.”
He added that Nebraska banned affirmative action in 2008 and the state’s second attempt at an anti-DEI bill is pending in the Legislature, so “we have been changing websites [and] titles for years—that’s why I believe that there’s nothing substantive that we really have to change at this time.”
The University of Montana undertook a similar compliance review that tasked senior administrators with assessing whether their departments had any policies or practices at odds with the Dear Colleague letter.
“We made the decision to be as thorough as possible,” said Dave Kuntz, the university’s director of strategic communications. The review, however, led to “very minimal changes and really no changes at a programmatic or operational level.”
University leaders over all concluded that the institution was already in compliance, though some programs, like the Women’s Leadership Initiative, chose to tweak their webpages to clarify that they don’t bar anyone who wants to participate.
A spokesperson for the Education Department did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed in time for publication.
The University of Colorado removed all references to a former DEI office and replaced them with a website for a new “Office of Collaboration.” The University of Pennsylvania scrubbed the websites for all 16 undergraduate and graduate schools of DEI keywords and removed references to diversity and affirmative action from its nondiscrimination policies.
Shaun Harper, a professor of education, business and public policy at the University of Southern California, said he’s been disappointed that higher ed leaders are heavily revising their institutions’ online presences in the hopes that it will appease the OCR—a project he believes will prove futile. In the Dear Colleague letter, acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor specifically warned against using “proxies for race” and promised to investigate race-neutral programs that “discriminate in less direct, but equally insidious, ways.”
“Scrubbing websites, launching reviews—these are the easy things to do while colleges are in ‘wait and see’ mode, to find out if that will take the target off their backs,” said Harper, an Inside Higher Ed contributor who authored a blog post last week recommending ways colleges can fight back against the Dear Colleague letter. “I think it’s both weak and reckless.”
Some institutions have gone one step further. Colorado State University issued a statement in which leaders simultaneously maintained that its policies are already race-neutral and promised to do more to comply with the new federal directives.
“The new administration’s interpretation of law marks a change,” the statement reads. “Given the university’s reliance on federal funding, it is necessary to take additional steps.”
And one day before the deadline, Ohio State University president Ted Carter announced the institution would shutter two DEI offices and eliminate more than a dozen staff positions, some of the most dramatic measures a college has taken during the new Trump administration.
In a particularly telling move, OSU’s Office of Institutional Equity will be renamed the Office of Civil Rights Compliance to “more accurately reflect its work,” according to an email sent to students Thursday.
‘We’ve Seen This Film Before’
For a glimpse of how anti-DEI compliance battles might play out between institutions and policymakers, consider the red states that have passed laws mandating similar cuts to race-conscious programs.
“We’ve seen the prequel to this film before in Texas,” Harper said. “When that Senate bill was looming, many institutions thought they were very smartly getting ahead of it by just renaming things. That proved to be a failed strategy, and I very comfortably predict that some version of that will also happen nationally.”
In some states, the “review and revamp” strategy for avoiding DEI crackdowns appeared to work for a while. The University of Arkansas eliminated its DEI office in June 2023 in part to pre-empt a bill that state lawmakers were considering to force spending cuts. And last year, the University of North Carolina system Board of Trustees passed an anti-DEI resolution just as legislation was gaining steam to mandate enforcement from the state; that legislation was never brought to a full vote.
But circumstances have changed as the Trump administration launches direct attacks on DEI. Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law earlier this month that will “prohibit affirmative action and preferential treatment in state-supported institutions,” including public colleges like the University of Arkansas. Even in Texas, where public universities underwent broad layoffs and spending cuts in response to state legislation, lawmakers have threatened to cut $400 million in higher ed funding unless colleges do more to comply.
“If they don’t kick DEI out of their schools, they’re going to get a lot less,” Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick said at a policy forum last week.
What Happens Next?
Legal experts say it’s unclear what will happen after the OCR’s deadline passes. The Dear Colleague letter promised more detailed guidance, but none has materialized.
“We’re kind of all in agreement that [the letter] is really confusing and overbroad, and the timeline is really outrageous,” said Andrea Stagg, director of consulting services at Grand River Solutions, a company that works with colleges on legal compliance issues. She noted that many underresourced colleges don’t have in-house legal teams to assess their risk by the deadline.
“What actually happens after tomorrow? How fast will it be?” she said Thursday. “I don’t know.”
Typically, the Office for Civil Rights opens investigations based on complaints from students, families or legal advocates, but it can also launch its own direct investigations. Most cases end with a voluntary resolution, in which the institution agrees to make certain changes. But unresolved cases can be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation.
Li believes the OCR will likely receive complaints from anti-DEI groups as well as open some direct investigations into higher ed institutions with race-based scholarships, affinity group graduation ceremonies or other practices called out by the letter, starting next week. (He pointed out that the current OCR has already launched some direct investigations into universities related to Title IX.)
But that doesn’t mean the day after the Dear Colleague deadline “schools are just going to lose all their federal funding”—assuming normal procedures are followed, he said. Such investigations can take months, even years.
An investigation reaching the point of litigation is also “an incredibly rare step that, under most administrations, pretty much never happens,” Li said. And the Department of Education taking away federal funding over an OCR investigation would be completely unprecedented.
“But, also, rare things are happening right now,” Li conceded.
Stagg said it’s hard to tell to what extent normal processes will be followed, or how much the Department of Government Efficiency’s reductions to the federal workforce could affect investigations.
“There is a real question as to who will do these investigations” and how the OCR will choose institutions to focus on, she said. “Is there going to be an AI tool to search [college] websites for certain terms, the way we saw with the flagging of grants? It could be that the president has a bad interaction at a meeting with a leader and then they are targeted for investigation.”
An Education Department spokesperson did not respond to questions about planned investigations, agency capacity and enforcement mechanisms in time for publication.
It’s also unclear how much resistance colleges will put up. Li believes there’s a strong case to be made that some of the practices targeted in the Dear Colleague letter are perfectly legal. Higher ed institutions under investigation could refuse to make changes and go head to head with the Department of Justice. But they’d be signing up for an onerous, likely expensive process that puts their funding in jeopardy.
“The question is, is anyone willing to litigate it?” Li said.
Even if the Dear Colleague letter is rescinded, Li said the Office for Civil Rights has clearly signaled its plans for the next four years, and he believes higher ed institutions will continue working to rid themselves of anything that could attract scrutiny.
“I think there’s going to be an overcorrection,” he said. “It is going to lead to some perfectly legal programs that support fostering racially inclusive communities on campus being taken away.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Recent attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion have rocked the higher education sector, with the Trump administration ratcheting up the conservative-led fight against those efforts.
President Donald Trump has signed multiple executive orders aimed at eliminating DEI across higher education and other sectors.
More recently, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance barring colleges from weighing race in any decision-making or promoting diversity efforts. The letter — which used broad language and stirred confusion among colleges — triggered immediate backlash from free speech and faculty groups.
The department gave colleges until Friday to comply or risk losing their federal funding.
Higher education groups have challenged the legality of the directives from both the White House and the Education Department.
But with no clear outcome, the following colleges are stripping down their diversity efforts to avoid endangering their funding.
Ohio State University
Ohio State University said Thursday it will eliminate its DEI offices and programming effective Friday.The state flagship plans to close its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and discontinue services at its Center for Belonging and Social Change less than 24 hours after announcing the change.
The move will result in job cuts, though Ohio State did not specify how many.
“The federal government has signaled its intent to enforce guidance invalidating the use of race in a broad range of educational activities, including by withdrawing federal dollars that are so important to our student, academic and operational success,” Ohio State President Ted Carter wrote in a letter to students and employees.
In addition to federal forces, the university faces anti-DEI efforts from the Ohio Legislature. The Republican-controlled body is weighing a massive higher education bill that would, among other things, ban the state’s public colleges from having DEI offices or taking positions on “controversial” topics, such as climate or immigration policies, DEI, or abortion.
“Here in Ohio, a bill barring DEI is also making its way through the legislature, and the Attorney General of Ohio – our statutory counsel – has advised us that his office concurs with the federal government’s position regarding the use of race in educational activities,” Carter said.
The university’s Office of Academic Affairs will continue to offer the Young Scholars Program and the Morrill Scholarship Program with modified eligibility. The former is currently open to low-income, first generation students, while the latter is open to students “actively engaged in diversity-based leadership, service, and social justice activities,” according to their web pages.
The university will also rename its Office of Institutional Equity as the Office of Civil Rights Compliance “to more accurately reflect its work,” according to Carter.
“Our goal is to ensure that Ohio State continues to be a place where all are welcomed and treated with respect, while following the letter and spirit of the laws and regulations that govern us,” he said.
Ohio State leaders announced earlier this month they were evaluating the university’s roles and DEI work so they could “make changes if state or federal law requires it or if we decide a different approach is in the university’s best interests.”
The cuts to DEI will not reduce current student scholarships or financial aid, Carter said Thursday. Ohio State will offer alternative jobs to affected student employees.
The University of Cincinnati
The University of Cincinnati is stuck in limbo — its president announced a complete dissolution of the public institution’s DEI efforts before appearing to walk back the announcement just days later.
On Feb. 21, President Neville Pinto said the university would eliminate all DEI initiatives to comply with one of Trump’s executive orders and the Education Department’s guidance.
“It is untenable to operate as if noncompliance with these directives is an effective option,” Pinto wrote in a community letter. “Given this new landscape, Ohio public and federally supported institutions like ours have little choice but to follow the laws that govern us.”
Pinto said at the time that the University of Cincinnati was reviewing its jobs, programming and projects to eliminate DEI aspects. The institution had also begun removing “references to DEI principles” from its web presence and communications.
“I recognize that these decisions are weighty, and these actions are a departure from decades of established practice within academic communities,” Pinto wrote. “I also continue to ask for your patience and understanding as we do the hard work that will be required to unwind many years of DEI efforts under an extremely compressed timeline.”
The decision sparked multiple days of protests from students, faculty and staff.
According to localnews sources, Pinto told protesters at the university’s Feb. 25 board of trustees meetingthat all DEI-related programming would continue until final decisions had been made regarding the proposed state legislation and Trump’s executive orders.
The University of Pennsylvania
The University of Pennsylvania has recently scrubbed references to DEI from its offices, websites and policies, as well as the phrase “affirmative action.”
The Ivy League institution renamed its “Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy” to its “Policy on Equal Opportunity.”
A previous version of the policy said “Diversity is prized at Penn as a central component of its mission and helps create an educational and working environment that best supports the University’s commitment to excellence in teaching, research, and scholarship.”
The current version does not reference diversity, instead saying: “The University of Pennsylvania’s special character is reflected in the wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives of the Penn community.”
The university also retitled its main inclusion website as “Belonging at UPenn,” replacing “Diversity and Inclusion.”Beginning Feb. 22, diversity.upenn.edu redirected to belonging.upenn.edu.
One of the university’s student resource centers, previously known as The Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Programs, is now called the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs.
Several schools and departments within UPenn — including its schools of medicine, design, communications and law — have also removed or replaced references to DEI from their web presences, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian, the university student-led newspaper.
Philadelphia lawmakers met with university leaders this week but two walked out after they took issue with college officials’ explanations on why UPenn had reversed its stance on DEI, according to WHYY.
Ivy Tech Community College
In Indiana, Ivy Tech Community College announced it will close its DEI programs and offices on March 12,following Trump’s executive orders.”
Ivy TechPresident Sue Ellspermann said the college relies largely on state and federal funding, citing pending policies at both levels of government when announcing the forthcoming closures,according to a copy of her letter obtained by WTHI.
“While state laws and federal actions are not yet finalized, the College is acting now to protect our federal and state funding so we can ensure uninterrupted services and provide ample time for adjustment in our operations,” she said.
Affected college employees will receive career support services and will be “encouraged to apply for open positions in the College,” according to Ellspermann.
The soon-to-be closed office promotes “cultural and intellectual diversity” and hosts events for cultural heritage months, including for Women’s History Month, Black History Month, LGBTQ+ History Month and Native American Heritage Month, according to Ivy Tech’s website.
The University of Alaska
Regents for the University of Alaska ordered the system to scrub all references to diversity, equity, inclusion “or other associated terms” from its communications and programs, including websites and job titles. The Feb. 21 directive cited Trump’s executive orders against DEI.
The regent vote was nearly unanimous, with the only dissent coming from the board’s student member, Alaska Public Media reported.
In a recent op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News, the leadership of the University of Alaska Faculty Alliance called the regents’ decision “rash and censorious”and noted that the board’s approved meeting agenda did not give the public notice of the anti-DEI motion.
“This unilateral decision undermines our universities’ respective strategic plans that form the foundation for our accreditations,” the chairs wrote. “A decision without public process belittles the dedication and labor of those who openly collaborated to create these plans.”
The alliance also criticized the ban’s broad language, saying it gave regents free reign to expand the list of prohibited words.
The University of Iowa
Amid federal and state pressures, the University of Iowa has eliminated some of its living learning communities — residential programs allowing on-campus students to live in groups based on identity, degree program or common interest.
The university will not offer living learning communities for Black students, Latinx studentsand LGBTQ+ students during the 2025-2026 academic year, according to its website. University officials confirmed to The Gazette that it will not offer those three living learning communities going forward but declined to comment further.
In July, a new state law will take effect banning Iowa’s three public universities from funding or maintaining DEI offices. And back in 2023, the Iowa Board of Regents — which oversees the universities — ordered them to cut all DEI efforts not required to comply with the law or accreditation standards.
On Feb. 24, the president of the University of Iowa, Barbara Wilson, told lawmakers that the college has complied with their DEI ban.
“We’ve closed offices, we’ve gotten rid of every DEI committee in every department across every college,” she said, according to The Gazette. “We have retained a central office, but we’ve eliminated about 11 positions in that central office, and it’s focused primarily on civil rights, access and opportunity.”
Wilson also said she couldn’t “imagine getting rid of the word diversity” but would do so if directed to by lawmakers.
Des Moines Area Community College
Des Moines Area Community College in Iowahas paused its DEI efforts, including diversity-focused trainings and task forces, according to the Des Moines Register. It also removed information regarding its diversity commission from its website, as of Jan. 27.
Like the University of Iowa, the public college has faced increasing pressure from conservative state lawmakers to roll back diversity efforts.
On Feb. 26, the Iowa House’s higher education committee advanced a bill that would prohibit community colleges from having DEI offices, like their university counterparts. The committee chair acknowledged the state’s community colleges are already complying with the proposed standard but said lawmakers should codify the rule, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
Grand View University
Grand View University, in Iowa, canceled its plans for International Women’s Dayset for March 8 amid changing federal and state anti-diversity policies, according to Axios. A spokesperson for the private college said Grand View wants to ensure its events aren’t exclusionary.
Iowa lawmakers are also taking aim at private colleges’ DEI efforts.
On Feb. 26, the House’s higher education committee advanced a bill that would ban DEI offices at the state’s private colleges, unless required by federal law or accreditation. If the legislation passes, those that don’t comply could lose access to the Iowa Tuition Grant program, which offers scholarships to students enrolled in private colleges in the state.
South Korea has become an attractive destination for international students, boasting a strong higher education system with internationally recognised universities. A complication, however, is emerging with some foreign students enrolling in what they believe are universities, only to later discover that they are attending junior colleges, Korea’s flagship vocational institutions.
This phenomenon may be linked to changes in institutional marketing (identity branding) and key organizational characteristics at junior colleges and universities alike. Many colleges have removed words like “technical” or “vocational” from their names and are now called universities in both Korean and English. They have also expanded their degree offerings to include bachelor’s and, in some cases, even graduate programs.
The blurring of identities (and institutional traits) and the implications thereof are a focus of our study, Confusion in the Marketplace: A Study of Institutional Isomorphism and Organisational Identity in South Korea (Choi and Kim, 2024). Through a national, statistical overview and the content analysis of select institutional websites, we examined the dimensions along which South Korean colleges and universities are organizationally isomorphic, a concept that describes how organizations begin to resemble each other as a result of external pressures (see DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Importantly, we discuss in our article the market implications for this type of institutional convergence.
Key changes or dimensions of likeness
Nearly all colleges (95%) have rebranded themselves with the term “university” in their Korean names, and 61% have done so in English. Colleges now offer bachelor’s-equivalent degrees, with 92% providing such programs, and some even offering graduate degrees (11%). Both colleges and universities emphasise similar disciplines, including Business Administration, Family & Social Welfare, and Mechanical Engineering, reflecting shared market demands.
Institutional websites suggest colleges and universities adopt similar marketing strategies, emphasising employment outcomes and industry-academic collaboration. Less selective universities resemble colleges in focusing on job-market relevance in research and academic programming. Both institution types operate in local, national, and international spheres with internationalisation efforts at both types.
There are key differences to note. Some universities, particularly elite ones, highlight intellectual growth and social development as a societal role in vision and other identity statements. Research at especially elite universities is both applied and humanities-focused, while this is not true in the case of colleges and lower-tier universities. Furthermore, internationalisation at universities is mostly about citizenship and cultural development while the same is less cultural but utilitarian at colleges (eg career development through international field placements).
Why are junior colleges becoming more like universities?
We discuss several key reasons behind the organisational sameness among Korea’s colleges and universities. One key factor is South Korea’s shrinking student population. With birth rates at record lows, the number of high school graduates has plummeted, creating a crisis for universities and junior colleges alike (Lee, 2024) and forcing these institutions to compete directly for a shrinking pool of students. The offering of baccalaureate degrees and graduate programming, among other organizational changes, may serve as primary examples of survival strategies amid the changing demographics. The same may be said of universities where there is a strong vocational dimension in academic offerings, much like what we see at colleges.
Government policies (both historical and contemporaneous) have also played a major role in the Korean case of institutional isomorphism. Such policy directions have pushed both universities and junior colleges to align their offerings with workforce demands (Ministry of Education, 2023d, 2024a). In 2008 the government approved bachelor’s-equivalent degrees for junior colleges, allowing them to offer advanced major courses. In 2022, junior colleges were even permitted to introduce graduate programs, further blurring the distinction between these institutions and universities.
Additionally, South Korea’s push for internationalisation amid globalisation has encouraged universities and junior colleges alike to aggressively market themselves to international students. The country has set ambitious national goals for attracting students from abroad (ICEF, 2023); as a result, both institutional types are using similar branding strategies. Words like “world-class,” “global,” and “innovative” appear frequently on websites, even in the case of junior colleges like Kyung-in Women’s University, an institution with virtually negligible global recognition or research excellence.
The risks of blurred identities
A key concern with blurred identities and institutional characteristics (including social roles) is that they can create confusion for international students who are increasingly looking to Korea as an attractive education destination. For students seeking a traditional university experience, this can lead to disappointment and even financial and academic setbacks, not to mention reputational damages to Korea and its higher education system.
There is also the issue of mission creep, where junior colleges in their efforts to emulate universities, risk losing sight of their normative societal function. Junior colleges have historically complemented universities in increasing access to education and providing job training for students who might not otherwise pursue higher education (see Brint and Karabel, 1989; Dougherty, 1994; Lee, 1992). This mission is at stake. The accretion and expansion of new and existing programs and services, respectively, require invariably additional resources, which might drive up educational costs. Many prospective students may not be able to afford these fee hikes.
What to make of institutional isomorphism?
At the end of the day, students want a quality education and meaningful career opportunities. It is important for them to clearly understand what they are signing up for – given how important higher education is to shaping their career trajectories. Policy discussions at the national level must now consider the global character of Korea’s junior colleges, whose cosmetic and organisational changes can impact international mobility patterns. Clearer differentiation from a policy perspective is needed in this regard.
We must not ignore the positive implications of institutional isomorphism, whose market advantages have not been fully explored by scholars. We argue that institutional isomorphism – particularly where college and university programs converge – can be strategically utilised as a policy lever to address market challenges. Rather than viewing institutional homogenization as inherently problematic, policymakers could use it to correct market inefficiencies like supply and demand challenges. The shortage of nurses in Korea (see Lee, 2023), for example, is likely being addressed through the joint efforts of colleges and universities in training and producing nurses with similar qualifications.
Unchecked isomorphism, however, has its challenges, as pointed out earlier (ie confusion in the international student marketplace). We are also concerned about a skills mismatch where colleges and universities are pumping out graduates with homogenised skillsets. This type of sub-optimisation can result in high youth unemployment rates and students working in careers unrelated to their academic majors, which are already concerns in Korea (see Sungmin and Lee, 2023).
Edward Choi is an Assistant Professor at Underwood International College, Yonsei University. His research interests centre on a range of topics: Korean higher education, traditional Korean education, the internationalisation of higher education, and the global phenomenon of family-owned universities.
Young Jae Kim was a student at Underwood International College, Yonsei University.
Several colleges and universities are pausing admissions to some graduate programs, reducing class sizes or rescinding offers to students in an effort to cut costs amid uncertainty in federal funding.
The disruption to graduate school admissions is the latest cost-cutting move for colleges. After the National Institutes of Health proposed cutting reimbursements for costs related to research, several colleges and universities said they would pause hiring and cut spending, Inside Higher Edpreviously reported. (A federal judge has blocked the NIH plan from taking effect for now.)
In recent days, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Pennsylvania and several other institutions have stopped doctoral admissions, at least temporarily. Some colleges are pausing admissions to some programs such as in the biomedical sciences, Stat Newsreported. At others, the pause is universitywide. The University of Southern California and Vanderbilt University temporarily paused graduate student admissions, though both universities latersaid that they’d ended the pause.
A University of Pittsburgh spokesperson told WESA, a local NPR station, that the university “temporarily paused additional Ph.D. offers of admission until the impacts of that [NIH] cap were better understood … the University is in the process of completing that analysis and expects to be in a position to resume offers soon.”
Meanwhile, the University of Pennsylvania is planning to cut graduate admissions rates, The Daily Pennsylvanianreported, citing an email from the interim dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, Jeffrey Kallberg, who wrote that the cuts were a “necessary cost-saving measure” to adjust to the NIH proposal.
“This is not a step any of us wanted to take,” Kallberg wrote, according to the Daily Penn. “We recognize that graduate students are central to the intellectual life of our school—as researchers, teachers, collaborators, and future scholars. However, we must ensure that we can continue to provide strong support for those students currently in our programs and sustain the school’s core teaching and research activities.”
Tom Kimbis, executive director of the National Postdoctoral Association, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that academic institutions reliant on federal funding “are being forced to make tough decisions to support these researchers in a difficult environment.”
“The decisions in Washington to pause or cease funding for science and research is impacting early-career researchers across a wide range of disciplines,” Kimbis added. “Slowing or stopping their work, on topics from cancer and Alzheimer’s research to social science issues, hurts Americans in all 50 states.”
In the last week, some faculty began tracking the reductions in the biomedical sciences via a shared spreadsheet that includes verified cuts and unverified decisions based on word of mouth and internal emails. Faculty on social media said the cuts will have long-term ramifications for sciences as fewer students enter the field. On TikTok, several students who had applied to grad school shared their dismay at how the funding cuts meant they might have to say goodbye to their career plans and research.
Accepting graduate students, particularly for Ph.D. programs and in the biomedical sciences, requires universities to make a long-term financial commitment, which is more difficult now that the NIH has stopped making new grant awards and is aiming to cut funds. Colleges receive billions from the NIH to support research. If the proposed rate cuts move forward, institutions say they would have to shut down some labs and lay off employees.
“University research and scholarship operate on a time scale of years and decades,” the Rutgers AAUP-AFT chapter wrote in a letter to New Jersey senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim. “Higher education would become impossible in the face of capricious and arbitrary withholding of funding, elimination of entire areas of grant support for critical scientific research, and cancellation of long-held contracts.”
They went on to warn that the threat to funding would diminish the country’s strength as a research superpower. “The best scientists, the best scholars, and the best students will make the rational decision to take their talents elsewhere. Once lost, the historic excellence of United States universities, including world-leading institutions in New Jersey, both public and private, will not be easily regained.”
Highlighting excellence in community college education, Achieving the Dream (ATD) has named 23 institutions as either Leader Colleges or Leader Colleges of Distinction for 2025, celebrating their commitment to student success and institutional reform. The announcement was made last week at the organization’s annual meeting in Philadelphia.
Among the honorees is Bellevue College, which earned its first Leader College designation since joining the ATD Network in 2017.
The honor recognizes institutions that have demonstrated measurable gains in student outcomes and fostered meaningful institutional change. Eight colleges achieved the prestigious Leader College of Distinction status, including three first-time recipients: College of Lake County (Illinois), Little Priest Tribal College (Nebraska), and Southwestern Oregon Community College.
Bellevue College’s recognition as one of ten new Leader Colleges reflects its successful efforts to transform the student experience.
“We are honored Achieving the Dream selected our institution as a Leader College,” said Bellevue College Provost Dr. Jess Clark. “Since joining ATD, Bellevue College has seen increased markers of student success and retention. We look forward to continuing our commitment to transforming the student experience so that all students will find success at Bellevue College.”
The designation as a Leader College is particularly significant as these institutions play a crucial role in accelerating the adoption of effective practices across higher education. Leader Colleges are recognized for their work in whole-college reform and their innovative approaches to sharing knowledge about evidence-based reform strategies with other institutions.
Dr. Karen A. Stout, president and CEO of Achieving the Dream, noted the importance of these recognitions.
“These colleges exemplify excellence within the ATD Network, achieving measurable gains in student outcomes and fostering impactful change within their institutions and communities,” she said. “Their dedication to using data-informed approaches to create meaningful opportunities for students and their communities serves as a powerful example for all institutions of higher education.”
The 2025 cohort also includes five colleges that have recertified their Leader College status: Community College of Beaver County (Pennsylvania), Highline College (Washington), Lone Star College System (Texas), Passaic County Community College (New Jersey), and Wallace State Community College (Alabama).
ATD’s Leader College of Distinction award, created in 2018, sets an even higher bar for institutional achievement. Recipients must demonstrate improvement in three or more student outcome metrics, including completion or transfer rates, and show reduced equity gaps for at least two student groups. This year’s five returning Leader Colleges of Distinction include Chattanooga State Community College (Tennessee), Lemoore College (California), North Central State College (Ohio), Odessa College (Texas), and Pierce College (Washington).
As a partner to more than 300 community colleges nationwide, Achieving the Dream focuses on what it calls “Whole College Transformation,” providing integrated support for everything from leadership and data analysis to equity initiatives and student support strategies. The organization’s vision centers on helping colleges become catalysts for equitable and economically vibrant communities, driving improvements in access, completion rates, and employment outcomes for all students.
For institutions like Bellevue College, this recognition validates their ongoing commitment to student success and institutional improvement. As part of the ATD Network, these colleges continue to work toward creating meaningful opportunities that transform not just individual students’ lives, but entire communities through the power of education.
More Republican politicians are calling for colleges to end their partnerships with Chinese universities.
U.S. representatives John Moolenar and Tim Walberg wrote letters to the presidents of Eastern Michigan University, Oakland University and the University of Detroit Mercy demanding that they cancel their partnerships with institutions in China, expressing concerns that sensitive research could help the Chinese military advance its technological capabilities.
“The university’s [People’s Republic of China] collaborations jeopardize the integrity of U.S. research, risk the exploitation of sensitive technologies, and undermine taxpayer investments intended to strengthen America’s technological and defense capabilities,” Moolenar and Walberg wrote in all three letters. “You must immediately terminate these collaborations.”
Moolenar and Walberg’s letters come a few weeks after the University of Michigan ended a 20-year partnership with Shanghai Jiao Tong University. In September, Moolenar wrote a similar letter to Michigan president Santa Ono demanding an end to that collaboration after five Chinese international students were caught taking photos of training exercises at nearby Camp Grayling, where the state National Guard trains.
EMU has partnerships with Beibu Gulf University and Guangxi University; Oakland partners with Changchun University of Science and Technology, Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, and Beijing Information Science and Technology University; and Detroit Mercy offers dual-degree programs with Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Yancheng Institute of Technology and Anhui Polytechnic University.