Smith College has received a $51 million gift from an anonymous alumna, the Massachusetts women’s college announced Thursday.
It is the largest planned gift in the institution’s history and will be used to support financial aid and two faculty positions: one in engineering and one in statistical and data sciences.
Boosting financial aid “will allow young women from all economic backgrounds to realize their biggest dreams for educational opportunity, permitting them to make a difference in their local communities, in their nations, and in the advancement of humankind worldwide,” said the donor, who graduated in 1979.
She also articulated her belief in the value of STEM education.
“In an age in which it is more important than ever for women to excel in technology, especially in the fields of engineering and computing, it is crucial to endow a leading educational institution like Smith College and to benefit women’s contributions in the STEM fields.”
About four in 10 college students believe developing specific skills needed for their career is among the most important outcomes to them in their academic experience, according to a winter 2023 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse. However, 22 percent of all respondents indicated they had never participated in experiential learning or an internship.
Over the past two years, the partnership has resulted in real-life case studies and client-facing work for students and faculty, as well as greater engagement with young talent for employers.
What’s the need: “One thing that’s very apparent in Vermont is we need young talent,” says Angelika Koukoulas, Champlain’s Innovation Hub Project Manager, who oversees the Hula-Champlain partnership.
Vermont experiences the worst brain drain in the country, losing 57.5 percent of its college graduates, many of whom move to Massachusetts or New York, according to 2022 data analysis.
Koukoulas’s role is to help students identify work experiences in Vermont and build relationships with employers to fill holes in their workforces.
“They need more hands, they need big ideas, they need students who are excited about their work and are willing to put in effort to learn,” Koukoulas says.
There’s also a national shortage of internship opportunities, one that is tied to a mismatch in employer needs and student interests. The partnership addresses both comprehensively by weighing all stakeholders’ interests.
How it works: Hula is about a mile away from Champlain College and just down the road from the college’s Miller Center campus.
The coworking space supports 60 member businesses and up to 600 coworking individuals. The businesses belong to a variety of industries, including green technology and marketing, as well as traditional business or finance roles.
A majority of the collaborations fall into two camps: companies providing projects for capstone-like courses for experiential learning or companies creating internships for students.
Inquiries can come directly from faculty members looking to revamp curriculum or offer real-world scenarios for students to engage their skills or from employers who have a specific need and want young talent to assist them. Often, start-ups are looking for student support for social media or blog-writing campaigns, but there’s also a need for general business admin or accounting support, Koukoulas says.
For internships, Koukoulas will serve as a recruiter of sorts for the company partner, assisting them in creating the job description and posting it on Handshake and also encouraging students she believes would be a good fit to apply and increasing the number of applicants for the business partner.
“It widens their candidate pool and hopefully gets more students opportunities that they wouldn’t have even thought of otherwise,” Koukoulas says.
All projects have been pro-bono, so the company invests zero dollars to enlist a class for work, but almost all internships have been paid roles.
What’s different: Hula serves both as a business partner, hiring interns and supporting class projects, but also as an incubator for small businesses in Vermont.
The people who work on Hula’s campus rotate, meaning there’s continual variety of the types of industries or groups students could partner with. The climate of the office building also means businesses are innovation and creatively minded, making partnership more natural.
Koukoulas has an office at Hula, meaning she can directly engage in communal spaces or in building channels to solicit employer partnerships.
Vermont also has a very relational culture, something Koukoulas has had to navigate as a more recent resident to the Green Mountain State, whether the relationships are with faculty—who have taught a course for a long time and may be hesitant to make changes—or with businesses leaders, who consider their start-up to be their baby and may be uncomfortable letting a student participate in their work.
There’s an educational piece to the puzzle, both helping faculty identify their ask for project and employers create meaningful internships for learners. Koukoulas hosted an Internship 101 workshop for Hula businesses to set expectations for internships and provide guidance on best practices, such as providing students a mentor. She also hosts regular lunch for interns who work within the Hula offices to check in and provide support as needed.
The impact: Since the partnership launched in summer 2023, 90 students have engaged in a Hula-based project within a course, and 18 students have participated in an internship.
The partnership is in its early stages, so Champlain doesn’t have data on how students have translated their work with the start-ups into longer-term career development, but exposure to new careers and experiential learning are two benefits Koukoulas is eager to see manifest.
“I can’t wait to see if it works; I can’t wait to see the fruit of that labor in the next couple of years,” Koukoulas says.
If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.
New Jersey City University has agreed to pursue a merger with nearby Kean University, a move encouraged by state officials to help stabilize NJCU after financial struggles in recent years.
On Wednesday, NJCU’s Board of Trustees voted 7 to 0 to enter merger negotiations with Kean.
NJCU’s financial situation was so dire at the time that the state threw it a $10 million lifeline.
As NJCU has sought to dig out of its financial hole, state officials essentially sent a message to the public, four-year institution that it needed to find a partner—whether it wanted to or not.
A March 2024 report from an independent state monitor assigned in the aftermath of NJCU’s financial collapse urged the university to sell assets and “explore any type of affiliation or partnership that could help create long-term financial sustainability with improved student outcomes.”
Last April the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education set a deadline of March 31, 2025, for the university to identify potential partners as part of a transition plan that also called for the board to take actions to increase revenue and lower debt, among other efforts to fix NJCU’s finances.
Going Forward
NJCU’s board voted Wednesday “to enter into negotiations with Kean University for a Letter of Intent outlining the terms of a strategic merger,” according to the board resolution.
Kean’s proposed plan would rename NJCU as Kean Jersey City. The proposal notes that in addition to being near one another, the two universities are both minority- and Hispanic-serving institutions that “share a profound commitment to transformative urban education.”
Kean’s proposal emphasizes the integration of shared services, “streamlined administrative functions” and the “strategic alignment of academic programs”; it also touts its relative financial strength. Athletic programs would be combined as a “unified entity” under the merger plan.
Kean’s Board of Trustees would govern the merged institutions, though the proposal notes that membership could expand to include seats for representatives from the NJCU community. Potential board members would be appointed by the governor’s office.
NJCU interim president Andrés Acebo addressed the potential merger in a statement to campus, writing that there is more due diligence work ahead and promising transparency.
“I encourage every member of our community—students, faculty, staff, and alumni—to remain engaged as we build a future that honors our past while embracing new opportunities. With unwavering hope and a shared resolve, we will continue to shape NJCU into a beacon of opportunity and excellence for generations to come,” Acebo wrote in Wednesday’s message.
In a separate message, Kean president Lamont Repollet noted that “this is the beginning of a process that will unfold over the months and years to come and will include our faculty, staff, students and communities.” Repollet even used language that the Trump administration—which has taken aim at DEI efforts—has sought to banish.
“Both Kean and NJCU share missions dedicated to fostering an inclusive learning environment that empowers students to succeed,” Repollet wrote Wednesday. “By merging our strengths, we can deepen our commitment and resources to diversity, equity and inclusion, ensuring that every student has the support they need to thrive and persist through graduation.”
State officials issued their own messages applauding the move toward a merger.
In a joint statement from New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, and state secretary of higher education Brian Bridges, officials said they were encouraged by the progress at NJCU.
“The NJCU Board’s intent to pursue a strategic merger with Kean University continues this commitment and marks the beginning of a thorough and deliberative process to unify these mission-aligned institutions. We look forward to working with state and institutional leaders on the path to a successful transition that empowers student success and long-term resilience,” they wrote.
Merger Outlook
The potential merger between NJCU and Kean—which still requires additional approvals, including by state officials and accreditors—appears to be the first one of the year.
News that the two institutions are taking steps toward a strategic partnership comes shortly after the collapse of a planned merger between the University of Findlay and Bluffton University. The two private, religiously affiliated institutions in Ohio first announced merger plans in March 2024. But despite a year of planning, Findlay’s board pulled out abruptly last week, surprising Bluffton.
One sticking point seemed to be athletics, as both intended to maintain separate programs, with Findlay competing at the NCAA Division II level and Bluffton remaining in Division III. But a statement from Findlay officials last week indicated that their efforts were hobbled by regulations that required a separate process for financial aid distribution and that “prohibit the sharing of resources and sports facilities, resulting in fewer synergies in those areas than originally anticipated.”
The Trump administration’s anti-DEI playlist has been booming out onto the quad since Inauguration Day. Executiveorders denounced “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences,” and the Department of Justice promised to investigate “illegal DEI” activities. The Department of Education asserted that universities have “toxically indoctrinated students” with ideas about “systemic and structural racism” before launching its “End DEI Portal.” Meanwhile, more than 30 states have considered or enacted laws curtailing DEI.
In sum, this is the year the culture war turned into a food fight. It’s understandably chaotic, but the chaos isn’t entirely warranted by the legal moves the administration is making. Behind all the angry words are sober laws that didn’t change on Inauguration Day. The administration’s attack on DEI is rooted in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Naturally, that seminal law doesn’t mention DEI. Here’s what it says:
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
The anti-DEI initiative is based on this law because, unlike other antidiscrimination laws, it prohibits differential treatment almost without exception. This has been especially true since Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, the 2023 Supreme Court case that ended affirmative action based on race.
Why Title VI?
Title VI, which bars racial discrimination, is very different from the antidiscrimination laws covering sex and disability, since those laws often require the kind of differential treatment that is illegal in matters of race. For example, Title IX does not require that women and men try out for the same basketball team. To the contrary, it requires that men and women be given equal opportunity to benefit from the program, which in some cases requires the kind of separate-but-equal approach famously made illegal by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. Disability laws are even more rooted in equitable practices like reasonable accommodation, accessible facilities and so on. Discrimination is avoided not by treating people the same but by treating people differently in certain defined ways.
One key difference between conservative and progressive approaches to antidiscrimination law is about equal versus equitable treatment. Conservatives lean toward equal treatment where possible, so the law that achieves that most clearly is found in Title VI and its constitutional corollary, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The resulting law is simple and powerful: no differential treatment based on race, color or national origin.
But it is also quite narrow. It doesn’t make DEI illegal, and it won’t “dismantle DEI.” That would require new laws, restricted funding and so on. All that may happen, and some already has—but it can’t be achieved with Title VI, even in the hands of an energetic Office for Civil Rights.
Political Rhetoric vs. Legal Reality
The yawning gap between political rhetoric and legal reality is perfectly embodied in the Education Department’s new “End DEI Portal.” Its provocative name appears in the press release—but not on the portal itself, which never mentions DEI (save for in the domain name). The portal is a complaint form for “illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning” based on civil rights law. It’s a tool constructed by lawyers that differs little from the Biden-era complaint form.
To be sure, the “End DEI Portal” name will induce people to report practices that aren’t illegal—and that will have a chilling effect. But its implementation sticks to the letter of the law. There are many other examples like it.
OCR’s Dear Colleague letter is made with the same ingredients: Heated political language condemns DEI programs, while legal language tracks Title VI. The upshot is that, in the department’s view, differential treatment based on race, color or national origin violates the law. OCR followed up with an FAQ document laying this out in detail. It is rooted in law familiar to every civil rights lawyer, and it follows a strict reading of Title VI law that comes from Students for Fair Admissions.
Problems Still to Be Solved
Well before the 2024 election, several public universities ended race-based scholarships, and Duke University transformed a race-based scholarship into a program open to all. In a sense, it’s surprising that scholarships based on race or national origin survived this long. The federal regulations implementing Title VI mention financial aid nine times in the section prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, and this language has been the same since at least 1980.
But even simple things can be uncertain in law. A related regulation allows that universities “may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limiting participation by persons of a particular race, color, or national origin.” This would seem to open the door to scholarships and perhaps other practices based on race. But Title VI of the Civil Rights Act never mentions affirmative action, and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause may forbid it.
Because of the obvious risks, university programs have long been designed not to classify people by race, color or national origin—but some common practices are in for some scrutiny. Consider a donor who has made a restricted gift to provide scholarship support to students from a specific country—it doesn’t matter if it’s Canada or Kenya. Since Title VI bars preference by national origin, can the university no longer offer that scholarship? If so, how should it be altered to conform to Title VI? Possibilities like this almost seem absurd, but they are among the issues colleges are working out right now.
Race-based housing or mentoring programs are certainly open to challenge, but it remains to be seen how many such programs there really are. It isn’t illegal for a student club, house, activity or even a scholarship program to be of interest mainly to students of one race. It becomes a problem when a college compels behavior or allocates resources based on race. Take housing as an example. Ethnically themed houses are pretty common, and many are open to anyone. If selection is race-neutral, these should be fine. But it will be no surprise if OCR chooses to investigate housing assignment processes to confirm that they are actually race-neutral.
The State Attack on DEI
Over all, the law hasn’t changed much at the federal level, though its enforcement is sure to be more focused. When all the dust has settled, this may be true at the state level, too. I won’t describe the legislation pending in all the different states, but a quick look at Iowa’s DEI laws may shed some light.
Iowa’s HSB60 is titled “An Act prohibiting private institutions of higher education that participate in the Iowa tuition grant program from establishing diversity, equity, and inclusion offices.” The bill, which closely follows the structure and language of similar legislation passed for Iowa’s public universities last year, does what the title says, so the question is— what is the definition of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” under Iowa law? For both private and public universities, DEI is defined as carrying out policies or procedures “on the basis of” or “with reference to” race, color or ethnicity—and in some cases gender identity, sex or sexual orientation. The definition also includes promoting “as the official position” of the college any of a series of concepts associated with DEI.
That certainly seems comprehensive—perhaps DEI is indeed illegal in Iowa. But both pieces of legislation explicitly do not apply to academic course instruction, research or creative works, student organizations, invited speakers, performers, or health services. You can drive a truck through these exceptions—a truck roughly the size of a college. These expansive exceptions are probably commanded by the First Amendment, which is one of the reasons why “illegal DEI” in Iowa ends up being pretty similar to “illegal DEI” in the Trump executive orders. It’s shaped like an admittedly very expansive reading of Title VI—with a little Title IX on the side.
DEI and Religious Liberty
Free speech is the First Amendment protection that comes to mind most naturally in higher education, but another one might become important for some colleges: the free exercise clause guaranteeing religious liberty. Some colleges state their commitment to diversity in unmistakably religious terms. One can imagine a practice rooted in religious belief that arguably violates the letter of Title VI—for example, distributing certain committee memberships in a representational way, perhaps by national origin. Or, for a college with long-standing missionary connections, scholarships directed to students from certain international religious communities.
Practices like this could result in a direct collision of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A very similar scenario was briefly discussed in a recent Supreme Court case, but the court did not resolve it. We may not know the answer unless it comes up. Because the free exercise clause protects not just beliefs but also actions—up to a point—certain practices related to diversity could conceivably have more constitutional protection if they are faith-based.
So Why Are Some Universities Ditching DEI?
Over all, it looks like getting into compliance with the law will require small but meaningful adjustments—and perhaps a lot of them. But this doesn’t explain why some universities are retreating from DEI altogether. I can think of four reasons why some are making this move. Three just reflect the reality of 2025, but the fourth may be an unforced error.
First, state legislatures control public university funding, so even those that don’t pass anti-DEI laws can express their displeasure through the budget. When an institution like the University of Akron cancels race-oriented programs that are clearly protected under the First Amendment and the Jan. 21 executive order, the real reason may be the State Senate’s opposition to DEI.
Second, research universities rely on big pipelines of grant money from agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Those pipelines have been shown to be fragile, so when a private research university in a very blue state reduces its DEI program, as the University of Southern California appears to have done, it may be out of concern for research grants. Exactly how these funding streams relate to DEI has yet to be fleshed out, but it’s understandable if universities are connecting the two.
Third, the executive branch may also use its hiring discretion to roll back DEI. In February, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia wrote in a letter to the dean of Georgetown Law School that his office would not hire anyone “who is a student or affiliated with a law school or university that continues to teach and utilize DEI.” There are potential legal problems with this, but it’s hard to see how universities can compel the federal government to hire their graduates. The retreat from DEI may be motivated in part by factors like this.
A fourth explanation is that some university leaders are confusing political language with changes in the law. This is a critical mistake: We believe in rule of law, not rule by law. The law only changes when Congress changes it. The administration’s DEI executive orders did not purport to change the law; neither did the Office for Civil Rights or the Department of Justice. They are expressing sharp views on what the law is—and, in their view, what it has been since the Students for Fair Admissions case in 2023.
From that perspective, everyone is playing with the same legal cards they had before Inauguration Day. What matters now is our collective commitment to play those cards according to the rules of the game. There’s a lot of change coming, and the courts are destined to be very busy.
Dan Currell was a senior adviser in the Office for Civil Rights in the first Trump administration.
Elon Musk will remain a fellow of the Royal Society after a meeting to discuss revoking his association with the U.K.’s most prestigious science organization ended without any disciplinary action being taken against the world’s richest man.
More than 150 fellows met at the world’s oldest scientific society on March 3 to discuss a proposal to expel the controversial Tesla and X boss, who was elected to the U.K. academy in 2018 for his services to science and technology.
Two leading scientists have already resigned their fellowships over Musk’s fellowship in light of what they believe are several clear breaches of the academy’s code of conduct, including his spearheading of radical cuts to U.S. research funding and his polemics against public figures such as Labour MP Jess Phillips, whom he labeled a “rape genocide apologist.”
More than 3,400 scientists and academics have also signed an open letter expressing their dismay at the lack of action by the Royal Society.
However, the meeting appeared to end with no decision on Musk’s fellowship.
In a statement released after the meeting, the Royal Society explained that “fellows agreed on the need to stand up for science and for scientists around the world in the face of the growing challenges science faces.”
“Concern was expressed, in particular, about the fate of colleagues in the U.S. who are reportedly facing the prospect of losing their jobs amid threats of radical cutbacks in research funding,” it added.
No specific mention was made of the motion to expel Musk in the statement, although the society “agreed to look at potential further actions that might help make the case for science and scientific research and counter the misinformation and ideologically motivated attacks on both science and scientists.”
“Fellows, over 150 of whom attended tonight’s meeting, were united in the need for the society to step up its efforts to advocate for science and scientists at a time when these are under threat as never before and yet at the same time have never been more necessary for humanity at large,” it added.
This week the Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton added his backing for Musk’s removal, stating that he “should be expelled from the British Royal Society. Not because he peddles conspiracy theories and makes Nazi salutes, but because of the huge damage he is doing to scientific institutions in the U.S. Now let’s see if he really believes in free speech.”
Musk responded, “Only craven, insecure fools care about awards and memberships. History is the actual judge, always and forever. Your comments above are carelessly ignorant, cruel and false. That said, what specific actions require correction? I will make mistakes, but endeavor to fix them.”
A long time ago, in a land far, far away from where I sit in Swansea, King Kumaragupta I established a monastery as a centre for higher learning. The monastery was in Nalanda, in modern-day India, and the year was something like 427 CE.
Nalanda was already a holy site: it had been visited by Siddhartha Gautama – who you might know better as Buddha – and was the birthplace of one of his disciples. By 427 CE there had for some 700 years been a stupa at the site, containing the remains of Sariputta, the disciple. Mahavira, a significant character in Jainism, had lived there. It was a place of pilgrimage.
Roy Lowe and Yoshihito Yasuhara’s 2016 work, The origins of higher learning, contains a good discussion on Nalanda, on which this blog draws. The monastery was active between 427 and the twelfth century CE, so it had about 700 years of existence, and overlapped the creation of the first European universities and the Islamic centre of learning based upon mosques and libraries.
Nalanda attracted scholars from many countries and regions – Lowe and Yasuhara report Persia, Tibet, Chia, Korea, Indonesia and Mongolia. (Their book highlights just how mobile scholars – and their ideas – were in the ancient world. It’s well worth a read.) From two of the Chinese scholars, Hiuen Tsang (who spent three years at Nalanda) and I Tsing (who, emulating Hiuen Tsang, spent ten years there), we can find out about life and learning at Nalanda.
It seems that Nalanda was organised on a collegiate basis – that is, residential, with tutors supervising students’ learning. At its height there were about 1,500 tutors and 8,000 students, which is a very Oxbridge ratio.
To gain admission, a student had to answers questions posed by the gatekeeper; apparently only one third of those who sought entry were successful. A high degree of literacy was expected of applicants: they must be familiar with core Buddhist texts and philosophical writings, although there was no religious belief bar to study.
Kumara Gupta I and subsequent rules had granted Nalanda a substantial income, from the produce of over 200 villages. This income supported the tutors and scholars: there were no tuition fees, and no requirement for students to undertake any task other than learning, discussion and contemplation.
The site was about the size of the City of London; there were ten temples, eight monastic buildings – which served as colleges – and over 600 individual study-bedrooms. But don’t think modern rooms with ensuite – this means space for a bed, and niches in the walls for a light and a bookshelf. The library was in three buildings, one of which was nine stories high; it is estimated that it held several hundred thousand texts; and copies were given to scholars who left for elsewhere.
Nalanda was governed by an assembly which took all major decisions, including those relating to admission, allocation of study-bedrooms, and students discipline. (Nalanda’s authority over its members seems to have been like that of a medieval European university.) There was a clepsydra, which regulated the times for eating and bathing.
The curriculum is known to have included study of Buddhist texts, and other subjects such as medicine and magic. Amartya Sen identified the subjects as including “medicine, public health, architecture, sculpture and astronomy… religion, literature, law and linguistics.” It is clear that Nalanda was a site for secular learning, not simply religious instruction. There was a tall tower for astronomy.
And, wonderfully, it seems that Nalanda spawned other institutions of higher learning. Gopala, who came to power in the region in the 700s, after a century in which there had been a power vacuum and much strife, founded several institutions which formed, with Nalanda, a network. These were at Odantapura, Vikramshila, Somapura and Jaggadala. Lowe and Yasuhara speculate that this could be thought of as a federal organisation: tutors and scholars were able, and indeed were encouraged, to move freely between them; it was a single project to enhance learning.
Nalanda is now simply ruins, although a modern university was established near the site in 2010, and in the 1960s there was what was regarded as a new university on the site. It says so on a postcard, which, as we know, never lie.
Here’s a jigsaw of the postcard, which is from a 1960s tourist pack of several of the site and the temple. It is unsent, and the pack had been held together by a rusty staple whose disintegration enabled me to scan this one without damaging the others.
It’s been a whirlwind week at the Department of Education, and some career staffers are anguished over its bleak, uncertain future.
On Monday, the Senate confirmed Linda McMahon as the new secretary of education, and shortly afterward, she released a memo laying out department personnel’s “final mission”: “the elimination of bureaucratic bloat here at the Department of Education.”
The next day, department leaders scheduled a meeting to announce a major reduction in force, which current staffers say is rumored to include layoffs of nearly 50 percent of the workforce—but the meeting was canceled at the last minute, according to a department employee.
Then, on Wednesday, media outlets, citing sources in the administration, reported that President Trump would sign an executive order to abolish the Education Department as soon as Thursday, sending frenzied staffers scrambling to prepare.
When White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Thursday morning on X that Trump wouldn’t be signing the order that day after all, one staffer said it felt like cruel misdirection.
“It’s definitely feeling like whiplash,” they said. “Folks had steeled themselves for today … Everyone seems ready to rip off the Band-Aid, and the delay feels like a game to torture people.”
Several current department employees, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on background and on the condition of anonymity, offered a chaotic picture of upheaval and uncertainty within the department, with staff scrambling to prepare for the dissolution of their offices, even as the administration’s plans and timeline remain unclear.
One current employee told Inside Higher Ed that McMahon’s memo announcing the administration’s plan to downsize the department was “insulting and antagonizing.”
“The notion that we should be honored to undertake this ‘final mission’ is absurd,” they said. “It’s basically saying, ‘You should thank us for firing you.’”
One career staffer who’s been with the department for more than a decade said most employees are anxiously waiting for the other shoe to drop. Over the past few weeks, they said, anger and indignation have turned to heartbreak.
“Reality is sinking in everywhere … Folks are seriously depressed,” they said. “And yet, working to advance the goals of this administration may actually be worse than not having a job.”
‘Slash and Burn’
Trump has advocated for eliminating the 45-year-old Education Department since the early days of his campaign. When he nominated McMahon as secretary, he said he hoped she would “put herself out of a job.” Still, many department employees were taken aback by the sudden escalation.
The longtime staffer said that when Trump was inaugurated, they anticipated some serious changes at the department. But the speed and wantonness of the move to abolish it has surprised them.
“I foolishly believed they’d try to take a studied approach to any changes, consult with seasoned career staffers with institutional knowledge and expertise,” they said. “Instead it’s slash and burn.”
Last week, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management directed all federal agencies to prepare for “large-scale reductions in force” and the elimination of “non-statutorily mandated functions,” which could be a precursor to the Trump administration’s plans to heavily reduce the head count at Education Department as much as possible without congressional approval.
A draft of Trump’s forthcoming executive order, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, includes a two-paragraph guideline for winding down department activity and little else. James Kvaal, who served as under secretary of education under President Joe Biden, said the absence of a plan is revealing and concerning.
“[The document] reflects a lack of clarity within the Trump administration about what they’re trying to do, or even disagreement among certain elements,” Kvaal said.
Department staffers are concerned about the administration’s strategy for implementing its ambitious spending cuts. One employee who spoke with Inside Higher Ed was placed on administrative leave last month and said their experience was “chaotic and haphazard.” The staffer said cuts to programs, contracts and personnel have been largely left up to a small group of young Department of Government Efficiency employees, whose approach has been “like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what they can get away with.”
They said that if the Trump administration’s approach to cuts at the department so far is any indication how they will handle plans to gut the department, it could exacerbate the impact on students and educational institutions.
“Nobody is going to know what’s happening, which means zero accountability,” they said. “It’s going to be a mess.”
DOGE has already canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in department contracts, including some that are essential to the operation of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. And sources within the department say that hundreds of Federal Student Aid staff have either taken a buyout or been placed on leave.
A current department employee who specializes in higher education said they fear that the department’s closure—or the major cuts that precipitate it—will have a devastating impact on the sector, and on affordability and access in particular.
“There’s going to be a huge setback in the progress we’ve made even just in terms of who gets to go to college,” they said. “Universities are being put on such a high alert on every front … it’s a wholesale attack on the sector.”
Kvaal said that even under Biden, the department in general—and the student aid office in particular—were severely understaffed, a problem that he has said contributed to the bungled rollout of the new FAFSA last year. He added that further reductions could hobble agencies’ capacity to perform essential duties like student loan and aid disbursement.
“The department was thinly staffed even prior to these cuts, and as a result it was difficult to run programs smoothly and deliver benefits that students needed,” he said. “If there are, in fact, hundreds of people leaving FSA, that could put our progress with FAFSA at risk and upend our efforts to prevent student loan defaults. If nothing else, asking senior managers to focus on nudging their staff out the door and preparing for legislation that will never come is a real distraction.”
Both Kvaal and current employees are concerned that when the Trump administration does release concrete plans for distributing the department’s responsibilities, they will welcome the private sector into administering services like student loans and financial aid.
“It seems like the longer-term goal here would be to privatize the FSA, like they’re doing with Social Security,” one staffer said. “That’s a mess waiting to happen and would take way longer than four years. In the interim, the damage could be enormous.”
A draft executive order obtained Thursday by Inside Higher Ed directs the newly confirmed education secretary, Linda McMahon, to “take all necessary steps” to return authority over education to the states and facilitate closure of the Department of Education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”
If signed, the order—which has been rumored for weeks but is not yet official—would be the first step in carrying out the president’s controversial campaign promise to abolish the 45-year-old department, which he believes is unconstitutional and has grown too large.
Several media outlets reported Wednesday night that Trump would sign the order as soon as Thursday, but shortly after the news circulated, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X, “President Trump is NOT signing an Executive Order on the Department of Education today” and called the reports “fake news.”
Still, the reports set off a wave of comments from advocates and analysts. Liberals warned that shutting down the Education Department would be devastating for families and students, while conservatives backed Trump’s plan and said the draft order was key to cleaning up the agency.
McMahon, who took office Monday and will spearhead the closure effort, is supportive of overhauling the agency. She told department staff earlier this week to prepare for a “momentous final mission” to eliminate “bureaucratic bloat” and return education to the states.
Although vague, the secretary’s memo and the draft executive order give policy experts some idea of what could come next.
At the very least, they expect to see a major reduction in staff and a diminished federal role in education; some of that work is already underway. The agency has slashed millions in contracts and grants as well as fired dozens of employees. A larger reduction in force is also in the works, fueling concerns among department staff.
“There is probably not going to be anything in [the order] that isn’t already happening, largely,” said Kelly McManus, vice president of higher education at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic group. “The secretary’s final mission was clear … so I’m not particularly worked up about the EO specifically, because I don’t think it’s going to fundamentally change that.”
Abolishing the department would require an act of Congress, which McManus said the draft order appears to acknowledge. She and other experts say any effort to close the department will be lengthy and complicated.
“This is not a flip-on, flip-off situation here,” she said. “Practically, there will have to be a process … You cannot shut the doors tomorrow and be done.”
The 416-word draft order gives little detail as to what the “steps” of dismantling the department are or what would happen to certain congressionally mandated programs such as the Pell Grant, the student loan system or the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. However, the document does say that any funds allocated by the department should comply with federal law, including Trump’s previous orders on diversity, equity and inclusion and transgender athletes—both of which have been caught up in court.
Neither Trump nor McMahon has so far offered any plan outlining how closing the department would work, though some conservative plans recommend moving the Office for Federal Student Aid to the Treasury and sending the Office for Civil Rights to the Justice Department.
More than 4,000 people currently work for the department, which was created in 1979 and now has a $80 billion discretionary budget. Each year, the agency issues about $100 billion in student loans and doles out more than $30 billion in Pell Grants.
Shutting down the department isn’t popular with voters, recent surveys have found. One recent opinion poll found that 61 percent of all respondents “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed the idea of eliminating the department. Another showed that up to 72 percent either opposed the plan or weren’t sure how they felt. That number was 49 percent among Republicans.
Minimizing a D.C. ‘Footprint’
Trump has signaled for months, if not years, that he wants to shut down the Education Department, and many analysts have already taken a position on the issue.
To Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, nothing about the draft was a surprise. Like McManus, he noted that much of what the order directs McMahon to do is already underway.
Brickman expects the next steps will focus on finding new and “better” ways to maintain the department’s core functions as required under law with “less funding, less staff and possibly in conjunction with other agencies.”
“I don’t think anybody’s talking about cutting major programs,” he said, referencing financial aid services like the Pell Grant and disability protection acts like IDEA. “So the question will be, what is required under law? What can Congress change? And how can the department streamline things to minimize the footprint in D.C.?”
Shutting down the Education Department likely would be disruptive for colleges and students, advocates say.
J. David Ake/Getty Images
McManus stressed that it will be important to protect these core functions, especially the ones related to higher ed, saying it doesn’t make sense to send them back to the states.
“What is most important is that those core statutory functions have the people, capacity and expertise to be able to do effective oversight of how taxpayer dollars are being spent,” she said. “We are significantly less concerned about where those people sit, as long as there is the ability to safeguard taxpayer investments and to make sure that programs that are statutorily required and that have had long bipartisan support, like Pell Grants, are being effectively implemented.”
In Brickman’s view, some of the department’s regulatory operations, like analyzing and creating reports on grant or contract applicants and managing third-party accreditors, are simply “make-work.” By hiring hundreds of staff members to execute these tasks, he said, the department pulls tax dollars from local governments and then forces those same communities to spend more writing grant proposals to get it back.
“There’s just a lot of work and churn that evidence shows does not lead to improved student outcomes,” he said.
But when asked what the Trump administration has done to convince stakeholders he not only intends to tear down the department but also build it back up again, Brickman didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, he referenced actions of the Biden administration.
“The Biden administration broke the entire Federal Student Aid system on purpose … They were trying to illegally turn the trillion-plus-dollar portfolio from a loan program into a grant program,” he said. “That is not what the Trump administration is doing. The Trump administration has tried to improve these programs and make them actually work again.”
Although what Biden did was “unfortunate,” Brickman said, it also creates an opportunity.
“This mess isn’t being created; it’s being responded to,” he said. “I hope institutions that may be predisposed to oppose anything coming from the Trump administration will welcome this as the end of a failed experiment that just put more restrictions on teaching and learning.”
Democrats Push Back
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers, student advocacy groups, civil rights organizations and left-leaning think tanks warn that Trump has no intention of rebuilding, only dismantling. The American Federation of Teachers, a key higher ed union, said the order is a government attempt to “abdicate its responsibility to all children, students and working families.”
Randi Weingarten, the union’s president, recognized in a statement Wednesday night that there are certainly ways the department could be more efficient, but she implied that’s not Trump’s goal.
“No one likes bureaucracy, and everyone’s in favor of more efficiency, so let’s find ways to accomplish that,” she said. “But don’t use a ‘war on woke’ to attack the children living in poverty and the children with disabilities, in order to pay for vouchers and tax cuts for billionaires.”
Senate Democrats criticized the pending executive order to abolish the Department of Education as a press conference Thursday.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images
Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, blasted the Trump administration’s plans at a press conference Thursday. She said that Trump and his unelected government efficiency czar Elon Musk “don’t know what it’s like to count on their local public school having the resources to get their kids a great education … And they don’t care to learn why. They want to break the department, break our government, and enrich themselves.”
To the American Association of University Professors, “dismantling the Department of Education would hasten us into a new dark age.”
Former Biden under secretary James Kvaal told Inside Higher Ed that the draft order should dispel any notion that Trump is not trying to shut down the department. But at the same time, he said, the GOP administration’s approach to doing so has been “schizophrenic” and “inconsistent.”
“It can’t be true that students of color and with disabilities will have their civil rights protected, but also the federal government is not going to be involved in those decisions,” he said.
But at the same time, Kvaal and others note that, ultimately, the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to actually close the Department of Education, making full abolishment more complicated than the president suggests.
Shuttering the agency would require 60 votes in the Senate as well as a majority in the House, as the department’s existence is written into statute. And with a 53-seat majority in the Senate, Republicans don’t currently have the votes unless some Democrats back the plan.
“[The Republicans] don’t have the votes to close the department, and they already plan to enforce their plans on DEI, so it’s not clear what the EO adds to that,” Kvaal said. “It’ll get sorted out in the courts.”
Katherine Knott and Liam Knox contributed to this report.
Your graduate programs should be thriving, but if you’re relying on outdated outreach tactics, you’re leaving enrollments on the table. Today’s grad students expect more personalization, relevance, and connection. And if you’re not aligning with their needs, another institution will. The only way to meet them where they are is by asking the right questions and getting real answers. That’s exactly what Collegis Education and UPCEA did, and now we’re pulling back the curtain to share what we found.
Unlock Graduate Enrollment Growt Proven Strategies for Engaging Graduate Students Date: April 8, 2025 Time: 2:00 pm (Eastern) / 1:00 pm (Central)
Join Tracy Chapman, Chief Academic Officer at Collegis Education, and Bruce Etter, Senior Director of Research & Consulting at UPCEA, for their upcoming webinar “Unlock Graduate Enrollment Growth: Proven Strategies for Engaging Graduate Students.” In this session, they’ll reveal some surprising discoveries about graduate enrollment and the factors that drive impact and growth.
Walk away with a clear understanding of:
graduate student needs and expectations,
why grad students disengage during their enrollment journey,
what information grad students are willing to give you and when, and
how to best communicate and reach graduate students actively evaluating programs.
Who should attend:
Presidents
Provosts
Enrollment leaders
Marketing leaders
At the end, we’ll leave room for questions and conversion, and all attendees will receive a copy of the entire research report. See you on April 8!
President Donald Trump is planning to sign an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps” to close the agency, The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets reported.
The president’s order—scheduled to be signed at 2 p.m. in the Oval Office—is the first step in carrying out his controversial campaign promise to abolish the 45-year-old department. A draft of the order provided to Inside Higher Ed criticizes the department for spending “more than $1 trillion without producing virtually any improvement in student reading and mathematics scores.” Trump’s press secretary called reports about the order “fake news.”
Education advocates have already shown staunch opposition to the executive action. The American Federation of Teachers, a key higher ed union, was one of the first groups to pipe up when the news broke Wednesday evening, calling the order a government attempt to “abdicate its responsibility to all children, students and working families.”
“The Department of Education, and the laws it is supposed to execute, has one major purpose: to level the playing field and fill opportunity gaps to help every child in America succeed,” union president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “No one likes bureaucracy, and everyone’s in favor of more efficiency, so let’s find ways to accomplish that. But don’t use a ‘war on woke’ to attack the children living in poverty and the children with disabilities, in order to pay for vouchers and tax cuts for billionaires.”
The president and his allies have promoted the idea of dismantling the agency since the early days of his 2024 campaign, saying the department has grown too big and interferes in matters best left to local and state authorities. They also argue the agency’s existence violates the Constitution (because the document doesn’t mention education) and is a prime example of federal bloat and excess.
Read More on Trump’s Plans to Break Up the Department
Such an order has been rumored for weeks, and higher education officials have been nervously waiting for the shoe to drop since McMahon was confirmed by the Senate Monday afternoon. But the secretary backed plans to break up or diminish the department at her confirmation last month, and shortly after taking office, she wrote to agency staff about their “momentous final mission,” which includes overhauling the agency and eliminating “bureaucratic bloat.” She never did directly use the words “dismantle” or “abolish” but pledged to “send education back to the states.”
“As I’ve learned many times throughout my career, disruption leads to innovation and gets results,” she wrote. “We must start thinking about our final mission at the department as an overhaul—a last chance to restore the culture of liberty and excellence that made American education great.”
Eliminating the Education Department and sending key programs such as the Office for Civil Rights to other agencies was a key part of the conservative blueprint Project 2025’s plans to reshape education policy in America. But recent public opinion polls have foundsupport for keeping the agency.
One survey conducted by the progressive think tank Data for Progress, on behalf of the Student Borrower Protection Center, a left-wing advocacy group, showed that 61 percent of all respondents “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed the idea of eliminating the department. Another poll from Morning Consult, a data-driven insights company, showed that a large chunk of voters—41 percent—actually want to increase funding to the department.
The order doesn’t mean the department will close tomorrow or even this month, as it calls for the secretary to create a plan to wind down operations. McMahon also told senators during her confirmation that only Congress can shut down the agency altogether.
Higher Ed Officials Brace for Impact
As talks about the department’s demise ramped up in recent weeks, lawmakers, student advocacy groups, civil rights organizations and left-leaning think tanks warned how destructive dismantling the department could be.
Democrats in the House started pushing back on the idea as early as Feb. 10, when they walked directly up to the department’s front doors and demanded a meeting with then–acting education secretary Denise Carter. Denied entry, they argued the department’s existence is key to supporting students with disabilities and making higher education accessible to all.
That same week, several key senators wrote a letter to the department outlining their “serious concerns” about its actions.
“We will not stand by and allow the impact that dismantling the Department of Education would have on the nation’s students, parents, borrowers, educators, and communities,” the lawmakers wrote.
Derrick Johnson, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, put out a statement expressing similar concerns for students of color just minutes after McMahon was confirmed. The NAACP played a key role in the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools, and has been a longtime advocate for equality and opportunity in education. He said that protecting the Department of Education is critical, since the agency not only funds public schools, but “enforces essential civil rights laws.”
“This is an agency we cannot afford to dismantle,” he said.
On Tuesday morning, EdTrust, a nonprofit policy and advocacy group, said America has reached “a dangerous turning point for public education.”
“Simply put: If we are truly to reach America’s ‘Golden Age,’ we need to build a better, stronger Department of Education, not tear it down altogether,” the organization wrote in a statement.
Kevin Carey, vice president of education at New America, a left-leaning think tank, said in a statement that eliminating the department is a “deeply unpopular idea,” citing the organization’s own new polling data.
The survey found that over all only 26 percent of adults support the department’s closure. And though the Trump administration says it is carrying out the will of the people who elected him to office, barely half of Republicans want closure. Even fewer members of the GOP support the specific consequences of shuttering the department, like moving federal financial aid to an agency with no experience overseeing the program.
“This is all part of the standard authoritarian playbook for would-be dictators engaged in tearing down democratic institutions,” Carey wrote. Dismantling the department would be “a nihilistic act of civic vandalism, carried out by ideological zealots.”
Gathering Congressional Support
But Carey and others also note that, ultimately, the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to actually close the Department of Education, making full abolishment more complicated than the president suggests.
Shuttering the agency would require 60 votes in the Senate as well as a majority in the House, as the department’s existence is written into statute. And with a 53-seat majority in the Senate, Republicans don’t currently have the votes unless some Democrats back the plan.
Still, Trump has continued to promote the concept, and red states across the country have backed it. Although the president has not disclosed specific details on how he would try to overcome the political and legal hurdles, higher education policy experts predict he’s likely to leave the skeleton of the department standing while gutting the agency of everything but its statutorily protected duties.
Conservative groups, most notably the Heritage Foundation, have suggested redistributing responsibilities by moving programs to other agencies. For example, the federal student loan system could be moved to the Treasury, and the Office for Civil Rights could be moved to the Department of Justice.
Critics of the idea say that such proposals need more specifics that spell out how exactly the plan would work, what programs would stay, which ones would go away and what agencies would take over the department’s responsibilities.
However, higher ed policy experts from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, say getting rid of the department is “a good idea.” They describe the department as “unconstitutional,” given education is mentioned nowhere in the specific, enumerated powers given to the federal government, and call it “ineffective,” “incompetent,” “expensive” and “unnecessary.”
The founding fathers chose to exclude dominion over education from the Constitution “because education was believed best left in the hands of parents and civil society—the families and communities closest to the children—and certainly not in a distant national government,” Neal McCluskey, director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, wrote in a policy handbook. “Nearly 60 years of experience with major and, until very recently, constantly expanding federal meddling in K-12 education have proved them right.”
