This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday targeting diversity, equity and inclusion programs at colleges and other “influential institutions of American society,” escalating the Republican-led crusade against DEI.
The executive order declares that DEI policies and programs adopted by colleges and others can violate federal civil rights laws and directs federal agencies to “combat illegal private sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, and activities.”
Trump’s order also directs each federal agency to identify up to nine corporations or associations, large foundations, or colleges with endowments over $1 billion as potential targets for “civil compliance investigations.”
Dive Insight:
Republicans have railed against diversity and inclusion programming on college campuses for years, with state lawmakers enacting 14 pieces of legislation that restrict or bar DEI since 2023, according to a tally from The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Federal lawmakers have likewise targeted DEI programs at colleges in hearings and proposed bills. With Trump’s flurry of recent executive orders, however, the newly sworn-in president has made clear that his administration will ramp up the fight against DEI at the federal level.
“Institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’” the order states.
Jeremy Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, a free expression organization, voiced concerns about the executive order.
“It launches a series of investigations into universities for merely having a DEI office or promoting DEI, diversity work on their campus,” Young said. “That, to us, is a pretty straightforward violation of the intellectual freedom of a university to promote ideas of all kinds on its campus.”
At minimum, government investigations could amount to a nuisance, but at maximum, they could lead to lawsuits and actions against colleges, Young added.
Young also said the order is designed to sow division in the higher education sector by targeting colleges with endowments worth $1 billion or more.
“My hope is that higher education institutions will see this attack on a subset of their members as an attack on everyone,” Young said.
Trump’s new order also lacks a clear definition of what it deems as DEI programs or policies, Young said, raising concerns about unconstitutionally vague language.
State bills banning DEI similarly don’t have clear definitions, Young said.
“They become effectively a license to censor,” Young said. “Any government agency looking at them can claim that something is DEI because there is no actual definition in the order.”
Trump’s order directs the nation’s attorney general, in consultation with federal agencies, to propose potential litigation against the private sector to enforce civil rights laws. It also orders agencies to identify “potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.”
Trump also directed the U.S. education secretary to work with the nation’s attorney general to issue guidance to federally funded colleges within the next 120 days regarding how they can comply with the landmark 2023 Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions. Trump’s nominee for education secretary, former World Wrestling Entertainment president and CEO Linda McMahon, is awaiting Senate confirmation hearings for the post.
Tuesday’s executive order comes after he signed several other directives on the first day of his presidency meant to dismantle DEI efforts within the federal workforce.
Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Education and Workforce, lauded the executive actions against DEI.
“DEI has bloated education budgets while telling students what to think instead of how to think,” Walberg said in a Wednesday statement. “I commend the Trump administration for dismantling DEI.”
Tuesday’s executive order clarifies that instructors at colleges that get federal aid are not prohibited from “advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order” in their academic courses.
But Young said he hasn’t seen any legislation or executive order claiming to restrict DEI that doesn’t also restrict faculty instruction or roles in some way. “We have come to the conclusion that it may be impossible to do that,” Young said.
Trump’s order also says it does not prevent colleges from engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.
Young, however, said language like this amounts to a meaningless statement, as the First Amendment supersedes an executive order.
“The problem is that the language plainly does violate the First Amendment, and therefore it’s going to be years before the courts adjudicate it and, meanwhile, people have to live under these executive orders,” Young said.
The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday rescinded guidance that prevented immigration arrests at schools, churches and colleges.
Since 1993, federal policy has barred immigration enforcement actions near or at these so-called sensitive areas.The decision to end the policy comes as the Trump administration is moving to crack down on illegal immigration and stokingfears of mass deportations.
“This action empowers the brave men and women in [Customs and Border Protection] and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country,” acting DHS secretary Benjamine Huffman said in a statement. “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”
Advocates for undocumented people have warned that such a policy change was possible, and some college leaders have said they won’t voluntarily assist in any effort to deport students or faculty solely because of their citizenship status, although they said they would comply with the law. On Wednesday, the Justice Department said it would investigate state and local officials who don’t enforce Trump’s immigration policies.
Colleges can be hot spots for debate, inquiry and disagreement, particularly on political topics. Sometimes institutional leaders weigh in on the debate, issuing public statements or sharing resources internally among students, staff and faculty.
This past fall, following the 2024 presidential election, college administrators were notably silent. A November Student Voice survey found a majority (63 percent) of student respondents (n=1,031) said their college did not do or say anything after the election, and only 17 percent released a statement to students about the election.
A more recent surveyfrom Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found this aligns with students’ preferences for institutional response.
Over half (54 percent) of respondents (n=1,034) to a December Student Voice survey said colleges and universities should not make statements about political events, such as the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. One-quarter of students said they weren’t sure if institutions should make statements, and fewer than a quarter of learners said colleges should publish a statement.
Across demographics—including institution size and classification, student race, political identification, income level or age—the greatest share of students indicated that colleges shouldn’t make statements. The only group that differed was nonbinary students (n=32), of whom 47 percent said they weren’t sure and 30 percent said no.
Experts weigh in on the value of institutional neutrality and how college leaders can demonstrate care for learners without sharing statements.
What’s the sitch: In the past, college administrators have issued statements, either personally or on behalf of the institution, to demonstrate care and concern for students who are impacted by world events, says Heterodox Academy president John Tomasi.
“There’s also an element, a little more cynically, of trying to get ahead of certain political issues so they [administrators] couldn’t be criticized for having said nothing or not caring,” Tomasi says.
Students Say
Even with a majority of colleges and universities not speaking out after the 2024 election, some students think colleges are still being supportive.
The November Student Voice survey found 35 percent of respondents believed their institution was offering the right amount of support to students after the election results, but 31 percent weren’t sure.
The events of Oct. 7, 2023, proved complicated for statement-issuing presidents, with almost half of institutions that published statements releasing an additional response after the campus community or others pushed back. Initial statements, according to one analysis, often lacked caring elements, such as the impact to students or health and well-being of university community members in the region.
A growing number of colleges and universities are choosing to opt out of public political conversations at the executive level, instead selecting to be institutionally neutral. Heterodox Academy, which tracks colleges’ commitments to neutrality, saw numbers rise from a dozen in 2023 to over 100 in 2024.
Some students are experiencing political fatigue in general, says Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier, particularly relating to the war in Gaza. “This dynamic of ‘which side are you on, and if you’re not with me, you’re against me’ was troubling to many students and was exhausting and had a detrimental impact on the culture of learning, exploration and discussion.”
Vanderbilt University has held a position of neutrality for many years, part of a free expression policy, which it defines as a “commitment to refrain from taking public positions on controversial issues unless the issue is materially related to the core mission and functioning of the university.”
College students aren’t the only group that want fewer organizations to talk politics; a November survey by Morning Consult found two-thirds of Americans believe companies should stay out of politics entirely after the 2024 presidential election and 59 percent want companies to comment neutrally on the results.
However, an earlier survey by Morning Consult found, across Americans, 56 percent believe higher education institutions are at least somewhat responsible for speaking out on political, societal or cultural issues, compared to 31 percent of respondents who say colleges and universities are not too or not at all responsible.
Allowing students to speak: Proponents of institutional neutrality say the practice allows discourse to flourish on campus. Taking a position can create a chilling effect, in which people are afraid to speak out in opposition to the prevailing point of view, Diermeier says.
Recent polls have shown today’s college students are hesitant to share their political opinions, often electing to self-censor due to fears of negative repercussions. Since 2015, this concern has grown, with 33 percent of respondents sharing that they feel uncomfortable discussing their political views on campus, compared to 13 percent a decade ago.
Part of this hesitancy among students could be an overstepping on behalf of administrators that affirms the institution’s perspective on issues one way or another.
“I hear from students that they want to be the ones making the statements themselves … and if a president makes a statement first, that kind of cuts off the conversation,” says Tomasi, who is a faculty member at Brown University.
A majority of campus community members want to pursue learning and research, Diermeier says, and “the politicization that has taken hold on many university campuses … that is not what most students and faculty want.”
Institutional neutrality allows a university to step back and empower students to be political agents, Tomasi says. “The students should be platformed, the professors should be platformed, but the university itself should be a neutral framework for students to do all those things.”
Neutral, not silent: One distinction Tomasi and Diermeier make about institutional neutrality is that the commitment is not one of silence, but rather selective vocalization to affirm the university’s mission.
“Neutrality can’t just be the neutrality of convenience,” Tomasi says. “It should be a neutrality of a principle that’ll endure beyond the particular conflict that’s dividing the campus, because it celebrates and stands for and flows from that high ideal of university life as a community of imperfect learners that does value intellectual pluralism.”
Another area in which universities are obligated to speak up is if the issue challenges the core mission of an institution. Examples of this could include a travel ban against immigration from certain countries, a tax on endowments, a ban on divisive topics or scrutiny of admissions practices.
“On issues that are core to the academic mission, we’re going to be vocal, we’re going to be engaged and we’re going to be advocates,” Diermeier says, and establishing what is involved in the core mission is key to each institution. “Inside the core doesn’t mean it’s not controversial—it just means it’s inside the core.”
So what? For colleges and university leaders considering how to move forward, Diermeier and Tomasi offer some advice.
Start with the mission in mind. When working with learners, practitioners should strive to advance the mission of seeking knowledge and providing a transformative education, Diermeier says. For faculty in particular, it’s important to give students “room to breathe” and to be exposed to both sides of an argument, because there’s power in understanding another position, even if it’s not shared.
Create space for discourse. “It’s expected that the groups that are organized and vocal, they’re more in the conversation and claiming more of the space,” Diermeier says. “It’s our responsibility as leaders of universities to make sure that we are not being unduly influenced by that.” Students should be given the opportunity to engage in free speech, whether that’s protesting or counterprotesting, but that cannot dictate administrative decisions. Vanderbilt student organizations hosted debates and spaces for constructive dialogue prior to the election, which were well attended and respectful.
Lean into the discomfort. Advancing free speech and scholarship can be complicated and feel “unnatural,” Tomasi says, because humans prefer to find like-minded people and others who agree with their views, “but there’s something pretty elevated about it that’s attractive, too,” to students. Colleges and universities should consider how promoting discourse can help students feel they belong.
Provide targeted outreach. For some issues, such as natural disasters, colleges and universities can provide direct support and messaging to impacted students. “It’s just so much more effective and it can be targeted, and then the messages are also more authentic,” Diermeier says.
Not yet a subscriber to our Student Success newsletter? Sign up for free here and you’ll receive practical tips and ideas for supporting students every weekday.
Racial healing circles, or opportunities for community members to share stories and connect on a human level, are common activities for the National Day of Racial Healing. This year is the ninth observance of the holiday.
AJ Watt/E+/Getty Images
Over the past two decades, higher education has grown exceptionally diverse, enrolling students from all backgrounds and offering opportunities for education and career development for historically underserved populations.
This diversification of the students, staff and faculty who make up higher education also offers opportunities for institutions to promote justice and racial healing through intentional education and programming. One annual marker of this work is the National Day of Racial Healing.
The background: The National Day of Racial Healing was established by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation in 2017 as part of the Truth, Racial Healing and Transformation (TRHT) initiative to bring people together and inspire action to build a more just and equitable world.
The day falls on the Tuesday after Martin Luther King Jr. Day and is marked by events and activities that promote racial healing. Racial healing, as defined by the foundation, is “the experience shared by people when they speak openly and hear the truth about past wrongs and the negative impacts created by individual and systemic racism,” according to the effort’s website.
On campus: The American Association of Colleges and Universities encourages institutions to “engage in activities, events or strategies to promote healing and foster engagement around the issues of racism, bias, inequity and injustice in our society,” according to a Dec. 18 press release. AAC&U partners with 72 institutions to establish TRHT Campus Centers, with the goal of developing 150 self-sustaining community-integrated centers.
Some ways institutions can do this is through organizing activities, inviting faculty to connect course material to racial healing during that week, coordinating events or sharing stories on social media, according to AAC&U.
Here’s how colleges and universities, many that host TRHT Campus Centers, plan to honor the National Day of Racial Healing.
Baldwin Wallace University in Ohio will host two Jacket Circles for students to participate in storytelling and deep listening to build empathy and compassion. The University of Louisville, similarly, will host Cardinal Connection Circles.
Emory University in Georgia will hold a three-day event, beginning on Jan. 21, that includes a keynote, lunch-and-learn panel discussion, racial healing circles, and a dinner experience.
Binghamton University, part of the State University of New York system, will host its first National Day of Racial Healing this year, which includes healing circles, roundtable discussions and art-based initiatives.
The TRHT Center at Northern Virginia Community College will partner with the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to issue a formal proclamation in a public forum, acknowledging the importance of the day, a tradition for the two groups.
The University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa will take a pause today to recognize the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, as well as the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the National Day of Racial Healing. The event, Hawai‘i ku‘u home aloha, which “Hawai‘i my beloved home,” honors the past, present and future of the islands.
Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
The past week has been a blur for Fred Farina, the California Institute of Technology’s chief innovation officer, who lost his home in the fires still tearing through Los Angeles.
“Things turned on a dime. One evening we were sitting in our living room and within 10 minutes we had to evacuate,” said Farina, who lived in Altadena, one of the neighborhoods hardest hit by the Eaton fire. “The loss of everything you have is hard to deal with.”
While most institutions were spared burn damage to their physical plants, many spent the last week entrenched in immediate recovery efforts. Numerous colleges are raising money to help students and staff secure housing and other basic needs.
Others are opening shelters and food pantries. Pepperdine University’s law school is hosting free remote legal clinics to educate homeowners and lawyers about federal emergency assistance and related issues such as insurance, leases and mortgages. And the University of California, Los Angeles, opened space at its research park for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to use as a disaster recovery center for fire victims living on the city’s Westside.
Flexibility and Compassion
But beyond efforts to meet their communities’ most pressing needs, colleges in Los Angeles are also figuring out how to move forward and get through a semester already scarred by more than one of the most destructive fires in California history. The priority emerging for most college leaders is moving forward with flexibility and compassion.
“Words seem inadequate to capture the scale of the devastation,” said Thomas F. Rosenbaum, president of Caltech in Pasadena, near where the Eaton fire destroyed 1,400 homes. “The Caltech community has responded with compassion and generosity, seeking to help each other and working heroically to permit Caltech and [the Jet Propulsion Laboratory] to resume their fundamental missions of learning and discovery. We are in this for the long term, and the closeness of our community gives us hope for the future.”
The blaze didn’t reach the Caltech campus itself, but the institute estimates that more than 1,000 students and employees live in an evacuation zone. Of those, more than 90 employees have lost their homes, along with at least 200 employees—many of whom live in the decimated nearby enclave of Altadena—of the Caltech-managed Jet Propulsion Lab.
Caltech was one of the many colleges in Southern California that closed down last week—in addition to Santa Monica College, Pasadena City College and Glendale Community College—as strong winds accelerated the Palisades and Eaton fires and displaced scores of people affiliated with those campuses.
Caltech resumed in-person classes Monday, and most other local colleges have done the same or are planning to in the coming days as the air quality continues to improve. But hundreds of students, staff and faculty are far from resuming life as it was before the fire.
“It’s pretty overwhelming, the things that have to be done to get back to a good situation,” said Farina, who is in the throes of dealing with insurance and disaster relief logistics after losing his home. “There’s so many decisions that have to be made so quickly.”
Although Farina is uncertain about when he’ll find permanent new housing for his family—apartments are scarce and rents have skyrocketed in the past week—Caltech helped him and many other employees secure a temporary place to live. So far, the Caltech and JPL Disaster Relief Fund has raised about $2 million, and the fund is giving that money to help displaced people meet their basic needs in the aftermath of the fires.
Numerous other L.A.-area colleges are also helping their students and employees get access to cash and safe housing, which have emerged as two of the most needed resources more than a week after the fires started.
At California State University at Los Angeles, at least 60 faculty, staff and students lost their homes, and college officials expects that number to grow. The university is raising money and offering basic needs support for those most affected, which includes grants for housing and food as well as adjustments to teaching and learning, as needed. Cal State LA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes said in a memo Wednesday that the institution “will continue to harness the healing power of our university for the long road to recovery.” (This paragraph was updated with information provided after publication.)
The L.A. Foundation for Los Angeles Community Colleges launched the L.A. Strong: Disaster Response Fund, which is raising money to give people financial assistance for housing, transportation, clothing, food and other basic needs.
“What’s most important right now is financial support,” said Alberto J. Román, chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District, who expected the first round of assistance to be distributed by the end of the week. “We consider these really unprecedented times with an impact, and that’s why we are compassionate and empathetic of individual situations.”
None of LACCD’s nine campuses sustained fire damage, and Román said he doesn’t believe any of the district’s more than 200,000 students and 9,000 employees were injured as a result of the disaster, either.
“The impact that we’ve had has been on folks who’ve been evacuated or lost their homes, road closures preventing people from coming to work or power outages and being without internet,” he said, noting that the colleges transitioned to remote work last week.
Although LACCD resumed in-person operations this week, Román said the district wants to be flexible with students and staff whose lives have been upended by the fires.
“It is important for us to continue instruction,” he said. “It’s a balance between health and safety and ensuring that students can finish their courses.”
Glendale Community College reopened for in-person classes Wednesday, though at least a dozen employees and 20 students lost their homes and dozens more had to evacuate. While officials continue to try and make contact with the 600 students who live in evacuation ZIP codes, the college is also offering extra paid leave for some employees, raising money, supplying students with laptops and helping people connect with other resources.
Smoke and fire could be seen from the Glendale Community College’s Verdugo campus last week.
Glendale Community College
Tzoler Oukayan, dean of student affairs at Glendale CC, said the college is allowing students to withdraw from their classes without facing a penalty.
“The challenge is that a lot of our students in these areas didn’t—and some still don’t—have power. Access to the internet and their classes has been very challenging,” she said. “It was important for us to open up campus and give people a place to just be.”
Empathy and compassion will also be a priority for Mount St. Mary’s University president Ann McElaney-Johnson when her campus reopens. As of Thursday, the university’s Chalon campus—which is about three miles from the burn path of the Palisades fire—was still under evacuation orders and four faculty members so far have lost their homes.
“The impact of the fire—once we’ve ascertained what it is—is going to be tremendous. So, we really want to make sure we’re caring for our community as we move forward,” McElaney-Johnson said, adding that the university is using money from its operations budget to provide staff and students with financial assistance. “We’ll pick up where we need to, but there will be special attention. Some of the plans for different projects can get put on hold. Right now, the only thing that really matters is the safety and well-being of this community.”
‘Healing More Than Academics’
That’s the approach California State University, Chico, took in 2018, when it reopened two weeks after the Camp fire destroyed the homes of more than 300 faculty, staff and students.
“We made sure that we had all of the exceptions and support systems in place to prioritize the people who were part of our community, to make sure our eye was on their long-term success,” said Ashley Gebb, executive director of communications at Chico State. “We were focused on healing more than academics. It was about how we could get students to the end of semester with their well-being as a priority.”
While Gebb said Chico State was “one of the first to have a community leveled by a fire like this,” the fires in Southern California this month have proven that catastrophes of this scale are becoming more common.
Meredith Leigh, climate programs manager for Second Nature, a nonprofit focused on higher education’s role in climate action, said it’s a signal that higher education institutions across the country should be prepared to navigate increasingly drastic events.
“While campuses across our network have taken steps to increase climate resilience and adaptation, the scale and impact of the current fires (as well as recent floods in the East) is novel in its intensity,” she said. “In this way, the biggest lesson for campuses across the nation is to shift the mental model for resiliency and emergency management—away from planning and implementation based on what has happened in the past, toward what are certain to be more frequent and intense events that previously seemed ‘unimaginable.’”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Colleges could lose access to federal financial aid or face penalties if their external service providers mislead their students, the U.S. Department of Education said Tuesday.
That includes companies that help colleges launch and run online programs.Employees of online program managers, or OPMs, cannot represent themselves as working directly for colleges, including by having email addresses or signatures implying they’re employed by those institutions, according to the guidance.
OPM employees are also not allowed to represent a virtual program as equivalent to a college’s campus-based version if they have dissimilar admissions criteria, completion rates, faculty qualifications or other substantive differences.And workers in recruiting or sales roles can’t call themselves an “academic counselor” or use a similar title if it doesn’t accurately describe their position.
The guidance — issued in the waning days of the Biden administration — aims to add more oversight to colleges’ relationships with OPMs.Student advocacy groups have long called for stricter rules for these companies, which often help colleges launch online programs in exchange for a significant cut of their tuition revenue.
Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, praised the letter Wednesday.
“Today’s move by the Department of Education is a step in the right direction, affirming what we already know: OPMs commonly mislead students about the quality of their online programs and that is illegal,” Fast said in a statement. “This action will deter misconduct by OPMs and their college partners and will help protect online college students from the risks posed by predatory OPMs.”
What led to the guidance?
The guidance comes after the Biden administration’s other plans to add oversight to the OPM industry faltered.
In early 2023, the administration said it would review guidance that allows colleges to enter tuition-sharing deals with OPMs that provide recruiting help — so long as it is part of a larger bundle of services.Despite asking for public comment on the matter, the Education Department has not updated or rescinded the 2011 guidance.
At the same time it announced the review, the administration issued separate guidance that would designate OPMs and other organizations as third-party servicers.The change would have subjected them to regulations that would give the department insight into their contracts with colleges.
However, the Education Department quickly delayed the guidance — and eventually rescinded it altogether — amid widespread criticism that it would create burdensome requirements for the higher education sector.
“We finally have clarity, in the last days of the administration, what they’re actually going to do with the guidance around [third-party servicers]” and OPMs, said Phil Hill, an ed tech consultant. “It’s just been this soap opera for 2 1/2 years now.”
However, Hill described Tuesday’s guidance as “petulant rulemaking” from the Biden administration.
“This Dear Colleague letter is attempting to go down to the level of telling colleges and universities and vendors what words are allowable and what aren’t,” Hill said. “And this went through zero process, zero attempt to get input from schools.”
That includes whether the guidance will hamstring colleges from running online programs or whether the policies address the issues they’re trying to solve, Hill said.
Stephanie Hall, senior director for higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, took a different stance.
The Education Departmentreceived a “treasure trove of comments” when it sought public input in 2023 on policies that would have impacted the OPM sector, Hall argued.
“A lot was given over the past couple of years, and I see this guidance letter as just an extension or a conclusion of that process and not something new that didn’t take any input,” Hall said.
Whether the Trump administration will enforce the new guidance is another matter. But Hall said the guidance is likely to create changes either way.
“Schools are put on notice,” Hall said. “It’s something they take very seriously.”
The incoming Trump administration could also rescind the guidance altogether, though it’s unclear if OPM oversight is a priority issue to incoming officials.
“Are they aware of the impact this could have on online education, and is this going to be on their radars to take action and just immediately get rid of it?” Hill said.
The guidance could also draw legal challenges. The Biden administration’s now-rescinded 2023 guidance sparked a lawsuit from 2U, a prominent OPM.
“This is just waiting for a rescission or a lawsuit,” he said.
What’s in the guidance?
In Tuesday’s guidance, the Education Department listed several examples of statements that OPM employees could make that would likely qualify as misrepresentations. That includes OPM employees using email addresses or signatures that suggest they are directly employed by their college clients.
At least one prominent OPM has caught flak for using college email addresses — 2U. In 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that the company used the “.edu” email addresses of its college clients in order to recruit prospective students into their online programs.
Hall noted that this is a widespread practice in the OPM industry.
“It’s wonderful that they’re addressing that and making it clear that that could be a substantial misrepresentation, and that schools would be held responsible for that,” she said.
A 2U spokesperson said that the company’s marketing and recruitment teams use university email addresses to reach out to prospective students and include transparent disclosures about their affiliation with the company.
2U is reviewing the Education Department’s letter to ensure the company remains aligned “with evolving regulatory guidance and best practices,” it said in a Thursday statement.
“Transparency has always been at the heart of our mission, and we remain steadfast in upholding this principle as we partner with universities to deliver transformative outcomes through high-quality online education,” 2U said.
Under the department’s new guidance, it could also be misleading for OPM recruiters or sales representatives to present themselves to students as academic counselors or other similar positions.
“Such practices create a high risk of misrepresentation since rewarding an individual based on sales indicates that individual’s role is not focused on impartially counseling prospective or enrolled students, but rather on securing a financial transaction,” the Education Department said.
The overall guidance focuses on disclosures to students, Hall said.
“The biggest change is really just disclosures, disclosures that are going to be coming from the contractor and overseen by the institution,” she said. “I don’t see this mocking the core of the actual online program itself, or its operations or its business model.”
The agency also warned against OPMs casting online programs as equivalent to their campus-based counterparts if they provide “distinct and substantively different” resources to students, including instructors, curricula and advisers.
In a footnote, the guidance cites a class-action lawsuit against the University of Southern California, which alleged that the institution presented its online master’s degree in social work as the same as a campus-based one, even though it outsourced “substantial aspects” of the virtual version to 2U.
2U was not named as a defendant in the case.
The company’s college partners retain full control over core functions of their degree programs, including tuition rates, faculty hiring, and admissions standards and decisions, a 2U spokesperson said. 2U’s clients also review and approve marketing materials for their programs, the spokesperson said.
However, USC and 2U announced in late 2023 plans to wind down their partnership on most of their online programs, including the social work master’s degree.2U continues to support a USC physical therapy program.
Project on Predatory Student Lending is helping represent the students in the lawsuit against the University of Southern California. In a statement Thursday, PPSL President and Executive Director Eileen Connor said she hoped the Trump administration would take the letter’s concerns seriously.
“This letter calls out just how dangerous the OPM industry is to our higher education system,” Connor said.
Social media is a top source of news for nearly three in four students, and half at least somewhat trust platforms such as Instagram and TikTok to deliver that news and other critical information accurately. As for legacy media sources, namely newspapers, just two in 10 students indicate they regularly rely on them for news. That’s even as most students indicate they trust newspapers to convey accurate information.
These are some of the findings from Inside Higher Ed’s new Student Voice flash survey with Generation Lab on media literacy, conducted last month. Some of the data seems grim in light of declining public trust in institutions and expertise, and the spread of misinformation—concerns that many of the survey’s 1,026 two-year and four-year respondents share: Some 62 percent express some or a lot of concern about the spread of misinformation among their college peers. (See also this month’s news that Meta is eliminating third-party fact-checkers.) And not quite half of respondents (46 percent) approve of the job colleges and universities as a whole are doing to promote students’ media literacy.
At the same time, the data suggests that colleges and universities are at least somewhat effective in this area. One example: Just one in 10 students rates their level of media literacy prior to attending college as very high, compared to the quarter of students who rate their current level of media literacy as very high. Nearly all respondents, 98 percent, also indicate they regularly practice at least some basic media literacy skills to check the accuracy of the information they’re consuming. To some degree, this challenges ongoing skepticism about students’ critical thinking abilities and how helpful colleges are in developing them.
When asked to highlight ways colleges and universities can help them build their awareness and skills, students ranked creating digital resources to learn about media literacy highest on a list of possible actions.
Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab defined media literacy in the survey as the ability or skills to critically analyze for accuracy, credibility or evidence of bias in the content created and consumed in sources including radio, television, the internet and social media. Read on for an overview of the findings in six charts, plus some additional analysis—and how colleges can help close some of these gaps.
Students’ top sources for news are social media and friends and family/word of mouth. Relatively few students indicate they regularly get their news from sources such as newspapers, broadcast/network TV news, radio or magazines. This is relatively consistent across institution type (two-year/four-year and public/private nonprofit), though students at private nonprofits (n=259) are much more likely than their public counterparts (n=767) to indicate they read newspapers, at 38 percent versus 15 percent, respectively. By student type, those 25 and older (n=167) are much less likely than their peers 18 to 24 (n=842) to say they rely on friends and family/word of mouth for news, at 33 percent versus 52 percent, respectively.
Most students aren’t turning to legacy media as a top source of news, though they generally express trust in sources such as newspapers and broadcast network/TV news to deliver news and other critical information accurately. But more than half also express some or a great deal of trust in social media to deliver accurate information. Same for friends and family/word of mouth.
When engaging with media of different kinds, about two in three students say they regularly check the accuracy of the information by analyzing the source’s perspective and/or possible biases, thinking critically about the message delivered (such as distinguishing fact from opinion), and verifying the information using other sources.
Approximately half of students also say they consider the algorithm that is pushing them certain content on websites and/or social media, pause to check the information before sharing with others or on social media, and identify who or what additional sources are being included in the content. While nearly all students indicate they practice some of these skills, some differences emerge by political affiliation, with self-identified Democrats more likely than self-identified Republicans to report analyzing the source’s perspective and/or possible biases, for example, at 68 percent versus 53 percent.
Many students indicate that their level of media literacy has increased in college. Students also express more confidence in their own level of media literacy than that of their peers, on average: While 72 percent of students rate their own level of media literacy as somewhat or very high, just 32 percent rate their peers’ level of media literacy this way, on average. And students across a range of demographics express at least some concern about the spread of misinformation among their college peers. This includes 63 percent of both Democrats and Republicans. By age, respondents 25 and older are likelier to express a very high level of concern (37 percent of this group versus 24 percent of the 18-to-24 set).
How are institutions doing when it comes to helping students build their media literacy? As with their own level of media literacy relative to their peers’, respondents have a rosier view of their own institution than they do of higher education as a whole. This is relatively consistent across institution types, though students at private nonprofits are less likely than their public counterparts to approve of the job colleges and universities in general are doing.
As for how institutions can best help students improve their media literacy, the top pick from a list of options (up to two choices) is creating digital resources for students to learn about media literacy (35 percent). Another relatively popular option is embedding training on media literacy in a first-year seminar or program (31 percent). This option is more popular among four-year college students than it is among two-year students. But creating peer-to-peer education programs on media literacy is more popular among two-year students than it is among four-year students.
Building Habits and Competencies
Renee Hobbs, professor of communication studies and director of the Media Education Lab at the University of Rhode Island, says it’s “no surprise that college students rely on their family and friends and social networks for news, as do most Americans.” In one comparison, an Intelligent survey of four-year college students following the 2024 election, respondents cited TikTok and Instagram as their top two news sources. The same survey found that students for voted for President-elect Donald Trump were twice as likely to get their news from podcasts as those who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. In Inside Higher Ed’s survey, Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans to cite news podcasts as a top news source (12 percent versus 4 percent, respectively), but Republicans are somewhat more likely than Democrats to rely on opinion podcasts (12 percent versus 5 percent).
Hobbs says it’s a “comfort” that even one in five Student Voice respondents relies heavily on newspapers. That the same, relatively small share expresses a very high level of trust in newspapers and broadcast news confirms national trends, she adds; a fall poll from Gallup, for example, found that confidence in mass media remained at a low. Noting the existence of active “news avoiders,” whose ranks are growing, according to data from the Reuters Institute, Hobbs says that her own media literacy students are required to read the newspaper. Turns out, many “appreciate the opportunity to take up the habit.”
Regarding the ever-expanding space where media literacy overlaps with digital literacy, Hobbs’s own ongoing research suggests that teaching about algorithmic personalization is very low, at least in K-12 education. At the same time, many college students are digitally savvy, and Hobbs says some of her own students have significant followings on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and Twitch.
As for how colleges and universities can help, Hobbs says general education requirements—such as those suggested in the survey—“might be the best place for media literacy to thrive in a higher education context.” Learning outcomes from Hobbs’s own digital media literacy course satisfy gen ed requirements regarding effective communication and developing and engaging in civic knowledge and responsibilities.
Hobbs adds that academic librarians are leaders in media and digital literacy initiatives on many campuses, and that “one of the best ways for college and university students to develop media literacy competencies” is by creating media themselves. Possibilities include creating websites, podcasts, videos for YouTube or other social media, or developing a community public service media campaign or outreach program. Other opportunities? Working at the college newspaper or radio station or managing social media for a college unit or organization.
“Creating media is a great way to develop media literacy skills, and college faculty may be pleasantly surprised to see what their students can create without any special prompting.”
What are you and/or your institution doing to promote students’ media literacy? Let us know by submitting one of the forms found here.
RANDOLPH, Vt. — The thermostat was turned low in the admissions office at Vermont State University on a cold winter morning.
It’s “one of our efficiencies,” quipped David Bergh, the institution’s president, who works in the same building.
Bergh was joking. But he was referring to something decidedly serious: the public university system’s struggle to reduce a deficit so deep, it threatened to permanently shutter several campuses after dramatic drop-offs in enrollment and revenue.
While much attention has been focused on how enrollment declines are putting private, nonprofit colleges out of business at an accelerating rate — at least 17 of them in 2024 — public universities and colleges are facing their own existential crises.
State institutions nationwide are being merged and campuses shut down, many of them in places where there is already comparatively little access to higher education.
David Bergh, president of the newly consolidated Vermont State University, in the building where he works at the VTSU campus in Randolph. “Public institutions are not exempt from the challenges” facing higher education, Bergh says. Credit: Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report
“Public institutions are not exempt from the challenges” facing higher education, Bergh said. “We are already seeing it, and we’re going to see more of it, and it’s particularly acute in some more rural states, where there’s a real need to balance limited resources but maintain access for students.”
Vermont is a case study for this, and an example of how political and other realities make it so hard for public universities and colleges to adapt to the problems confronting them.
“The demographics of fewer traditional-age college students, the over-building of these campuses, the change in the demand for what we need for our workforce in terms of programs — this is something that’s happening everywhere,” said Vermont State Rep. Lynn Dickinson, who chairs the Vermont State Colleges System Board of Trustees.
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
Public university and college mergers have already happened in Pennsylvania, Georgia, California and Minnesota, and public campuses have closed in Ohio and Wisconsin. A merger of public universities and community colleges in New Hampshire is under study.
When state university and college campuses close, the repercussions for communities around them can be dire.
Until this month, local students had a college “in their backyard,” said Thomas Nelson, county executive in Outagamie County, Wisconsin, where the two-year Fox Cities outpost of the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh this spring will become the sixth public campus in that state to be shuttered since 2023, after a long enrollment slide. “We’ve had this institution for 60 years in our community, and now it’s gone.”
Not only students are affected. In many rural counties, “there really isn’t a lot beyond the university,” Nelson said. “So that’s going to be devastating for the economy. It’s going to kill jobs. It’s going to be one more strike against them when they are competing with other communities with more amenities.”
Attempts to close these campuses attract the intervention of politicians, who have more control over whether public than private nonprofit colleges in their districts close. After all, “they own the place,” said Dan Greenstein, former chancellor of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education, who — after that state’s enrollment fell by nearly one-fifth — led a reconfiguration that resulted in six previously separate public universities there being merged into two systems.
Even trying to rename a public university can have political consequences. When Augusta State University in Georgia was combined with Georgia Health Sciences University to become Georgia Regents University, there was a local outcry over the fact that “Augusta” was no longer in the name. Within two years, the merged school had yet another new name: Augusta University.
“Public institutions are complex structures,” said Ricardo Azziz, who led that consolidation, served as president of the resulting institution and now heads the Center for Higher Education Mergers and Acquisitions at the Foundation for Research and Education Excellence. “They’re influenced by politics. They’re influenced by elected officials.”
When the proposal to close campuses in Vermont was met with public and political resistance, state planners backed down and decided instead to merge them, laying off staff and cutting programs. That did not go well, either, and resulted in raucous public meetings, votes of “no confidence,” plans that were announced and then rescinded and a revolving door of presidents and chancellors. Only now, in its second year, has the process gotten smoother.
Alarm bells started sounding about problems in Vermont’s state universities before the Covid-19 pandemic. With the nation’s third-oldest median age, after Maine and New Hampshire, according to the Census Bureau, the state had already seen its number of young people graduating from high school fall by 25 percent over the previous decade.
Enrollment at the public four-year and community college campuses — not including the flagship University of Vermont, which is separate — was down by more than 11 percent. A fifth of the rooms in the dorms were empty. And with the birthrate in the state lower than it was before the Civil War, there was no rebound in sight.
These trends have contributed to the closings of six of Vermont’s in-person undergraduate private, nonprofit colleges and universities since 2016.
“We’d be keeping our head in the sand if we didn’t think that those same forces were going to affect our public higher education system,” said Jeb Spaulding, who, as chancellor at the time, merged two of Vermont’s five state colleges, in Johnson and Lyndon, in 2018.
The red ink continued to flow. Two years later, just after Covid hit, Spaulding recommended that three of the five public campuses be shut down altogether — Johnson and Lyndon, plus Vermont Technical College in Randolph.
“What we needed to do was save the Vermont State Colleges System as a whole,” which has 145 buildings for fewer than 5,000 students, Spaulding recalled. That same problem of excess capacity is affecting higher education nationwide.
“It was well known that we had too much bricks and mortar for the number of traditional-type students that were going to be available in Vermont,” Spaulding said. “We saw all that coming, and we had started a process of educating people and working on what would be a realistic public-sector consolidation plan so that we could actually put our resources into having a smaller constellation, but well financed and up to date.”
The reaction to the plan was explosive, even in the midst of a pandemic. At socially distanced drive-by protests, critics brandished signs that said: “Start Saving: Fire Jeb.” Within four days, the proposal to close campuses was withdrawn. A week after that, Spaulding resigned.
“I guess I didn’t realize that in the public realm, you can’t make the kind of difficult decisions that if you were at a private institution you would have to make,” he recounted. “When the politics got involved, then it became clear to me that there was no way that I was going to be able to get that through.”
Instead of closing the campuses, the state decided to combine them with the other two, in Castleton and Williston, all under one umbrella renamed Vermont State University, or VTSU. In exchange, the blended institutions would be required to cut spending to help reduce a deficit estimated at the time to be about $22 million.
That decision was almost as contentious. As in Georgia, even the name was controversial. Alumni petitioned in vain for the new system to be called Castleton University instead of Vermont State, to preserve the legacy of the state’s oldest and the nation’s 18th-longest-operating higher education institution, founded in 1787, instead of demoting it to “Castleton Campus.”
Beth Mauch, who as chancellor has overseen VTSU and Vermont’s community college campuses since January, said she gets this kind of sentiment. “There are community members who have had these institutions in their community. There are folks who are alumni of these institutions who remember them in a certain way,” said Mauch. “Really, they are in the fabric of a community.”
Beth Mauch, chancellor of the Vermont State University system and the state’s community college campuses. “Really, they are in the fabric of a community,” Mauch says. Credit: Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report
That close relationship between the universities and their communities only resulted in additional friction when 23 full-time faculty positions were cut, out of the then-existing 208. So were an equal number of administrators and staff. Not only were there more beds and buildings than were needed for the number of students, there were too many faculty compared to other comparably sized universities, a planning document said.
Neighbors of the campuses, and their elected representatives, didn’t see it that way.
“The people that work at the colleges are local. Everyone knows people that work at these colleges,” said Billie Neathawk, a librarian at what was formerly Castleton University for more than 25 years, and a union officer. “They’re related to people. Especially in a small state like Vermont, everybody knows everybody.”
The layoffs went through anyway. There were also cuts to majors. Ten academic programs were eliminated, 10 others changed locations and still others were consolidated. That meant students at any campus could take the remaining courses in a format combining in-person and online instruction that the system dubbed “In-Person Plus.”
Lilly Hudson is a junior at Vermont State University, whose consolidation means some programs are being offered online. Hudson prefers learning in a classroom but liked being able to take a class online from another campus that wasn’t available on hers. Credit: Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report
Lilly Hudson, a junior at Castleton, said she prefers learning in a classroom. “It’s just such a difference to be able to see people and meet your professors and go in person,” said Hudson, who is majoring in early education. But she was also able to take a class online from another campus that wasn’t available on hers.
That can be an underappreciated upside to mergers, said Greenstein, now managing director of higher education practice at the consulting firm Baker Tilly. “You can only run as many programs, majors and minors as you can enroll students into,” he said. But by merging institutions and letting students take courses from other campuses online, “now they can go from 20 programs to 80 or 90.”
While that seemed a step forward, the consolidated university’s inaugural president, Parwinder Grewal, next announced that, to cut costs, its libraries would go all-digital and give away their books, the Randolph campus would no longer field intercollegiate sports teams, and athletics on the Johnson campus would move from the NCAA to the less prestigious U.S. Collegiate Athletic Association.
This proved another blunder in a state so fond of its libraries that it has the nation’s highest per-capita number of library visits, and where rural communities rally around even Division 3 athletics. Faculty and staff unions and student government associations on every campus voted “no confidence” in the university’s administration. Athletes transferred away. Grewal was loudly booed when he met with students.
“There was a hot streak there where, every email, we were, like, now what’s going on?” said Raymonda Parchment, a student who was halfway toward her bachelor’s degree at the time.
Raymonda Parchment, who just graduated from Vermont State University, is grateful that a plan to close some public campuses was reversed. “If you can’t afford to go out of state for college, and you can’t afford to pay for maybe a dorm for a couple of years, where does that leave you if there’s no school within commuting distance?” she asks. Credit: Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report
The library and athletics decisions were eventually reversed, too, and Grewal was out before he’d served a full year. But the damage was done. When the new university finally debuted, at the start of the 2023-24 school year, freshman enrollment was down by about 14 percent from what it had been at the separate campuses the year before.
“I know a lot of friends whose programs were consolidated and shuffled around,” said Parchment, in an otherwise empty study room on the snow-covered Johnson campus. “That was probably the biggest change for students that had direct impact on them. Some people’s programs don’t exist anymore. Some people’s programs have been moved to a different campus.”
Vermont is still working out the kinks, said Bergh, the system’s current president, who was the president of private, nonprofit Cazenovia College in New York when it closed in 2023.
Although first-year enrollment went up about 14 percent this fall, he said, “We’re still surfacing places where our systems aren’t talking to each other as well as they should be, and that we need to correct.”
Parchment likes that it’s easier now to move from one campus in the system to another, without having to go through the red tape of the transfer process. She graduated at the end of the fall semester after moving from Castleton to Johnson to be closer to an internship.
And no campuses were ultimately closed, as had been proposed — a relief to students, prospective students and community members, Parchment said. “Because if you can’t afford to go out of state for college, and you can’t afford to pay for maybe a dorm for a couple of years, where does that leave you if there’s no school within commuting distance?”
Hudson, the Castleton student, whose father is a sixth-generation farrier — a specialist in trimming, cleaning and shoeing horses’ hooves — agreed.
The campuses are “in the middle of an area where there’s a lot of rural towns,” she said. Keeping them in operation means that students nearby who want to go to college “don’t have to pick up their lives and move.”
But Spaulding, the former chancellor, warned that public higher education budget and enrollment problems aren’t likely to subside, in Vermont or many other states.
“I don’t think the storm is over by any stretch of the imagination.”
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
In a word: no, India’s claims do nothing of the sort. And the stories that CBC has been running on the issue border on journalistic malpractice.
All of this coverage is an outgrowth of the so-called “Dingucha” case in which a family of four from the village of Dingucha in Gujarat died while trying to cross the Canada-US Border illegally near Emerson Manitoba in 2022. One member of the family was in Canda on a student visa and was able to bring his spouse (and thus his children) on open work permits.
The hook for the stories that ran over Christmas was a spate of pieces that ran in the Indian press about the case, like this one from NDTV and this one from The Indian Express. They all say basically the same thing, and CBC parroted them word-for-word (there does not appear to have been any attempt by the CBC to report the story from India). Here’s the heart of what CBC said:
India’s Enforcement Directorate said in a news release on Tuesday it had uncovered evidence of human trafficking involving two “entities” in Mumbai after probing the Indian connection to the Patel family, who froze to death in January 2022 while trying to cross the border from Manitoba into Minnesota during frigid weather conditions.
The Enforcement Directorate said its investigation found that about 25,000 students were referred by one entity, with over 10,000 students referred by another entity to various colleges outside India every year.
Arrangements would be made for the Indian nationals to be admitted to Canadian colleges and universities and apply for student visas, according to the Enforcement Directorate.
But once the Indian nationals reached Canada, instead of joining the college, they illegally crossed the border from Canada into the U.S. and the fee received by the Canadian schools was remitted back to the individuals’ account, the Enforcement Directorate said.
Based on this, CBC got a bunch of “experts” to say a variety of things which put colleges and student visas generally in a bad light. I’ll get to those in a moment, but before we do that, let’s just point out a few things wrong with the story’s framing here.
First, and most importantly, this is all reporting on a press release from the Indian Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED is not the police; it’s part of the Revenue Ministry. To quote its website, “it is a multi-disciplinary organization mandated with investigation of offence of money laundering and violations of foreign exchange laws.” It is unclear what its connection to a murder investigation might be, and curiously, this is a question CBC never appears to have asked.
(In this same vein, while the ED is in theory non-partisan, it has been accused in India of being used as a tool of the ruling BJP. Could the CBC not think of any reason why a Modi-aligned agency might have a reason to make false and defamatory claims about Canada? Really?)
Second, this press release provides no actual evidence provided here about, well, anything. There are “entities” that refer people abroad for study? No shit, Sherlock. They are called agents. They do it all the time. And while there is no question that the Patels (and presumably others who have crossed the border in the past) got to Canada on a student visa, no evidence has been provided showing that any of these agents are in league with human smugglers based in North America. (Note: the press release is very badly drafted, but I think a fair read of it is that it implies that Canadian institutions were aware of the scheme and were implicitly part of it. Needless to say, there is less than zero evidence of this).
Basically: We’ve known for a couple of years now Indian citizens come to Canada on a student visa and then broke the law by trying to enter the US illegally. Exactly no new evidence was provided by the ED in its press release. It is not impossible that such evidence exists, of course, but for the moment no such evidence has been produced.
So why did the CBC react as if it did?
This was the question I asked them when a CBC producer tried to get me to comment on the story on December 27th. Why would you do a story on so little evidence? I said I didn’t think the evidence merited a story but agreed to speak to them if they wanted someone to explain exactly why the evidence was so thin. You will no doubt be shocked to learn that CBC then declined to interview me.
Upon reading the story, it’s not hard to understand why. With zero evidence, they got a bunch of experts to repeat talking points about the awfulness of student visas that they’ve been repeating for months now.
Raj Sharma, a Calgary-based immigration lawyer, told said “If the allegations are true, it reveals shocking gaps in our integrity protocols.… This is deeply, deeply concerning and problematic,” adding that the allegations suggest “wide-scale human smuggling.”
(The “if” in that sentence is doing a hell of a lot of work – AU)
Kelly Sundberg, a former Canada Border Services Agency officer who is a professor of criminology at Mount Royal University, said the system has no oversight and is “being exploited” by transnational criminals. “This type of fraud, of gaming our immigration system has been going on for quite some time actually,” he said, noting that the volume of those potentially involved “is staggering.”
Ken Zaifman, a Winnipeg-based immigration lawyer, says that from his experience, the responsibility of oversight should lie with the educational institutions, but that they did not do so because “they were addicted to international students to fund their programs.”
Ok, so, these comments about fraud and oversight are worth examining. I’m trying to imagine how either the government of Canada or an educational institution could legitimately “prevent fraud” or “exercise oversight” in a case like this one. Are colleges and universities supposed to be like the pre-cogs in the movie Minority Report,able to spot criminals before they commit a crime? I mean, there is a case to be made that in the past Canada made such cross-border runs more tempting by allowing students’ entire families to join them in Canada while studying (as was the case in the Dingucha affair), but that loophole was largely closed ten months ago when the feds basically stopped giving open work permits to partners of students unless they were enrolled in a graduate degree.
Anyways, this is where we are now: our national broadcaster sees no problem running evidence-free stories simply as a platform to beat up on public colleges because that’s a great way to get clicks. Crappy journalism? Sure. But it’s also evidence of the disdain with which Canadian PSE institutions are now viewed by the broader public: CBC wouldn’t run such a thin story unless it thought the target was “soft.” And there’s no solution to our funding woes until this gets sorted out.
A bipartisan effort to update the nation’s workforce development law is dead, depriving hundreds of community colleges of increased funds and opportunities to cut through the red tape surrounding short-term job training.
The Stronger Workforce for America Act would have given community colleges automatic eligibility to enter into training contracts with local workforce development offices, introduced a new federal grant and protected several existing programs from potential budget cuts in the new fiscal year.
The bill’s sponsors were hopeful that the bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act would pass Congress before the end of the year, as it was included in a wider spending package to fund the government. But when Republicans voiced opposition to the omnibus spending bill just over 24 hours before the government shutdown deadline, lawmakers reversed course. They instead passed a pared-down continuing resolution to fund the government through mid-March, and WIOA reauthorization didn’t make the cut.
Leaders on the House education and workforce committee had said the Stronger Workforce for America Act would create “transformative change” for the American workforce, pointing to how WIOA helps American workers keep pace with an ever-changing job market and gain high-demand skills. Reauthorizing WIOA was a top priority for Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chaired the committee until December.
Members of the House and Senate education and workforce committees worked for the last two years to update the workforce bill, which expired in 2020. The House plan overwhelmingly passed last spring, and the Senate released a draft plan over the summer. The Senate bill didn’t move forward, but key lawmakers in the House and Senate reached a compromise in late November to update WIOA.
Groups like the National Association of Workforce Boards and the American Association of Community Colleges say the death of the Stronger Workforce act won’t kill their programs, but nonetheless they expressed concerns about how a lack of reauthorization makes their programs vulnerable. They are trying to remain hopeful that reauthorization will be a priority for this Congress.
“As the session waned, it was clear that getting a bill enacted in 2024 was going to be extremely difficult,” David Baime, senior vice president of government relations at AACC, said in a statement. “However, we are grateful for WIOA’s champions and very optimistic that a reauthorization will be enacted by the next Congress.”
Until then, Inside Higher Ed called Baime to talk about the bill and what it means for community colleges and short-term workforce training. Here are three key obstacles he said remain until WIOA gets an update.
Bureaucracy and Eligibility
One of the largest benefits for community colleges under the Stronger Workforce act was that their training programs would have automatically qualified for federal WIOA grants.
Currently, any training provider—be it a community college, an employer or a for-profit technical institution—must meet certain performance criteria in order to receive WIOA dollars. About $500 million is available for job training vouchers each year.
Often, colleges receive funds by entering a contract with a local workforce board. The process begins with local workforce development agencies identifying key trades or certifications that are in high demand among their community. Then the board picks an approved training provider and contracts with them to train a set number of workers.
But for years, jumping through the hoops required to make that eligibility list kept many underresourced community colleges from receiving those contracts and federal funds.
“The bureaucratic nature of WIOA has made for some presidents not being as engaged as they might be,” Baime said. “In these cases, they just don’t find it worthwhile to invest a lot of time in their local workforce boards.”
The WIOA update would have cut down that red tape.
Increased Funds
But even if community colleges did automatically qualify, Baime said, the funding set aside specifically for training programs is limited, and competition with other providers like for-profit technical institutions and employers is steep.
“In fact, a lot more money for training goes to our students through Pell than through WIOA,” Baime explained.
Since 2020, the Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grant program has provided dedicated funding for training programs at community colleges. Most recently, the Labor Department awarded $65 million to 18 colleges. Through five rounds of funding, more than 200 colleges have received a total $265 million.
But the grant program was never formally authorized. That means there is no mandate requiring Congress to set aside a certain amount of funds each year, and the grant depends entirely on advocacy from specific lawmakers.
The WIOA update would have authorized the grant, providing statutory protection for the funds.
“SCCTG is a really important program for us. The program relies upon a tested model of community colleges working directly with businesses, in coordination with the federal workforce system. It’s not funded at the level we would like, but it reflects an appropriate prioritization of the role that community colleges play in job training,” Baime said.
A few other, less direct funding increases were also lost when the legislation died. For example, one policy would have required 50 percent of all WIOA funds to be spent on training rather than administrative fees, leading local workforce boards to invest more in contracts with outside providers.
Another would have specified that historically broad H1-B grants, which use the revenue from skills-based visas to train American workers, must be used to upskill individuals forced out of their current roles by innovations like AI. Workers would have received up to $5,000 through that change.
“We think a voucher that size may be an attractive inducement for dislocated workers to receive training at community colleges,” Baime said.
Future Vulnerability
Finally, for community colleges, a key concern is how the incoming Congress and Trump administration will approach WIOA, especially now that legislation has failed.
Republicans in Congress have made it clear they want to “substantially reduce funding,” so Baime fears that WIOA funding of all types could face serious cuts.
The SCCTG, for example, which has historically been advocated for by Democrats, may no longer get a budget line at all.
“The importance of workforce education is appreciated by lawmakers across the Hill,” he explained. “But we certainly would have rather gotten that bipartisan, bicameral demonstration of support by being part of this bill and enacted into statute going into the [fiscal year 2026] appropriations process.”
