The public two-year college in Virginia, established in 1960 as an extension campus of William & Mary, has always been governed by its parent institution’s Board of Visitors. Now both houses of the State Legislature have passed a bill that establishes an independent, nine-member Board of Visitors for Richard Bland—a longtime goal of the college’s administrators.
The legislation now awaits Governor Glenn Youngkin’s signature.
“Governor Youngkin has demonstrated his commitment to growth and prosperity in Petersburg, and his support of RBC’s independence will add to that legacy,” said Richard Bland president Debbie Sydow.
While the college has always operated independently of William & Mary, efforts to set up its own board have been ongoing for over a decade.
Sydow called the new legislation “momentous, especially as RBC is poised to deepen and expand its strategic partnerships.”
As mass layoffs and suspended grant reviews at National Institutes of Health sow more chaos for the nation’s once-cherished scientific enterprise, a federal judge is set to hear arguments Friday morning on whether to extend a temporary block on the NIH’s attempt to unilaterally cut more than $4 billion for the indirect costs of conducting federally funded research at universities, such as hazardous waste disposal, laboratory space and patient safety.
If the cuts move forward, they will “destroy budgets nationwide,” higher education associations and Democratic attorneys general, along with medical colleges and universities, argued in court filings this week. “But the consequences—imminent, certain, and irreparable—extend far beyond money, including lost human capital, shuttering of research projects and entire facilities, stalling or ending clinical trials, and forgoing advances in medical research, all while ending the Nation’s science leadership.”
The NIH refuted that claim in court filings, arguing that the plaintiffs “do not establish that any irreparable impacts would occur before this case can proceed to the merits.”
Friday’s hearing comes two weeks after the NIH’s Feb. 7 announcement that it will cap indirect research cost rates at 15 percent, which is down from an average rate of 28 percent, though some colleges have negotiated reimbursement rates as high as 69 percent.
The National Institutes of Health is one of the largest sources of funding for research at the universities and colleges and has supported breakthroughs in medical technology and treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s. In fiscal year 2024, the agency sent about $26 billion to more than 500 grant recipients connected to colleges. About $7 billion of that went to the indirect expenses—a source of funding that universities argue is crucial but still doesn’t cover the full cost of conducting research.
Federal data shows that in fiscal year 2022, universities contributed approximately $25 billion of their own institutional funds to support research, including more than $6.2 billion for the federal government’s share of indirect costs that it did not reimburse.
Nonetheless, Elon Musk, the unelected billionaire bureaucrat President Donald Trump has charged with heading the nascent Department of Government Efficiency, characterized NIH reimbursements for universities for indirect research costs as “a rip-off.” Meanwhile, the academic research community warned that such drastic cuts—which Trump failed to get congressional approval for during his first term—would hamper university budgets, local economies and medical breakthroughs.
Within days of NIH’s directive, a federal judge put the rate cut on hold after 22 state attorneys general sued the agency, joined by numerous higher education research advocacy organizations, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the American Council on Education. Across three separate lawsuits, they argued NIH doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the cap and that its guidance was “arbitrary and capricious,” among other points.
Although the nationwide injunction gave colleges a brief reprieve from the cuts, which briefly took effect Feb. 10, university administrators have spent the last two weeks sounding the alarm about the estimated losses and other impacts. Some Republicans in Congress have also opposed the plan, saying it violates language in federal legislation that bars NIH from modifying indirect costs.
‘Irreparable Injury’?
In its motion for the dismissal of the injunction filed on Feb. 14—a day before the NIH fired some 1,000 workers—lawyers for the agency argued that the federal district court “lacks jurisdiction” over the case and only federal claims court should hear the case, because the plaintiffs “are effectively seeking damages for breach of contract—the regulations incorporated into their grant agreements.” They also claimed that the NIH “ran afoul of no statute” and that the plaintiffs “have failed to show that they would suffer an irreparable injury” without a temporary restraining order.
“Where declarants assert that reducing funds is likely to harm research or clinical trials,” the motion said, “they generally do not assert that those harms are imminent as opposed to eventual reductions in their capacity that would occur from sustained diminished funding after a ruling on the merits.”
The motion went on to claim that the NIH’s capping of indirect cost rates seeks to “further its mission of advancing public health in a manner reflecting wise stewardship of the public money entrusted to it,” claiming that indirect costs are “difficult” for NIH to oversee. “To be clear, the Supplemental Guidance will not change NIH’s total grant spending; rather, it simply reallocates that grant spending away from indirect costs and toward the direct funding of research.”
But that’s not how the NIH publicly framed the indirect cost cap in a post on the social media site Musk owns that said the policy change will “save more than $4B a year effective immediately.”
And in a response filed earlier this week, the plaintiffs argued that the NIH’s policy change “bears no rational connection to NIH’s stated goal” in its court filings, because nothing in the NIH’s notice to cap indirect costs “directs more money to direct expenses.” The response also argues that the NIH has not provided adequate evidence to support its assertions that indirect costs are “difficult to oversee” and implored the court to reject the NIH’s attempt to “deprive Congress of its power of the purse.”
Mass Layoffs, Grant Reviews Still Suspended
While the temporary injunction has halted the rate cap for about two weeks, it hasn’t stopped Trump and Musk from destabilizing federal science agencies in other ways. Over the past week, thousands of mostly probationary employees—ranging from top-ranking agency officials to grant administrators who help grantees ensure their projects are compliant with federal regulations—across numerous science agencies, including the NIH, the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, lost their jobs.
“The majority of what people who work for those agencies do is get the grant money out the door,” said Carrie Wolinetz, a science and health policy consultant who worked for the NIH between 2015 and 2023. “Because the layoffs took place across job categories, any of those critical positions could be affected. It’s hard to imagine that’s not going to have some impact on the ability of those agencies to fulfill its mission of getting those grants out the door.”
And even before the layoffs and indirect cost cap directive, the NIH had already derailed its operations by temporarily pausing communication and grant reviews last month. Although the courts put those orders on hold, Nature reported Thursday that nearly all NIH grant-review meetings remain suspended.
When the reviews finally do resume, the process will likely face even more challenges with fewer agency employees.
“The fewer people, the greater the bottleneck,” Wolinetz said. “Uncertainty itself causes delays. When people are confused, afraid and worried after watching their colleagues being dismissed, all of that just causes a slowing down of the entire system.”
On Wednesday, hundreds of scientists, federal workers and their supporters rallied outside of Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington, D.C., wielding signs with phrases such as “Leash That DOGE,” “Fight for Science” and “America Needs NIH Scientists” and speaking out against cuts to science funding. (The rally was part of a national day of action to oppose the research funding cuts and layoffs.)
Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of HHS headquarters Wednesday.
“It is important that we understand exactly what is at stake right now,” Kailyn Price, a neuroscience doctoral student at George Washington University, told the crowd. “Cutting indirect costs is like telling a football team to do their work with only the players and the coach—no lights for the field, no physical therapist for the players, no water for the showers.”
She said casting indirect costs as an unchecked and unnecessary burden on taxpayers is all part of the government’s plan to turn the American public against scientists and their work.
“They want you to be angry and misinformed, incensed and ignorant,“ Price said. “Trump and his unelected billionaire backers want you to look at the people like us—making $20, $30, $40,000 a year, working late nights through the weekends because we believe that much in the work that we do—as the enemy.”
And the federal workers who remain at the agencies that support university research may not be there for long, either.
“Messaging from the agency is changing on a daily basis. Everyone is internally freaking out,” one still-employed NIH scientist told Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity. “I’m applying for other jobs, and most people are hedging their bets and sending out other applications, assuming they could get let go.”
The chaos at the NIH, including the firings and the potential for billions in funding cuts, means “there just won’t be the same number of scientists coming out of American universities,” the NIH researcher said. “On the bright side, though, there is the rest of the world.”
The cuts “are also adversely affecting important agency functions, such as support for research security at universities,” Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the AAU, said in an email.
“Cutting key research security offices at the NSF and NIH will make it more difficult for universities and our science agencies to implement new congressionally mandated research security requirements aimed at protecting sensitive information and data from competitors at a crucial time when we are trying to stay at the forefront of global scientific leadership.”
How can you make the future of your campus more clear and sustainable?
As colleges and universities continue to rise above the challenges brought on by the pandemic five years ago, it has become clear that the new normal for higher education demands more than resilience—it requires strategic foresight and proactive leadership. Institutions today must navigate shifting policies, demographic changes, public sentiment, natural disasters, economic pressures, compliance mandates, safety concerns, talent turnover, operational efficiency demands, and increasing pressure for measurable results.
Is your institution prepared to proactively face these challenges, knowing that disruption is not just possible but highly probable?
Will your strategic plan ensure financial sustainability if events on the scale of the pandemic disrupt your revenue streams?
Does your current enrollment strategy include innovative approaches to capture new market share despite declining numbers of prospective students?
Is your institution leveraging artificial intelligence to drive innovation and efficiency?
Does your academic master plan align with program demand, employer talent needs, and student success outcomes?
Can your organization prioritize limited resources effectively and use data to inform critical budget decisions?
Do your stakeholders understand that your institution’s reputation and competitive standing depend on academic innovation, excellence, community engagement, and student success—achieved through accountability, continuous improvement, campus engagement, agility, and clear prioritization?
If your answer isn’t a confident “YES!”, it’s time to act. Consider investing two days at RNL’s Strategic Planning Executive Forum (April 1–2, Chicago).
Building a foundation for strategic planning in two days
Today, institutions discover that this framework goes beyond enrollment—it is adaptable to address every facet of university and college operations, including institutional culture, financial health, academic excellence, technology integration, student success, community engagement, branding, and institutional value. This approach aligns your institution’s goals with the realities of the evolving higher education landscape, ensuring long-term enrollment success and financial sustainability.
While many institutions simply set goals and outline steps, true strategic planning thrives at the intersection of creativity, critical thinking, data analysis, and action. The RNL Strategic Planning Forum is designed to elevate your institution’s capacity by focusing on essential, foundational steps:
Analyzing your institution’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)
Identifying key performance indicators (KPIs)
Fostering a data-informed decision-making culture
Developing actionable strategy plans with clear accountability and measurable ROI
Establishing prioritization protocols by assessing risk, resistance, and required effort
Implementing, managing, and refreshing dynamic strategic plans through effective dashboards and processes
What to expect at the forum
The forum offers practical case studies and shared experiences from transformation leaders. Sessions will highlight best practices in areas such as:
Strategic enrollment planning
Institutional strategic planning
Academic program revitalization
Breakout sessions will cater to specific institutional needs—whether from two-year colleges, four-year public universities, or private institutions—offering space to share best practices and tackle unique challenges.
Institutional assessment with expert guidance
Your leadership team will have the opportunity to complete a strategy assessment and receive live feedback from RNL experts with decades of higher education experience in:
Marketing and market research
Recruitment and financial aid strategy
Student success initiatives
Academic program planning
Online learning and delivery models
Advancement and venture philanthropy
Artificial intelligence applications in higher education
Discussion and collaboration are at the heart of this event. You’ll dive into critical areas of strategic planning while engaging with industry experts, higher education leaders, and peers from other campuses. This will spark meaningful conversations within your own team, setting the stage for momentum and change.
RNL Strategic Planning ExecutiveForum: A history of driving enrollment and revenue success
Many institutions that have participated in this event have seen transformative results, including:
Record-breaking enrollment growth
Enhanced student outcomes
Millions in additional revenue generation
Stronger community engagement
Streamlined operations and improved efficiency
Equip your institution for future-focused success
Empower your institution with actionable insights, dynamic strategies, and the tools necessary for growth, resilience, and meaningful impact in today’s higher education environment.
See the agenda and register for the Forum today. Bring your leadership team and ignite the discussions that will drive action and measurable results for your institution’s future. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more impactful event to propel your institution forward.
In 970 work started on the Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, which had been founded on the orders of al-Mu’izz li-Din Allah, the fourth Fatimid Caliph. Work on the buildings was completed two years later. In 988 Ya’qub ibn Killis, the first vizier of the Fatimids, designated the mosque as a centre of learning, and the following year 35 scholars were hired. This marked the beginnings of the mosque as a place of learning. The curriculum included law and jurisprudence, grammar, astronomy, philosophy and logic; ibn Killis himself taught; and both men and women could study there.
It was also, it seems, a place of learning with an agenda. The Fatimids, argue Roy Lowe and Yoshihito Yasuhara in their 2016 work “The Origins of Higher Learning”, funded Al-Azhar in order to create a framework to underpin Shia Islam.
In 1171, the Ayyubid caliph Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, who you might know better as Saladin, overthrew the last of the Fatimids, after many years of strife. One of the actions he took was to assert Sunni Islam, rather than Shia; and with this the fortunes of Al-Azhar took a downward turn. There was, it seems, the destruction of books on a vast scale. Some say 120,000 books from the library, some say 2,000,000. Now, by the 1050s the library was said to hold 200,000 books, which is a lot, but it does feel like the upper estimate for destruction one hundred years later has some poetic license about it. In any event, a lot of books were destroyed. Al-Azhar lost its breadth, becoming a centre for the study of Sunni Islam.
And so it remained, for several centuries. It gained in prestige, becoming one of the four main centres for Sunni jurisprudence in the Islamic world. It regrew its library, which now holds over seven million items; it expended its premises. It continued to accept students for study; and continued too award qualifications. On which rests its claim to be the longest continually operating degree awarding body in Egypt.
In 1961 – nearly 1000 years after its foundation – Al-Azhar was re-founded as a modern university. Its curriculum was secularised, to cover business, science, engineering, and medicine. And it has a broader remit, as a body responsible for schools across Egypt, with over 4,000 affiliated institutions, with 2,000,000 learners at those schools and institutes.
Since 2011 the University’s Council of Senior Scholars – senior Islamic scholars, that is – has been re-established and plays a role in national affairs. This includes electing Egypt’s Grand Mufti, which role had previously been appointed by the country’s president. Roughly speaking, a mufti is an Islamic scholar who can issue a fatwa; the Grand Mufti in a country is head of that country’s muftis.
One of the reasons I like finding out about universities in other countries is the exposure to different ideas of what a university is or does. Al-Azhar has antiquity, it teaches to a high level, it’s a university. And it has a broader remit too.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Linda McMahon’s nomination for U.S. secretary of education advanced Thursday with the approval of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which voted 12-11 along party lines.
“We need a strong leader at the department who will get our education system back on track, and Ms. McMahon is the right person for the job,” said HELP Chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., before the vote.
McMahon appeared before the committee Feb. 13 for a 2 ½ hour confirmation hearing where she spoke of her priorities for expanding school choice and skills-based learning, providing more decision-making power to local schools and parents, and protecting students from discrimination and harassment.
She also talked about her openness to making sweeping changes at the U.S. Department of Education, including moving programs like special education oversight and civil rights investigations to other federal agencies.
“We are failing our students, our Department of Education, and what we are doing today is not working, and we need to change it,” McMahon said at the time. McMahon formerly served as administrator of the Small Business Administration for two yearsin President Donald Trump’s first administration. She was previously president and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment.
Trump and the temporary Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, have already made major alterations to Education Department activities, including by attempting to freeze funding to states, canceling research contracts, halting diversity, equity and inclusion funds and programming, and calling for the end of “radical indoctrination” in K-12 schools.
At Thursday’s HELP executive session, which lasted about 15 minutes, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said he was opposing McMahon’s nomination. “I find areas of agreement [with McMahon], but I can’t vote for somebody who will willfully engage in the destruction of the very agency she wants to lead. That is disqualifying,” Kaine said.
Ranking member Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., also voted against McMahon’s nomination and criticized what he said was a move toward an authoritarian society where “all power is resting in the hands of a few in the White House.”
“It doesn’t really matter who the Secretary will be, because he or she will not have the power,” Sanders said.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., before voting in favor of the nomination, said U.S. education has fallen in global rankings. “If we really say we’re for the kids, then let’s try something drastic,” Mullin said. “Let’s actually make a change, because we’re doing nothing but going backwards, and our test scores haven’t improved since 1979. They’ve just continued to fall.”
A full Senate vote on McMahon’s confirmation is forthcoming.
College administrators know that technology can be a powerful tool for improving operations and boosting student success. However, given the rapid pace of technological change and the shrinking pool of qualified IT professionals, getting a real return on IT investments can be a major challenge.
While change can seem daunting, IT outsourcing can significantly improve overall IT management and strategic focus while mitigating risk and reducing cost. It’s about more than just maintaining IT infrastructure and operations –– it’s about using technology strategically to create better student experiences and drive institutional success.
Complexity: Streamlining the Transition
One of the primary concerns I hear from administrators is the perceived complexity of moving to an outsourced IT model. Such a move impacts people, processes, and technology – so if not managed thoughtfully, unintended consequences could occur.
However, a well-structured transition plan significantly simplifies the process and minimizes risk to business operations during the transition. At Collegis, we employ a phased approach, starting with a thorough assessment of an institution’s current IT ecosystem, including resources, processes, financials, systems, infrastructure, projects, operations, etc. This assessment forms the foundation of a customized transition plan designed around the institution’s unique needs, outlining each step – from stabilization and standardization to technology optimization and, finally, transformation.
A key element of our approach is the stabilization phase, where we address immediate pain points and ensure that systems are secure and able to support day-to-day operations with no disruptions. This initial phase creates the foundation from which to build on and, ultimately, a level of confidence that sets the stage for longer-term improvements.
By breaking the transition into manageable phases and providing clear communication throughout the process, we alleviate much of the anxiety associated with change. Instead of a big “lift and shift,” the multi-year transition plan means current systems and processes continue to be supported. Administrators often express relief once they understand our structured approach and how it addresses their specific needs.
For example, our managed IT services solution for Saint Francis University involved stabilizing the core technology and infrastructure, standardizing expectations through strong IT governance (including installing a virtual CIO), and optimizing business processes and infrastructure for increased efficiency. This identified $200,000 in budgetary waste that was able to be reallocated toward technology upgrades.
Cost: ROI Beyond the Bottom Line
Cost is, of course, a major factor in any IT outsourcing decision. Administrators are understandably concerned about the financial implications of outsourcing.
Studies show that many higher education institutions spend more than 75% of their IT budgets on basic support and technology maintenance. This is partially due to the technology debt that accrues after years of neglect and a lack of the precise skill sets needed to address deficiencies and create more efficient and effective operations. Just think of the impact technology could make if schools could reduce this amount by 25%+ and reallocate these dollars to improving student experiences or driving institutional cost savings.
Outsourcing can free up these valuable financial resources, enabling institutions to focus on projects that drive growth and enhance the student experience. Collegis partners typically experience:
Predictable budgeting: We offer all standard IT management services through a clear and transparent fixed fee mutually determined for the life of the partnership so institutions know exactly what they spend for IT management every year. There are no surprises.
Access to top IT talent: While Collegis goes out of its way to assess existing staff and rebadge those who have the needed skill sets and cultural fit, we also bring a team of more than 185 IT professionals to our partnerships, ensuring schools have access to the right skillsets at the right time.
Better contract negotiations: Schools benefit from Collegis’s expertise in IT contract negotiations and cross-institutional expertise during all technology contract negotiations. We have long-term relationships with third-party vendors and can negotiate from a position of strength because we support dozens of similar institutions.
Lower cybersecurity costs: We handle network, application, and data security, reducing a school’s need for additional resources or security solutions. Our partnerships have also helped many schools successfully stabilize or even reduce their cybersecurity insurance premiums.
Elimination of consulting fees: Our model also eliminates the need for expensive consultants to fill staffing gaps or deliver strategic projects.
Most schools find that an IT managed services partnership with Collegis either saves them money or is cost-neutral. Our economies of scale enable us to provide expert services at a lower cost than most institutions could achieve in-house. Plus, we provide clear service level agreements (SLAs) to ensure accountability.
Beyond cost savings, outsourcing can also improve ROI by ensuring technology investments deliver their intended value. By leveraging the expertise of a dedicated IT partner, institutions can optimize their systems and ensure they are getting the most out of their technology investments.
Control: Maintaining Oversight and Ensuring Security
Some administrators worry about losing control when they outsource IT. They’re concerned about relinquishing oversight of critical systems and data. However, a well-designed outsourcing agreement includes clear governance structures and communication channels, ensuring they retain control.
One way we’ve addressed this concern is by establishing a steering committee for IT governance that includes representatives from the institution’s leadership and fosters collaboration and shared decision-making.
Data security is paramount, and we understand the sensitivity of institutional data. We are a SOC 2-compliant organization that undergoes regular external audits to ensure the security and integrity of the data we manage.
Our dedicated information security officers (CISOs) work closely with each institution to implement best practices and address any security concerns. We also proactively monitor systems for potential threats, leveraging our experience working with multiple institutions to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate.
Getting More Out of IT investments
Outsourcing IT management in higher education can be a game-changer for institutions looking to navigate the complexities of the evolving IT landscape. Working with a partner that focuses on open communication, a phased approach to transitioning, a stronger cybersecurity posture, and leveraging your technology’s true potential can eliminate concerns about complexity, cost, and control while enabling schools to achieve strategic goals.
Finally, when considering IT outsourcing, institutions cannot underestimate the importance and value of cultural fit. Finding a partner who shares your values and can be trusted to run a critical function for your institution is just as important as any of the other considerations I’ve highlighted above.
Dr. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and chair of the Senate HELP Committee, led the hearing and voted to advance McMahon’s nomination to the Senate floor.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Linda McMahon’s bid to become the next education secretary moved forward Thursday after a Senate committee voted 12–11 along party lines to advance her nomination.
At the preceding committee hearing on Feb. 13, Republicans of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee largely praised McMahon, saying they couldn’t think of a better person to lead the nation’s education system.
They used their questions to ensure the nominee recognized that only Congress has the statutory power to carry out Trump’s plan to abolish the Education Department—to which she said, “Well, certainly President Trump understands that we will be working with Congress.” In addition to shutting down or reducing the size of the department, McMahon made clear at the hearing that she supports combating campus antisemitism, prohibiting trans women from participating in sports and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Since the hearing, the Education Department released a sweeping Dear Colleague letter that directs colleges to end any race-based policies or programming in K-12 schools and colleges by Feb. 28. The letter, which targeted “every facet of academia,” has received significant pushback from the public but likely won’t affect McMahon’s confirmation.
The committee’s vote advances McMahon’s confirmation to the Senate. The full Senate will now vote on McMahon’s nomination, likely in the next two weeks.
Once formally recognized as secretary, McMahon will be an important arrow in Trump’s quiver, as she’s seen as dedicated to carrying out the president’s agenda, from abolishing the agency to stripping certain institutions of access to federal student aid when they do not align with his ideals.
A lawsuit filed in July against the Columbia University chapter of the American Association of University Professors, along with 20 other organizations and individuals, alleged that our public statements in support of antiwar and pro-Palestinian student protests last spring harmed other students by contributing to the campus shutdown that followed. Unraveling the cynical logic of this claim is for the courts. But what is clear from this lawsuit is that the purpose of such recourse to legal theater is not to ameliorate harm. It is to silence public and academic speech.
The tactic used against us is what is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). These suits are brought principally not to win in court but to harass and intimidate individuals or groups into curtailing speech. By entangling defendants in costly and invasive litigation—or even just threatening to do so—plaintiffs can frighten those with whom they disagree into silence. In the context of higher education, this comes at an incalculable cost.
On its own, this lawsuit certainly threatens the speech of Columbia-AAUP. But in the current climate, it also opens a front in the widespread attack on universities as sanctuaries of critical inquiry and reasoned debate. In their mere filing, lawsuits like this one aim especially to chill dissenting speech, including speech that takes place at the intersection of the classroom and the public square. Such legal instruments are a dangerous cudgel that could be used to threaten broad swaths of political and academic speech on American campuses.
Our chapter has precisely sought to combat this hostile environment in the speech over which we are being sued. In multiple public statements made during the height of the campus protests last spring, we condemned partisan congressional meddling in Columbia’s affairs, arguing that this “undermine[s] the traditions of shared governance and academic freedom.” We called for a vote of no confidence in university leadership, who we believe “failed utterly to defend faculty and students” and “colluded in political interference.” And we affirmed the Columbia Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ subsequent vote of no confidence in our then-president for her “failure to resist politically motivated attacks on higher education,” whereby she endangered students and undermined our rights as faculty.
In challenging our statements in support of faculty and students, this particular SLAPP targets both our constitutionally protected public speech and our academic freedom. We are fortunate enough to be represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP, who have filed a motion to dismiss on our behalf that utilizes New York State’s anti-SLAPP law, one of the 35 state-level anti-SLAPP laws on the books across the United States. But the outcome of a SLAPP shouldn’t depend on your counsel, or the state in which you live. Unfortunately, for many faculty and students faced with a SLAPP, the only available option may well be to self-censor.
Interests committed to the mainstream political consensus have found pro-Palestinian political advocacy on American campuses to be unacceptable. To silence dissent, they have shown themselves willing to use every instrument at their disposal in a manner that recalls the red scares of the early and mid-20th century, when character assassination and blacklists were employed in industry and civil society, including academia. This SLAPP revives such measures, as do the theatrical congressional grillings of college presidents, including our own, and the wave of censorship that has swept over higher education during the course of the past year. In this context, attacks on public speech are also attacks on academic freedom.
Academic freedom depends essentially upon a social contract that remains under perpetual debate both inside and outside the academy. SLAPPs like this one aim at the very heart of that contract, which accords to academics relative autonomy to explore difficult and often uncomfortable truths on the assumption that those truths will ultimately benefit society. Although the classroom, the laboratory and the library are classic sites for the practice and protection of this freedom, the truths pursued there translate to worlds outside the campus gates. Bullying faculty and students into self-censorship in the public square, SLAPPs seek to further silence and constrain the pursuit of uncomfortable truths in the classroom.
Scholarly knowledge consists of truth claims, not dicta. Whether exercised in the classroom or in the public square, academic freedom is therefore the freedom to make and to contest such claims. This goes for all sides in a debate, including the debates still quietly raging on our campuses. However, a stark reality disclosed by SLAPPs is that political force is now poised to govern the contest over truth in place of enlightened reason and democratic deliberation.
If such high-minded concepts as truth claims, enlightened reason and democratic debate seem too lofty for the dirty realism of the day, it is important to remember that these still lie at the core of any academic freedom worthy of the name. Academic freedom is not a narrowly academic matter; it is a matter of determining whether something is or is not true. SLAPPs are designed to decide such questions in advance, in favor of those who can afford the attorneys, or on whose behalf politically motivated law firms work. It is time for us to exercise our freedoms and responsibilities as academics, in defense of our right and that of our students to speak.
Reinhold Martin is president of the American Association of University Professorschapter at Columbia University, on whose behalf he wrote this piece, and a professor of architecture.
At more than a dozen events across the country Wednesday, workers and faculty at colleges and universities gathered to speak out against what they see as an attack on federal research funding, lifesaving medical research and education.
In Washington, D.C., hundreds rallied in the front of the Department of Health and Human Services, while in Philadelphia, hundreds gathered at the office of Senator Dave McCormick, a Pennsylvania Republican. Other protests were planned at colleges in Seattle and St. Louis, among others.
The rallies were part of a national day of action organized by a coalition of unions representing higher ed workers, students and their allies. The coalition includes the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, Higher Ed Labor United and United Auto Workers, among others.
Hundreds in Philly braved the freezing temps to rally for our healthcare, research, and jobs! ❄️💪Workers & students from CCP, Drexel, UPenn, Rutgers, Temple, Jefferson, Arcadia, Rowan, Moore—alongside elected leaders & union presidents—made it clear: We won’t back down. #LaborForHigherEd
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has proposed capping reimbursements for indirect research costs, laid off hundreds of federal employees and cracked down on diversity, equity and inclusion. Most recently, the Education Department gave colleges and K-12 schools until Feb. 28 to end all race-conscious student programming, resources and financial aid. Higher education advocates have called that directive “dystopian” and “very much outside of the law.”
Colleges and universities sued to block the rate cut for indirect costs, warning it would mean billions in financial losses and an end to some research. Some colleges have already frozen hiring in response, even though the cut is temporarily on hold.
“If politics decides what I can and cannot study, I’m afraid I will fail the very people who need this research and inspire me to do it,” said Lindsay Guare, a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania, in a news release about the Philadelphia event. “In an ideal world, I would be fighting to expand support for my science instead of fighting to keep it afloat … The work done in Philadelphia’s institutions doesn’t just lead the world in innovation—it saves lives.”
