The agency announced Thursday that it will convene two advisory committees to weigh in on changes to the rules and regulations for the federal student loan program, institutional and programmatic accountability, and the Pell Grant program. Officials wrote in the announcement that this round of rule-making was necessary to implement the changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill as well as “other administration priorities.”
Many of the higher ed provisions in the legislation take effect July 1, 2026, and several experts have raised concerns about whether that’s enough time for the department to put in place the necessary regulations and guidance. Among other changes, the law ends the Graduate PLUS loan program, caps loans for graduate and professional students, and expands the Pell Grant to workforce training programs that run between eight and 15 weeks.
To revise the regulations, the department is following its lengthy and complicated process known as negotiated rule making, which involves bringing together stakeholders to review proposed changes and then listening to public comment on the plan.
One group, which the department is calling the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee, will focus on the student loan regulations, including creating new repayment plans and giving colleges the ability to limit how much students can borrow. The RISE Committee will meet twice in September and November for week-long sessions to negotiate policy revisions. If the committee doesn’t reach a consensus, the department is free to move forward with its own proposal, which would still be subject to public comment.
The other policy changes in the law will fall to the other panel, known as the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) Committee. That includes implementing the new earnings test, which requires programs to prove their graduates earn more than an adult with a high school diploma or risk losing their access to student loans, as well as revising the eligibility criteria for Pell grants to exclude students who get a full ride. The AHEAD committee will meet in December and January for week-long sessions.
Both committees will include student borrowers, legal assistance organizations and representatives from various types of institutions, among other stakeholder groups. None specifically include the financial aid administrations who will play a key role in rolling out these changes on college campuses.
To kick off the rule-making process, the department will hold a virtual public hearing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Aug. 7. More information is available on the department’s website.
A majority of students say they interned to gain skills for career advancement in their desired field or role.
Frazao Studio Latino/E+/Getty Images
Employers, college leaders and policymakers have shown growing interest in skills-based hiring for college graduates, and in considering students’ demonstrated learning rather than their major program or degree. This trend signals a need for more hands-on or experiential learning before a student graduates, rather than on-the-job training.
A recent report from Strada shows that students also see this gap; a majority of those surveyed opted to participate in work-based learning to prepare them for a chosen profession or improve their odds as a job candidate.
Report authors also note opportunities for institutions to enhance on-campus experiences to better equip students for the world of work, such as providing professional networking, soft skill development and mentorship.
State of play: Increasingly, employers are emphasizing skills learned in higher education over content, citing a need for students to be adaptable and responsive to the evolving workplace. The drive toward skills-based hiring also stems in part from degree inflation and a re-leveling of jobs that actually require postsecondary education.
For students, this means a smaller share of entry-level positions require a bachelor’s degree. But some employers still screen by demonstrated skills, such as those gained through internships, rather than grades.
Not every student is able to participate in an internship. A 2025 survey from Handshake found that 12 percent of students have not participated in an internship and do not expect to do so before they graduate. Barriers to participation include caregiving responsibilities, limited access to internship opportunities or needing to work for pay. A 2024 report from the Business-Higher Education Forum found that students of color, first-generation students and community college students were less likely than their peers to secure an internship.
The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) published research in May pointing to the benefit of experiential learning for early career outcomes; students who engaged in work-based learning were more likely to say they had better-than-expected career progress, higher salaries and greater general career satisfaction, compared to their peers who lacked an internship.
Methodology
Strada’s National Survey of Work-based Learning includes 2,000 responses from seniors at four-year colleges and universities in the U.S. The study was fielded between October and December 2024.
The study: Strada’s survey found that 65 percent of students participate in work-based learning to gain experience or skills in a specific career or their chosen profession. This echoes Handshake’s survey from early this year, which found that 87 percent of students pursue internships to build valuable skills.
“Today’s students are much more likely to view their experiences as instrumental rather than exploratory,” according to the Strada report.
Thirteen percent said they selected work-based learning experiences as an exploration of work, and approximately 8 percent said their main purpose was to land a job at their host organization.
Students saw paid internships and undergraduate research as most valuable for improving their standing as candidates for future jobs. Practicums were also rated highly, which could include clinical experiences in the health professions or student-teaching roles. Unpaid internships, project-based learning, on-campus jobs and off-campus jobs were seen as less valuable.
Among students who participated in multiple experiential learning opportunities, 81 percent ranked their most valuable experience as at least a seven out of 10. One in four respondents gave that experience a 10 out of 10.
Students who rated their experiences highly were also more likely to say they expanded their professional networking as participants. Students who worked as paid interns or unpaid interns were most likely to say they expanded their professional network.
Practicum participants were most likely to say they gained technical skills relevant to their career goals, followed by project-based learning participants and paid interns. Those working on- or off-campus jobs were least likely to report technical skill development.
On- and off-campus job experiences were rated lowest among respondents for a variety of factors, including value added to their persona as a job applicant, increased technical or durable skills, professional networking and mentorship.
Role of higher ed: Past surveys have shown that students believe their institution has a role to play in giving them internship experience.
A winter 2023 survey from Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse found that 62 percent of students believe their career center should help them get an internship. A 2024 Student Voice survey found that 48 percent of respondents think their institution should focus on helping students find internships and jobs, and 38 percent believe colleges should focus more on helping students prepare for internship and career success.
Students say faculty should also help in this process; one in five Student Voice respondents indicated professors are at least partially responsible for helping students find internships.
Strada’s report includes recommendations for colleges and universities such as:
Set a goal for each student to have at least one work-based learning experience while enrolled.
Integrate more work-based learning into the classroom and on-campus jobs.
Leverage employer feedback to create skill development opportunities in on-campus opportunities, such as courses and projects.
Establish spaces to introduce students to employers or other professionals who can add to their professional network.
How does your college or university prepare students for the world of work? Tell us more.
The disastrous deal between Columbia and the federal government only strengthens illiberal rule behind a façade of liberal values, Austin Sarat writes.
Johns Hopkins University Press (JHUP) is the latest academic publisher to announce plans to license its books to train proprietary large language models. According to an email JHUP sent to authors Tuesday, those who want to opt out of the licensing agreement have until Aug. 31 to sign an addendum to their contracts; otherwise their work is fair game.
The move comes as Johns Hopkins University—the nation’s largest spender on university-based research and development—is facing big budget holes created by the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to federal grants.
“While we do not anticipate huge financial gain for individual books, the cumulative revenue [from LLM licensing deals] would be meaningful for Johns Hopkins University Press and our mission,” read the email sent to authors. “As we anticipate contraction in the higher-education market, these funds can help to sustain our important work as a non-profit publisher.”
While JHUP is not currently operating at a deficit, its executive director, Barbara Kline Pope, said in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the publisher is “exploring how our financial model may need to evolve over the coming years.” Pope did not answer Inside Higher Ed’s specific questions about which company or companies it plans to license book content to, but said that it’s “currently exploring partnerships with both general AI companies and those focused on specialized content and inference models like Retrieval-Augmented Generation,” which can incorporate external information sources to enhance the authority of an LLM’s response.
The press maintains a backlist of about 3,000 titles and publishes roughly 150 new books a year by faculty and other experts in fields such as public health, science, higher education and the humanities. It told authors that they can expect to receive “modest” returns of less than $100 per title per license.
While JHUP did not provide a specific dollar figure for how much revenue it expects to generate from the licensing agreement, some of the biggest scholarly publishers have already proven that there’s money to be made in licensing content to AI companies.
In the two-plus years since generative artificial intelligence tools have gone mainstream, major for-profit academic publishers, including Wiley and Informa (Taylor & Francis’s parent company), have signed agreements with AI companies. While some optimistic authors and observers have said such deals mean well-researched, accurate data will be used to train AI models, others have pushed back. Last summer, authors were outraged after Taylor & Francis failed to notify them before selling their work to Microsoft for $10 million. By the end of 2024, Taylor & Francis reported a $75 million profit as a result of the sale, which boosted its underlying revenue growth from 3 percent to 15 percent in one year, according to Bloomberg.
In addition to JHUP, other nonprofit publishers are jumping on the AI bandwagon—or at least thinking about it. Last year, Oxford University Press confirmed it was working with AI companies to develop LLMs, while the university itself launched a five-year partnership with OpenAI this past spring. Cambridge University Press is still in the process of weighing AI licensing agreements, though it’s also given authors the opportunity to opt out of any future AI-related aggregation efforts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press said in November that multiple AI companies have approached about a licensing agreement; it responded by asking authors for their input and has not publicly announced a deal.
In its notice to authors this week, JHUP said it spent the last year weighing the possibility of licensing its works to train LLMs. In addition to potential financial gain, the press explained that it is deciding to move forward now because an LLM licensing agreement would make authors’ work more discoverable by their intended readers, create some guardrails around content use amid increasing concerns that major LLM companies are already scraping pirated versions of JHUP’s book content, and make a stronger legal case that such companies should be required to pay for access to the publisher’s content.
Sharon Ann Murphy, a history and classics professor at Providence College in Rhode Island who signed two contracts with JHUP long before the rise of LLMs, said she was not surprised—but nonetheless upset—by the notice from JHUP, which includes language from the opt-out addendum. It requires authors who don’t want to license their work to acknowledge that in addition to not receiving any AI-related royalties, “the sales and reach of the Work may suffer as a result of or in relation to the fact that Hopkins Press will not exercise AI Rights with respect to the Work.”
Murphy said she interpreted JHUP’s opt-out clause to mean that authors “are agreeing that they’re going to lose revenue because of this and Hopkins has no responsibility to protect us.”
Murphy is also skeptical of JHUP’s claims in its email to authors that if LLMs adopt technologies that credit the sources of AI-generated response, it will give readers the ability “to identify and click through to the original source” and is “the best way to continue to engage with readers and disseminate (authors’) work widely.”
“They’re saying that somehow this will promote our work, but that’s a specious argument. That’s not how AI models work,” Murphy said. “Academic presses are operating on shoestring budgets, but this seems really short-sighted. Academic presses are in the business of creating real knowledge, but AI is in the business of hallucinating and making stuff up.”
Annette Windhorn, a spokesperson for the Association of University Presses, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that she’s not sure just how many academic presses have agreed to license their content to AI companies.
“An internal query to member presses more than a year ago did reveal that a number of presses had been approached by a variety of companies, but almost none were at that time actually considering an agreement and many presses were deferring initial decision points to university counsel,” she wrote. “Our members are following developments closely, but moving with caution in areas that may impact their authors’, their institutions’, or their own rights and responsibilities.”
The University of North Carolina System’s Board of Governors issued a memorandum requiring each of the system’s 17 campuses to develop a subcommittee to evaluate the campus’s compliance with the system’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policy, The Assembly reported.
They have until Sept. 1 to show how they have complied with the policy, which cancelled previous DEI guidance and mandated neutrality from administrators on political and social issues. As a result of that policy, UNC campuses reported that they laid off dozens of staffers, moved 131 people to new positions, and redirected $16 million in DEI spending to student success and wellbeing programs.
According to the memo, the reviews should include briefings with chancellors about employees whose jobs were changed as a result of the DEI ban.
“These confidential reviews should compare an individual’s prior position to his or her new responsibilities, including how the employee’s performance in that role has changed, and what safeguards exist to ensure an employee’s previous responsibilities do not continue in the present role,” the memo states. “Confidential briefings from the chancellor on any disciplinary action taken against personnel should occur at this time as well.”
The memo comes after four UNC employees were secretly filmed by a conservative nonprofit discussing circumventing DEI restrictions; three of those employees are no longer employed by their universities.
The Trump administration threw its hat in the ring Thursday amid growing debates over how best to manage compensation for college athletes, issuing an executive order titled Saving College Sports.
It comes just over 24 hours after House Republicans in two separate committees advanced legislation concerning the same topic.
“The future of college sports is under unprecedented threat,” the order stated. “A national solution is urgently needed to prevent this situation from deteriorating beyond repair and to protect non-revenue sports, including many women’s sports, that comprise the backbone of intercollegiate athletics, drive American superiority at the Olympics … and catalyze hundreds of thousands of student-athletes to fuel American success in myriad ways.”
Ever since legal challenges and new state laws drove the National Collegiate Athletic Association to allow student-athletes to profit off their own name, image and likeness in 2021, America has entered a new era that many refer to as the wild west of college sports.
Lawmakers have long scrutinized this unregulated market, arguing that it allows the wealthiest colleges to buy the best players. But a recent settlement, finalized in June, granted colleges the power to directly pay their athletes, elevating the dispute to a new level. Many fear that disproportionate revenue-sharing among the most watched sports, namely men’s football and basketball, will hurt women’s athletics and Olympic sports including soccer and track and field.
By directing colleges to preserve and expand scholarships for those sports and provide the maximum number of roster spots permitted under NCAA rules, the Trump administration hopes to prevent such a monopolization.
The order also disallows third-party, pay-for-play compensation that has become common among the wealthiest institutions and booster clubs, and mandates that any revenue-sharing permitted between universities and collegiate athletes should be implemented in a manner that protects women’s and nonrevenue sports.
Many sports law experts are skeptical about the order, suggesting it’s unlikely to move the needle and might create new legal challenges instead.
However, Representative Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, thanked the president for his commitment to supporting student-athletes and strengthening college athletics.
“The SCORE Act, led by our three committees, will complement the President’s executive order,” Walberg said. “We look forward to working with all of our colleagues in Congress to build a stronger and more durable college sports environment.”
The Trump administration’s landmark settlement with Columbia University threatens the institution’s independence and academic freedom, higher education experts say. Many warn that the agreement marks a threat not only to higher education, but also to democracy at large.
The agreement, announced Wednesday, comes after Columbia faced months of intense pressure from the White House to address alleged antisemitism on campus and agree to a number of demands. It’s the latest example of how this administration is pushing the boundaries of its authority to secure changes that conservatives have long sought in higher ed.
In the end, Columbia agreed to comply with the government’s extensive demands while forking over more than $200 million to unlock $400 million in federal grants.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the long-anticipated deal as an example of “commonsense reform,” saying in a statement that Americans have “watched in horror” for decades as the most esteemed campuses were occupied by “anti-western teachings and a leftist groupthink.”
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit and civil debate,” she added. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
But some higher education faculty, legal experts and free speech advocates say the settlement is unlawful, pointing to the quick investigation, vague allegations and unprecedented way federal funds were retracted before Columbia had a chance to appeal. Some went as far as to compare the executive actions to past power grabs by authoritarian leaders in countries like Hungary, Turkey and Brazil.
The very real danger is that if elite institutions choose to submit to the authority of the Trump administration, the whole rest of the industry will follow.”
Kevin Carey, vice president of education and work at New America
Columbia’s capitulation “represents the upending of a decades-long partnership between the government and higher education in which colleges and universities nevertheless retained academic freedom, institutional autonomy and shared governance,” said Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities. “It signals a rise in authoritarian populism in which higher education is positioned as the enemy in a fight against corrupt, inefficient and elite institutions that are out of touch with the needs of the working class.”
A federal taskforce convened to combat antisemitism first presented the university with the sweeping list of demands in March. The decision was simple: comply or permanently lose the federal funds that were frozen a week prior. The Ivy League institution agreed a week later to nearly all of the president’s demands. But the funds remained frozen.
McMahon and other Trump administration officials signed the agreement with Columbia.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Though Columbia was on the “right track,” McMahon and other task force members said the university had a long way to go. While talks with Columbia continued, the task force turned its focus to Harvard University and made similar demands. The Crimson, however, rejected the task force’s mandates and sued after it froze more than $2.7 billion in federal funds.
Many higher education leaders say that Columbia had a choice and chickened out. But regardless, they add, Trump’s ultimatum amounted to extortion.
“Whether you applaud or despise the terms of the deal, the way in which the government is operating, and getting universities like Columbia to make these deals is fundamentally coercive,” said David Pozen, a constitutional law professor at Columbia. “Therefore, it poses a significant threat to the future of higher education as well as the rule of law.”
Pozen and others fear that this will only further embolden Trump to take similar strikes at more institutions.
“The very real danger is that if elite institutions choose to submit to the authority of the Trump administration, the whole rest of the industry will follow,” said Kevin Carey, vice president of education and work at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “It will be like a stack of dominoes one falling after the other.”
Chilling First Amendment Rights
The Trump administration has said the measures taken against Columbia were necessary to address antisemitism on the campus as officials accused the university of failing to protect Jewish students and later said Columbia violated federal civil rights law.
As part of the settlement, Columbia is paying $21 million to address allegations that Jewish employees faced discrimination. The agreement also requires the university to hire a student liaison to support Jewish students.
But the settlement goes beyond antisemitism and focuses on unrelated campus policies. For example, starting in paragraph 16, the administration says that Columbia students cannot reference race in admissions essays and mandates that the university must provide annual data showing both rejected and admitted students broken down by racial demographics, grade point averages and test scores.
When campuses like Columbia and Harvard allowed antisemitism to run amok, the consequences were going to follow. The chickens had come home to roost.”
Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute
The settlement also requires similar data concerning the admission of international students, bans the participation of transgender women in female sports and calls for Columbia to establish a process to ensure that all students “are committed to the longstanding traditions of American universities, including civil discourse, free inquiry, open debate, and the fundamental values of equality and respect.”
In Carey’s view, by buckling to the Trump administration, Columbia surrendered its identity as a private institution—and so would any other university that follows suit.
“The essence of an independent university is deciding who is part of your academic community, and Columbia University has surrendered that,” he said, referring to the admissions provisions.
Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that, in addition to admission practices, this settlement and its “blatant disregard for federal law” will upend academia’s core commitment to fostering First Amendment rights.
“The reforms themselves require Columbia students to commit to laudable values like free inquiry and open debate,” Creeley wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “But demanding students commit to vague goals like ‘equality and respect’ leaves far too much room for abuse, just like the civility oaths, DEI statements, and other types of compelled speech FIRE has long opposed.”
Michael Thaddeus, a Columbia math professor and president of the faculty union chapter, said though administrators insist they won’t allow the government to interfere, that assurance doesn’t mean such acts won’t occur.
“Students and scholars at American universities must be free to think and speak their minds,” he wrote in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “The settlement … risks imperiling this freedom.”
Ditching Due Process
Beyond the terms of the settlement itself, education advocates are primarily concerned with the process used to reach the agreement, which they said didn’t follow procedural norms.
Pozen, the Columbia law professor, outlined in a blog post Wednesday night how the task force bypassed nearly all statutory requirements of such an investigation.
This administration must return to following the rule of law.”
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education
Past administrations, Pozen explained, have pushed the boundaries of regulation, utilizing more guidance letters and fewer formal rule-making sessions with public comment. But even those enforcement strategies consisted of policies that applied to all institutions and were based on thorough investigations, not rushed accusations, he added.
“The means being used to push through these reforms are as unprincipled as they are unprecedented,” Pozen wrote. “Higher education policy in the United States is now being developed through ad hoc deals, a mode of regulation that is not only inimical to the ideal of the university as a site of critical thinking but also corrosive to the democratic order and to law itself.”
Conservative higher education experts who support the administration’s approach acknowledged that it lacked due process, but also argued that Columbia deserved the stipulations and financial penalty it faced.
“When campuses like Columbia and Harvard allowed antisemitism to run amok, the consequences were going to follow,” said Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. “The chickens had come home to roost.”
Hess added that the Trump administration was not the first to “short circuit” regulatory processes, citing the Biden administration’s loan forgiveness campaign and Obama’s use of the gender equity law, Title IX, to combat sexual assault as examples.
“We live in a time when concern for legal requirements and norms is increasingly dismissed across the political spectrum,” so to chastise one administration for skipping steps and not the other is problematic, he said. “I continue to be deeply troubled every time [the procedural statutes] are broken. But you cannot have asymmetrical expectations for the parties in these kinds of debates.”
Shifting the Political Paradigm
While a few figures, including former Harvard president and treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, applauded the resolution, many faculty members and higher education leaders expressed fear that their institutions could be next.
Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit and civil debate.”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon
Kirsten Weld, a history professor and president of the Harvard faculty union chapter, said she is “very concerned” and rejects any suggestion that Columbia’s settlement should be a “blueprint” for her own institution’s negotiations.
“This is about deploying the coercive power of the federal government to dictate to universities, faculty, and students what they should teach, research, and learn, on ideological grounds,” she wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “It is a dangerous abuse of federal regulatory and civil rights enforcement authority to obtain … what it would otherwise be unable to mandate through proper legislative channels.”
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, also suggested via email that “this cannot be a template for the government’s approach to American higher education.”
This administration “reached a conclusion before an investigation and levied a penalty without affording Columbia due process—that is chilling,” he wrote. “This administration must return to following the rule of law.”
But many policy experts are doubtful that will happen any time soon.
When looking beyond just Harvard and Columbia, one thing becomes clear, said Dominique Baker, an associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, the president is inciting an “outright attack” on higher education, and he has no plans of slowing down.
From the political ousting of University of Virginia president James Ryan to the legislative termination of countless academic programs in Indiana with little to no faculty input, Baker identified one defining thread: curtailing the power of democratic institutions.
“We are in a very dangerous time, both for U.S. higher education, but more importantly for our country,” she explained. “These types of outright attacks on colleges and universities are typically the moves of autocrats and dictators, often seen as signs of authoritarian takeovers.”
She later added, “if one wanted to overthrow our constitutional republic, these are the types of moves you would make.”
With a 22-page document and $221 million fine, Columbia University ended its months-long battle with the Trump administration that included accusations of civil rights violations, an accreditation review and a funding freeze that disrupted research and forced layoffs.
The settlement agreement, announced Wednesday night, will force changes to admissions, disciplinary processes and academic programs. In exchange, Columbia should get about $400 million in federal research funding back. The seemingly unprecedented deal will also see the federal government close investigations into alleged failures to police antisemitism on campus. (Despite the settlement, Columbia has not admitted to any allegations of wrongdoing but has acknowledged reforms were needed.)
Critics have decried the agreement as a concession to authoritarian demands imposed for political control, while supporters have argued reforms are necessary at Columbia after a pro-Palestinian encampment in spring 2024 and subsequent protests disrupted campus life.
Although Trump officials purportedly began their crusade against Columbia in an effort to address campus antisemitism, officials’ comments indicate that conservative politics also factored into the settlement.
“This is a monumental victory for conservatives who wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time because we had such far left-leaning professors,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a FOX Business interview following the settlement announcement.
The Trump administration has made clear that this agreement will serve as a roadmap for its dealings with other universities, including Harvard. Much of the agreement reflects what the administration had demanded of Columbia in March, but other provisions—such as a requirement to turn over admissions data and scrutinize international student enrollment—are new and reflect demands sent to other universities.
Here’s what is in the agreement and what it means for Columbia.
Funding Streams Restored
Columbia will see at least a partial restoration of federal research funds.
The federal government will restore grants terminated by the Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health. However, grants terminated by the Department of Education “and other terminated contracts are excluded from this provision,” according to the agreement.
Columbia will be eligible for future grants, contracts, and awards “without disfavored treatment.”
Columbia acting president Claire Shipman emphasized that the agreement was about much more than $400 million, telling CNN on Thursday that federal scrutiny imperiled $1.3 billion a year.
“There are many headlines about $400 million dollars. This is really access to billions of dollars in future funding. And it’s not just money for Columbia. I mean, this is about science. It’s about curing cancer. Cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity,” she said, emphasizing the deal “reset” Columbia’s relationship with the government.
Closure of Investigations
The agreement will close pending investigations or compliance reviews related to potential violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin. That includes a probe by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission into the treatment of Jewish employees at Columbia. Of the $221 million settlement, $21 million will go toward the EEOC complaint.
However, the Trump administration noted in the agreement that the deal does not affect “in any way EEOC’s right to bring, process, investigate, litigate, or otherwise seek relief in any charge filed by individual charging parties or third parties that may later be filed against Columbia.”
Protest Restrictions
Columbia will maintain policies announced in March that deem protests inside of academic buildings and related spaces to be a “direct impediment” to the university’s academic mission.
“Such protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities,” part of Columbia’s settlement with the federal government reads. All protest activity will be subject to university anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.
Prohibitions on masks announced in March will also remain in place.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon has said Columbia’s “unlawful encampments and demonstrations” deprived Jewish students of learning opportunities.
Mary Altaffer-Pool/Getty Images
Student Life Changes
The agreement codifies changes to disciplinary processes announced in March, such as placing the University Judicial Board under the Office of the Provost who reports to the president. Students previously served on the board, but now, it will be restricted to faculty and staff members.
The university president will make the final determinations on appeals cases.
Columbia will also add a student liaison “to further support Jewish life and the wellbeing of Jewish students on campus” who will advise administrations on issues such as antisemitism.
DEI Ban
Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, a frequent target of the Trump administration, are also included in the agreement. The deal bars Columbia from maintaining “programs that promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotas, diversity targets, or similar efforts.”
Per the agreement, Columbia will be required to provide reports “summarizing its compliance with this obligation” and to ensure that university programs do not “promote unlawful DEI goals.”
Changes to Admissions
The agreement emphasizes merit-based admissions and bars Columbia from giving preference to applicants due to “race, color, or national origin.” It also prevents Columbia from using personal statements, diversity narratives or references to race “to introduce or justify discrimination.”
Columbia will also be required to submit admissions data to the federal government on both rejected and admitted students, including demographic details and standardized test scores.
International applicants at Columbia will also be subject to additional scrutiny with the agreement dictating that the university “undertake a comprehensive review of its international admissions processes and policies.” That review is designed to ensure those applicants are “asked questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States.”
Columbia is also required to provide details of “all disciplinary actions involving student visa-holders resulting in expulsions or suspensions, and arrest records that Columbia is aware of” to the extent that is permissible under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Columbia also agreed to examine its business practices and decrease its financial dependence on international students.
CHUYN/iStock Unreleased/Getty
Program Reviews
Maintaining a senior vice provost to provide greater administrative oversight of Middle East studies (and other regional programs), as initially announced in March, is also part of the agreement.
That official will conduct reviews of programs such as the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies; Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies; the Middle East Institute; and various other programs, according to the agreement. Those reviews are intended to ensure programs are “comprehensive and balanced” and include “all aspects of leadership and curriculum.”
But some faculty members have expressed skepticism about additional administrative scrutiny.
Michael Thaddeus, president of the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in an emailed statement that the agreement poses threats to academic freedom at U.S. universities.
“Columbia’s insistence that it will not allow the government to interfere in appointments, admissions, or curriculum is welcome. Yet the creation of a monitor, charged with scrutinizing our admissions data and our Middle Eastern studies department, opens the door to just such interference,” Thaddeus said.
Resolution Monitor
As part of the deal, a third-party resolution monitor will police the agreement.
Bart Schwartz, co-founder of Guidepost Solutions and former Chief of the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, will serve in that role.
The agreement will allow the resolution monitor to access campus for assessment purposes.
Asked if Columbia believed the Trump administration would live up to its side of the agreement and if it had obtained any assurances, a university spokesperson did not provide a statement but instead pointed Inside Higher Ed to language in the agreement on dispute resolution.
That section noted opportunities for arbitration “if either party reasonably believes that the other is in violation of the terms of this agreement,” including reporting obligations outlined in the deal.
Hiring Requirements
The deal also places restrictions on university hiring processes.
Columbia’s agreement will bar the use of “personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discriminatory practices in hiring or promotion.” Other unspecified “indirect methods or criteria that serve as a substitute for race conscious hiring or promotion practices” are also prohibited per the deal.
Columbia is required to submit data on hiring and promotion practices to the resolution monitor.
Codifying and Introducing Changes
While some elements of the agreement are new, other parts simply codify prior changes. For example, changes to disciplinary processes, and greater administrative oversight of Middle East studies (and other regional programs) already announced in March are now codified in the deal.
David Pozen, a Columbia law professor who has argued that “the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme,” noted while some of the deal was foreshadowed, other parts go beyond what was previously announced.
Some provisions “are novel and don’t track what was already said in March,” Pozen said. “There’s language, for example, about all-female locker rooms and sports teams in paragraph 20. I don’t believe that has any antecedent and just seems like a new anti-trans provision. So, it’s a mix of memorialization, extension and innovation in what Columbia has conceded.”
Jim Ryan’s decision last month to step down as president of the University of Virginia in the face of pressure from the Trump administration drew renewed attention to the political appointees steering the public institution who will pick the next campus leader.
Multiple onlookers blamed Ryan’s resignation at least partly on the university’s Board of Visitors, which has been dramatically reshaped over the last three-plus years by Republican governor Glenn Youngkin’s appointments. Since taking office in 2022, Youngkin has stocked the board with former GOP lawmakers, Republican donors and members of the Jefferson Council, a conservative alumni group that called for Ryan’s ouster.
But UVA’s board isn’t the only one that has seen a dramatic overhaul. An Inside Higher Ed analysis shows that boards at public institutions across the state are heavy with GOP donors, former lawmakers and Trump officials, and members with ties to conservative think tanks. Tensions between conservative boards and faculty have prompted two recent no confidence votes and concerns over whether members who are ideologically aligned with Trump will protect universities in the administration’s crosshairs.
Now, a battle is brewing over who gets to serve on Virginia’s governing boards at a pivotal moment for higher education in the commonwealth.
A Battle Over Appointments
When Youngkin took office, he quickly focused on education-related issues, banning so-called “divisive concepts” in K-12 classrooms and purging “equity” from the state education system.
While the Democrat-controlled General Assembly has blocked some of Youngkin’s other efforts to overhaul education, he’s wielded board appointments as a tool to reshape higher education across Virginia, largely bypassing state lawmakers. His appointees have since pushed out university leaders, eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and taken aim at faculty members for teaching on topics such as race and gender.
Democrats in the General Assembly signed off on most of the appointments, even the controversial ones. But the Democrats started pushing back this year.
In January, the Democrats rejected former Trump officials Kenneth Marcus and Marc Short along with four other appointees—a move Youngkin blasted as “petty.” Later, they turned down former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli (who Youngkin appointed to the UVA board in March to replace Bert Ellis, who the governor removed due to his volatile conduct) and seven others.
Democrats argued that the appointees were “poor choices.”
“Historically, the governance of higher education in Virginia has not been nearly this political,” State senator and Democratic majority leader Scott Surovell told Inside Higher Ed.
Surovell said Democrats grew concerned by the actions of Youngkin’s appointees as they gained a majority on the university boards. For example, Virginia Military Institute declined to renew the contract of superintendent Cedric Wins, the first Black leader in VMI history. Wins, a VMI graduate, faced frequent criticism from alumni over diversity, equity and inclusion efforts that were introduced following allegations of a racist and sexist environment at the military school.
But when the Democrats on the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee rejected eight nominations for public university boards in a special session last month, the Youngkin administration refused to accept that outcome. The governor’s office has argued that those nominees need to be voted on by the full Senate and can continue to serve in the meanwhile.
Democrats then sued board representatives of George Mason University, Virginia Military Institute and UVA. The nine state senators who brought the lawsuit alleged that Youngkin “refused to recognize the rejection of those appointments by a coequal branch of government, in open defiance of the Constitution of Virginia and 50 years of tradition in the Commonwealth.” Plaintiffs asked the court to block appointees from serving on those boards.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Friday.
Virginia Education Secretary Aimee Rogstad Guidera accused state Democrats of gamesmanship in a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed and argued that rejecting the recent slate of Youngkin’s board appointees could undermine the governance of public institutions.
“One of the strengths of the Virginia Higher Education system is the quality of citizens who choose to take time away from personal and professional endeavors to serve the Commonwealth as Visitors to our colleges,” she wrote. “The baseless attacks by Senate Democrats on these good peoples’ reputations may deter future leaders’ willingness to serve.”
And Youngkin’s office bristled at the notion that the governor has stocked the board with Republican donors and conservative political figures, arguing all appointees are highly qualified.
“The premise of your question is absurd—to diminish Governor Youngkin’s imminently qualified higher education board appointees as mere partisans is an insult to the citizens who willingly put in the time and effort to voluntarily serve our Commonwealth,” Press Secretary Peter Finocchio wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed. “Governor Youngkin is proud to have appointed individuals who are distinguished alumni of our universities, respected business executives, and integral community leaders who have demonstrated experience overseeing complex budgets, running large organizations, and implementing long-term strategies.”
Concerns at GMU
Among Virginia’s public institutions, GMU’s board has likely attracted the most attention for its picks, which includes 10 former Republican officials, current and former Heritage Foundation employees—which had included Project 2025 co-author Lindsey Burke, who recently stepped down to join the Department of Education—and others with ties to conservative groups.
Although Youngkin’s appointees have featured multiple political firebrands, the appointment of donors is common. Ralph Northam, the Democratic governor who preceded Youngkin, appointed multiple Democratic mega donors who contributed to him. Northam’s appointees to the GMU board included six former Democratic officials. Two other Northam appointees served as legislative aides to Republicans earlier in their careers. (Governors, regardless of political affiliation, frequently appoint donors, though political activists are less common. One notable exception is Florida governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, who has regularly appointed conservative activists and GOP political figures to university boards in recent years.)
Now, many professors question whether the board will meet the moment as GMU faces four investigations from the federal government spanning admissions and scholarship practices, alleged discrimination in hiring decisions, and claims the university has not adequately addressed antisemitism. Given the numerous connections between the Trump administration and George Mason’s Board of Visitors, some faculty members believe that the university is facing a series of coordinated attacks designed to oust GMU President Gregory Washington.
George Mason University President Gregory Washington.
Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images
“I think when you peel back the connections of all of these individuals, it’s hard to imagine that this is not orchestrated or coordinated,” said Bethany Letiecq, chair of GMU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which passed a no confidence vote in the board Monday.
The AAUP chapter expressed support for Washington and condemned the board for “fail[ing] to support President Washington and George Mason University during this period of unprecedented and increasing federal scrutiny and political targeting,” according to a copy of the resolution.
GMU faculty senate chair Solon Simmons, who also serves as the faculty representative on the Board of Visitors, believes “this is a coercive action by the federal government” and that Mason is caught up “in a larger ideological agenda.” But Simmons is less critical of his fellow members.
Simmons said he hasn’t seen “bad faith actions from the board members,” in that they haven’t tried to micromanage faculty tenure cases or dictate what should be in the university curriculum, though he added they have raised concerns about what they believe shouldn’t be included. He also suggested that “they’re enacting their values and sometimes they’re enacting their biases.”
But he added that, in a purple state that has long been trending blue, the board seems politicized.
“They’ve been professional, but they bring a much more conservative point of view than you’d think would be typical of a swing state where you’re appealing to the median taxpayer,” Simmons said.
Letiecq, however, argues the board is packed with extremists who have targeted faculty members. One member, Sarah Parshall Perry, works for the conservative group Defending Education, which posted the syllabus for one of her classes online last year as an example of “indoctrination.” The organization took aim at the graduate level course titled “Critical Praxis in Education” because it included topics such as “white supremacy, family privilege, intersectionality, and gender affirming policies.” Following that post and coverage from conservative media about her research, Letiecq said she has received two death threats.
“Tell me how faculty can feel safe, not just to exercise their academic freedom, but safe in their personhood, when you have extremist board members siccing their organizations on us,” Letiecq said.
George Mason officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed. However, the board has offered some limited statements about the federal investigations, committing to respond to the government’s request and noting its fiduciary obligation to ensure the university continues to thrive.
Fallout at UVA
Meanwhile, at UVA, questions are swirling in the aftermath of Ryan’s resignation, including what the board knew and what role it played. Answers, however, are in short supply.
Former University of Virginia President Jim Ryan.
Mike Kropf-Pool/Getty Images
After Ryan said he would resign, UVA’s faculty senate voted no confidence in the Board of Visitors, alleging they failed to protect “the university and its president from outside interference.” Faculty also accused the BOV of failing to engage the faculty senate in a “time of crisis” and demanded “a full accounting of the specific series of events, and actions taken by the board” that led to Ryan’s resignation.
Initially, the faculty senate intended just to censure the board. That escalated when board members refused to commit to “protecting the selection of the interim president and the [next] president of the university from outside influence,” said faculty senate chair Jeri Seidman. They also declined to share additional details with faculty about Ryan’s resignation.
Of the 17 appointed board members listed on UVA’s website, all have donated to Republican candidates and causes. Of those members, 11 have donated to Youngkin, including several who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his gubernatorial campaign and associated political action committee. Other members also have Republican ties, such as Cuccinelli.
(Northam appointed multiple Democratic mega donors who contributed to him. He also appointed three former Democratic lawmakers to UVA’s board.)
And it’s not just faculty members pressing the board for more transparency. UVA’s board also reportedly ignored requests from 12 deans who asked to meet, noting the palpable concerns of students, faculty and staff, alumni, and other community members. The deans wrote that some donors are withholding pledges and new hires are reconsidering plans to work at UVA.
Seidman said the board has “not been terribly responsive to us,” though she noted legal issues have hampered its ability to meet. Given the legal question over whether Cuccinneli is a board member or not, she said the board could risk lawsuits by including or excluding him from meetings.
UVA officials did not respond to a request for comment.
Vacancy at VMI
At VMI, the Board of Visitors that declined to renew Wins’s contract includes major GOP donors.
Former board president Thomas Gottwald, whose term ended in June, donated $130,000 to Youngkin’s Spirit of Virginia PAC and $77,500 to his gubernatorial campaign. Other members include former Trump official, Kate Todd; former Youngkin adviser, Meaghan Mobbs; two former lawmakers—William Janis and Scott Lingamfelter, both Republicans–and failed GOP political candidate Ernesto Sampson.
(Northam, a VMI graduate, also appointed multiple members who contributed to his campaign.)
Former Virginia Military Institute Superintendent Cedric Wins.
Justin Ide/for The Washington Post via Getty Images
Although the rejection of Wins came immediately after a new swath of appointments, Board President James Inman (a minor Youngkin donor) denied they were given direction by the governor and emphasized members are committed to acting in the best interest of VMI.
“Members of the board recognize their responsibility to work across party lines with the governor, the administration, and the General Assembly to advance the critical mission and vision of the Institute. The VMI BOV has received no directives—binding or otherwise—from Governor Youngkin,” Inman wrote in an emailed statement shared by the university.
Other Appointments
Youngkin has made notable appointments at university boards across Virginia.
Some are national conservative figures such as Carly Fiorina who ran for president as a Republican in 2016 and was appointed to the James Madison University Board by Youngkin in 2023. Fiorina is joined on the JMU board by former Heritage Foundation and Trump Administration staffer Kay Coles James; David Rexrode, former executive director of the Republican Party of Virginia; and other appointees with direct ties to Youngkin or the GOP.
At Old Dominion University, Youngkin appointed Susan Allen, the wife of former Republican senator and Virginia governor George Allen. He also named Stanley Goldfarb to the board, a former University of Pennsylvania medical school dean and national advocate against gender-affirming care. However, Goldfarb was one of the rare Democratic rejections before this summer, which he claimed was because he had questions about the medical school curriculum.
Similar appointments dot multiple boards across the state.
Surovell said now that the partisan composition of Virginia boards has become clear, Democrats are vowing to take up reforms in the next legislative session. Likely reforms include changing the terms of board members so that no one governor can reshape an institution through such appointments over one term. He would also like to see board members wait to take their seats until they’ve been confirmed by the General Assembly. Currently, appointees may join boards after being named by the governor and while awaiting confirmation.
Surovell also thinks Democrats need to hold off on appointments until such reforms are in place.
“The governor has exposed some real weaknesses in our current system of higher educational governance, and we’re going to come back in January, and we’re going to reform the process,” Surovell said.
Kansas public university leaders have ordered employees to remove “gender-identifying pronouns or gender ideology” from their email signatures. The officials say they’re complying with new state prohibitions against diversity, equity and inclusion.
In March, the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature passed Senate Bill 125, a nearly 300-page piece of budget legislation. The following month, Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, signed it into law. A spokesperson from the governor’s office didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment on why.
According to a few lines on page 254, the Kansas secretary of administration must certify that all state agencies—including colleges and universities—have eliminated all positions, policies, preferences and activities “relating to diversity, equity and inclusion.”
SB 125 also specifically requires the secretary to certify that agencies have “removed gender identifying pronouns or gender ideology from email signature blocks on state employee’s [sic] email accounts and any other form of communication.” The law doesn’t define DEI or gender ideology.
Kansas isn’t the first state with a GOP-controlled legislature this year to pass nonfinancial public higher ed provisions by inserting them into budget legislation. Among other things, Indiana lawmakers required faculty to undergo “productivity” reviews and post syllabi online, and Ohio lawmakers stressed that boards of trustees have “final, overriding authority to approve or reject any establishment or modification of academic programs, curricula, courses, general education requirements, and degree programs.”
Ross Marchand, program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Inside Higher Ed the new Kansas law is unconstitutional.
“No one knows how to interpret this, and it’s overly broad,” Marchand said. “And both of these issues are fatal for First Amendment purposes.”
Citing the law, the Kansas Board of Regents issued guidance in June directing universities to comply by the end of this month. On July 9, Kansas State University provost Jesse Perez Mendez wrote to K-State’s campuses that “all faculty, staff and university employees—including student employees—are asked to review and update their signature blocks accordingly.”
On Tuesday, the University of Kansas’s chancellor, provost and chief health sciences officer wrote to KU’s campuses that “all employees shall comply with this directive by removing gender-identifying pronouns and personal pronoun series from their KU email signature blocks, webpages and Zoom/Teams screen IDs, and any other form of university communications.”
The leaders also warned against efforts to circumvent the ban.
“Your KU email account is your only official means for sending emails related to your employment at the university,” they wrote. “Do not use an alternate third-party service, such as Gmail, to conduct university business or communications.”
They told supervisors that “employees who have not complied with the new proviso by July 31 should be reminded of it and the deadline.” They told supervisors to contact human resources about those who continue to refuse—while also telling KU community members to “please consider submitting a Support and Care referral” if they “know of a student, staff, or faculty member who needs assistance as a result of this new requirement.”
A KU spokesperson shared the university’s new policy banning pronouns from email signatures. While it broadly says it applies to “all employees and all affiliates that use ku.edu and kumc.edu email addresses,” it also says “this policy shall not apply to or limit or restrict the academic freedom of faculty.”
Joseph Havens, a KU undergraduate student researcher who has he/him/his listed in his email signature, said fellow students are unhappy with the order and are now adding their pronouns in protest. He said he doesn’t know how this will go over after July 31, but “I’m kind of excited to see the drama.”
Havens said listed pronouns help people to avoid assumptions, and helped him personally to avoid misgendering a professor. “It seems very likely to me that the university’s hands are tied on this,” he said. But “in a lot of ways it feels like they agree with it.”
