Tag: House

  • White House to Meet With Universities Regarding Compact

    White House to Meet With Universities Regarding Compact

    The Trump administration wants colleges to make a number of changes to their policies in order to get an edge in grant funding.

    Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

    After four universities rejected the Trump administration’s compact for higher education, the White House is planning to meet Friday afternoon with the remaining five that have yet to respond.

    A White House official confirmed plans of the meeting to Inside Higher Ed but didn’t say what the purpose of the gathering was or which universities would attend. Nine universities were asked to give feedback on the wide-ranging proposal by Oct. 20.

    The virtual meeting will likely include May Mailman, a White House adviser, and Vincent Haley, director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, according to a source with knowledge of the White House’s plans. Mailman, Haley and Education Secretary Linda McMahon signed the letter sent to the initial nine about the compact.

    So far, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California have publicly rejected the deal. Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University haven’t said whether they’ll agree to the compact. Trump officials have said that the signatories could get access to more grant funding and threatened the funding of those that don’t agree.

    After USC released its letter rejecting the proposal, Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, told the Los Angeles Times that “as long as they are not begging for federal funding, universities are free to implement any lawful policies they would like.”

    Following the first rejection from MIT last Friday, President Trump posted on Truth Social that all colleges could now sign on. The White House has said that some institutions have already reached out to do so.

    The source with knowledge of the White House’s plans said that the meeting “appears to be an effort to regain momentum by threatening institutions to sign even though it’s obviously not in the schools’ interest to do so.”

    The Wall Street Journal reported that Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis were also invited. According to the Journal, the goal of the meeting was to answer questions about the proposal and to find common ground with the institutions.

    Former senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and trustee at Vanderbilt, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the compact was an example of federal overreach akin to previous efforts to impose uniform national standards on K–12 schools.

    “Mr. Trump’s proposed higher education compact may provoke some useful dialogue around reform,” he wrote. “But the federal government shouldn’t try to manage the nation’s 6,000 colleges and universities.”

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to the remaining five institutions as well as the new invitees, but they haven’t responded to a request for comment or to confirm whether they’ll attend the meeting.

    Source link

  • White House Meets With Universities Regarding Compact

    White House Meets With Universities Regarding Compact

    After four universities rejected the Trump administration’s compact for higher education, the White House met Friday with some universities about the proposal. 

    A White House official confirmed plans of the meeting to Inside Higher Ed but didn’t say what the purpose of the gathering was or which universities would attend. Nine universities were asked to give feedback on the wide-ranging proposal by Oct. 20.

    The virtual meeting planned to include May Mailman, a White House adviser, and Vincent Haley, director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, according to a source with knowledge of the White House’s plans. Mailman, Haley and Education Secretary Linda McMahon signed the letter sent to the initial nine about the compact.

    So far, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California have publicly rejected the deal. Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Texas at Austin, and Vanderbilt University haven’t said whether they’ll agree to the compact. UVA said late Friday afternoon that it wouldn’t agree to the proposal.

    The Wall Street Journal reported that Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis were also invited. According to the Journal, the goal of the meeting was to answer questions about the proposal and to find common ground with the institutions.

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to the universities, but none confirmed whether they attended the meeting.

    The nine-page document would require universities to make a number of far-reaching changes from abolishing academic departments or programs that “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas” to capping international undergraduate enrollment at 15 percent. Institutions also would have to agree to freeze their tuition and require standardized tests for admissions, among other provisions.

    Trump officials have said that the signatories could get access to more grant funding and threatened the funding of those that don’t agree. The Justice Department would enforce the terms of the agreement, which are vague and not all defined.

    After USC released its letter rejecting the proposal, Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, told the Los Angeles Times that “as long as they are not begging for federal funding, universities are free to implement any lawful policies they would like.”

    Following the first rejection from MIT last Friday, President Trump posted on Truth Social that all colleges could now sign on. The White House has said that some institutions have already reached out to do so.

    The source with knowledge of the White House’s plans said that the meeting “appears to be an effort to regain momentum by threatening institutions to sign even though it’s obviously not in the schools’ interest to do so.”

    Former senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and trustee at Vanderbilt, wrote in a Journal op-ed that the compact was an example of federal overreach akin to previous efforts to impose uniform national standards on K–12 schools.

    “Mr. Trump’s proposed higher education compact may provoke some useful dialogue around reform,” he wrote. “But the federal government shouldn’t try to manage the nation’s 6,000 colleges and universities.”

    A Joint Warning

    The American Council on Education and 35 other organizations warned in a joint statement released Friday that “the compact’s prescriptions threaten to undermine the very qualities that make our system exceptional.”

    The organizations that signed requested the administration withdraw the compact and noted that “higher education has room for improvement.” 

    But “the compact is a step in the wrong direction,” the letter states. “The dictates set by it are harmful for higher education and our entire nation, no matter your politics.”

    The letter is just the latest sign of a growing resistance in higher ed to the compact. Faculty and students at the initial group of universities rallied Friday to urge their administrators to reject the compact. According to the American Association of University Professors, which organized the national day of action, more than 1,000 people attended the UVA event. 

    And earlier this month, the American Association of Colleges and Universities released a statement that sharply criticized the compact. The statement said in part that college and university presidents “cannot trade academic freedom for federal funding” and that institutions shouldn’t be subject “to the changing priorities of successive administrations.” Nearly 150 college presidents and associations have endorsed that statement.

    The joint statement from ACE and others, including AAC&U, was a way to show that the associations, which the letter says “span the breadth of the American higher education community and the full spectrum of colleges and universities nationwide,” are united in their opposition.

    “The compact offers nothing less than government control of a university’s basic and necessary freedoms—the freedoms to decide who we teach, what we teach, and who teaches,” the statement reads. “Now more than ever, we must unite to protect the values and principles that have made American higher education the global standard.” 

    But not everyone in the sector signed on. 

    Key groups that were absent from the list of signatories include the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of American Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, Career Education Colleges and Universities, and the American Association of Community Colleges.

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to each of those groups, asking whether they were invited to sign and, if so, why they chose not to do so. Responses varied.

    AAU noted that it had already issued its own statement Oct. 10. AASCU said it was also invited to sign on and had “significant concerns” about the compact but decided to choose other ways to speak out.  

    “We are communicating in multiple ways with our member institutions and policymakers about the administration’s request and any impact it might have on regional public universities,” Charles Welch, the association’s president, said in an email.

    Other organizations had not responded by the time this story was published.

    Jessica Blake contributed to this article.

    Source link

  • White House Floats Compact for Preferential Treatment

    White House Floats Compact for Preferential Treatment

    The Trump administration has asked nine universities to sign on to a proposed compact, mandating certain changes in exchange for preferential treatment on federal funding.

    First reported by The Washington Post and confirmed, with additional details, by The Wall Street Journal, the proposal seeks an agreement with nine institutions that are being asked to commit to a 10-point memo referred to as the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

    Among the various conditions, institutions are reportedly being asked to:

    • Ban consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions processes
    • Freeze tuition for a five-year period
    • Limit international undergraduate enrollment to 15 percent of the student body
    • Commit to institutional neutrality
    • Require applicants to take standardized tests, such as the SAT or ACT
    • Clamp down on grade inflation
    • Ensure a “vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus” 
    • Restrict employees from expressing political views on behalf of the institution
    • Shut down departments that “punish, belittle” or “spark violence against conservative ideas”
    • Anonymously poll students and employees on compact compliance and publish the results

    Another requirement mandates that signatories “deploy their endowments to the public good,” such as by not charging tuition to students “pursuing hard science programs (with exceptions, as desired, for families of substantial means)” for universities with more than $2 million per undergraduate student in endowment assets. Universities would also be required to post more details about graduates’ earnings and refund tuition to those who drop out in their first semester.

    After leveraging funding freezes and other tactics to pressure colleges to make changes, the compact reflects a different approach from the administration while still geared toward the same goal—remaking higher education in Trump’s image. May Mailman, a Trump adviser, hinted at the plan in a New York Times interview a week before the proposal emerged, saying it could be a way for universities to affirm they are “doing the right things.”

    “The Trump administration does not want to be all Whac-a-Mole or all negative, but these are the principles that universities and the Trump administration and, frankly, private donors can ascribe to to say, ‘This makes a great university,’” she told the Times.

    Institutions reportedly invited to join are: Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University.

    Those that agree will receive “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants,” according to a copy of the memo published by The Washington Examiner.

    But failure to comply with the agreement would come with steep consequences. Noncompliant universities would “lose access to the benefits of this agreement” for a year. Subsequent violations would lead to a two-year punishment. And the federal government could claw back “all monies advanced by the U.S. government during the year of any violation.” Private donations would also be required to be returned, upon request.

    The Department of Justice would be tasked to enforce the agreements.

    Institutional Responses

    Most universities did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed. But Texas officials seem eager to sign on, sharing a statement indicating their enthusiasm for the compact.

    University of Texas system Board of Regents chairman Kevin P. Eltife wrote in the statement that the flagship was “honored” to be among the institutions “selected by the Trump Administration for potential funding advantages” under the proposed compact, which it is currently reviewing.

    “Higher education has been at a crossroads in recent years, and we have worked very closely with Governor [Greg] Abbott, Lt. Gov. [Dan] Patrick and Speaker [Dustin] Burrows to implement sweeping changes for the benefit of our students and to strengthen our our [sic] institutions to best serve the people of Texas,” Eltife wrote. “Today we welcome the new opportunity presented to us and we look forward to working with the Trump Administration on it.”

    University of Virginia spokesperson Brian Coy told Inside Higher Ed by email that interim president Paul Mahoney “created a working group under the leadership of Executive Vice President and Provost Brie Gertler and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer J.J. Davis to advise him” on UVA’s response to the letter but has not yet made a decision to sign or not.

    USC simply said in a statement, “We are reviewing the Administration’s letter.”

    Both the White House and the Department of Education initially responded to requests for comment with automatic replies because of the federal government shutdown, which began Wednesday. A press office official later responded only to confirm The Wall Street Journal’s reporting.

    Outside Perspectives

    News of the proposal prompted a flurry of criticism within academic circles.

    American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson blasted the idea in a Thursday statement and called on governing boards to reject it.

    “The Trump administration’s offer to give preferential treatment to colleges and universities that court government favor stinks of favoritism, patronage, and bribery in exchange for allegiance to a partisan ideological agenda. This compact is akin to a loyalty oath. Adherence by university administrations would usher in a new era of thought policing in American higher education,” Wolfson wrote.

    The executive committee of Penn’s AAUP chapter also opposed the proposal.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression also criticized it in a post on X, writing that “the compact includes troubling language” specifically pointing to the call to eliminate academic departments critical of conservative ideas, which it cast as undermining free speech.

    “A government that can reward colleges and universities for speech it favors today can punish them for speech it dislikes tomorrow. That’s not reform. That’s government-funded orthodoxy,” FIRE officials wrote.

    Trinity Washington University president Pat McGuire called the proposal “political extortion.”

    Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, told Inside Higher Ed there are multiple issues with the proposal, including vague language about political speech that could allow universities or the federal government to single out faculty members for publicly discussing topics within their expertise. He added that “enforcement is so vague” that it would be easy for the federal government to declare universities out of compliance with the agreement.

    Cantwell suggested, “This is probably a bigger deal than the Columbia [settlement] because it’s creating an incentive structure” that spurs universities to go along or opens them up to retaliation from the federal government, making it risky whether a university signs on or not.

    (Columbia agreed to far-reaching changes to admissions, hiring, disciplinary processes and more in July, including a $221 million fine, when it reached a deal with the federal government to settle over findings that it failed to properly police antisemitism on campus. Columbia did not admit to wrongdoing, but administrators have acknowledged the need for reforms.)

    Brian L. Heuser, a Vanderbilt professor and long-standing member of the university’s Faculty Senate, urged fellow senators and other faculty colleagues to organize against the idea in an email shared with Inside Higher Ed. Heuser called the compact “a dangerous departure from the core values that should underpin our institutions—namely, free inquiry, open debate, and institutional autonomy” and argued that it endangers academic freedom, among other concerns.

    But some conservatives have lauded the idea and want ED to push harder.

    “Secretary [Linda] McMahon deserves credit for working to disincentivize the use of race or sex in college admissions,” U.S. Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, wrote in a social media post. “We must go further—federally accredited institutions should eliminate ALL preferences grounded in ancestry, such as legacy status, or other factors unrelated to merit.”

    Why These 9?

    While it is unclear how the federal government landed on the nine schools as candidates for the proposal, one official told The Wall Street Journal the Trump administration believed they would be “good actors.” But contextual clues offer insights into why some may have been picked.

    Of the nine, only five presidents signed on to a letter published earlier this year by higher education organizations pushing back on government overreach and political interference, which ultimately gathered 662 signatures. Of those five presidents, one has since resigned: Jim Ryan at UVA, who faced pressure from the Trump administration after it claimed the university failed to fully dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

    Two institutions—Brown and Penn—previously struck deals with the federal government.

    Others have drawn attention for political reasons. At Vanderbilt, Chancellor Daniel Diermeier has emerged as a leading voice advocating for institutional neutrality and has clashed with other campus leaders, arguing that higher education is in desperate need of reform, agreeing with frequent conservative criticisms of the sector. And Texas—one of three public institutions on the list—has an overwhelmingly conservative board, and both the system and flagship are led by former Republican elected officials.

    Source link

  • Judge rules White House unlawfully blocked Harvard’s research grants (PBS News Hour)

    Judge rules White House unlawfully blocked Harvard’s research grants (PBS News Hour)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Judge rules White House unlawfully blocked Harvard’s research grants (PBS News Hour)




    Source link

  • GOP-led House panel proposes 15% cut to Education Department

    GOP-led House panel proposes 15% cut to Education Department

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • House Republicans on Monday proposed a 15% cut to the U.S. Department of Education’s budget for the 2026 fiscal year, in line with President Donald Trump’s own plan to deeply reduce funding to the agency. 

    • The plan would advance several of Trump’s key budget proposals, including deep cuts to the Education Department and certain federal student aid programs. However, the plan would reject some of the Trump administration’s proposals, including by preserving the maximum Pell Grant at $7,395. 

    • House lawmakers will need to eventually square their proposals with the Senate, which is considering a different proposal that would largely maintain the Education Department’s current level of discretionary funding. Lawmakers face a government shutdown if they don’t fund the government or pass a stopgap budget measure by Oct. 1. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The House Appropriations Committee’s education subcommittee will mark up the proposal Tuesday evening. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican who chairs the subcommittee, framed the proposal as being in line with the priorities of the Trump administration. Trump has pitched deep spending cuts at the Education Department with the ultimate goal of closing the agency.

    “Even last year, we were dedicated to getting government spending under control,” Aderholt said in a Monday statement. “But now, it’s particularly encouraging to have a partner in the White House that shares this commitment.”

    The House panel’s plan would reduce funding for the Education Department to $67 billion. That’s in line with Trump’s own budget proposal, which critics argued would reduce access to college. 

    Like Trump’s proposal, the House plan would eliminate all funding for the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, according to committee Democrats, who have slammed the proposal. FSEOG, which provides need-based financial aid to undergraduate students, was allocated $910 million in fiscal 2025. 

    It would similarly make deep cuts to the Federal Work-Study program, which provides part-time jobs to college students who demonstrate sufficient financial need. The federal government currently pays up to 75% of students’ wages, while employers pay the remainder. 

    The plan would reduce funding to the program to $779 million, $451 million less than 2025 levels, according to committee Democrats. The Trump administration has proposed even deeper cuts, calling for the program to receive only $250 million in the 2026 fiscal year. 

    The House Appropriations Committee’s plan would also embrace Trump’s proposal to cut funding to the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates discrimination, harassment and sexual violence complaints on college campuses. Under the proposal, OCR would receive $91 million, a decrease of $49 million. 

    And it would zero out funding for several grant and fellowship programs administered by the Education Department, including those that support teacher preparation, campus-based childcare for students and foreign language instruction. 

    However, House Republicans rejected some of the Trump administration’s proposals. For instance, the plan would preserve the maximum Pell Grant, in contrast with the White House’s plan to reduce it by roughly 23% to $5,710. 

    The plan would also keep funding level for TRIO and Gear Up, two programs that help low-income and other disadvantaged students prepare for and complete college. Trump has proposed eliminating the nearly $1.6 billion in funding allocated for TRIO and Gear Up in fiscal 2025, raising concerns from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. 

    The House Appropriations Committee would also cut funding to the National Institutes of Health. It would allocate $47.8 billion to the agency, a $456 million drop from 2025 levels, according to committee Democrats. Trump’s plan, in contrast, called for a nearly $18 billion funding reduction to the agency. 

    Additionally, the plan seeks to rename Workforce Pell Grants, which will provide funding for programs as short as eight weeks, following Republicans’ recent passage of a massive domestic policy bill. Under the proposal, the awards would be renamed Trump Grants “to reflect the President’s commitment to growing the American workforce and expanding opportunities for American workers,” according to a bill summary.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee advanced its own budget proposal in July. It would keep funding largely level for the Education Department at $79 billion for fiscal 2026. 

    That would include maintaining funding levels for TRIO, Gear Up, Federal Work-Study and FSEOG. It would also maintain OCR’s current funding level and provide support for teacher preparation grants.

    Source link

  • ASALH Condemns White House Directive to Review Smithsonian Museums, Calls for Resistance

    ASALH Condemns White House Directive to Review Smithsonian Museums, Calls for Resistance

    Dr. Karsonya “Kaye” Wise WhiteheadThe Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH) has issued a forceful condemnation of the White House’s directive calling for a comprehensive review of Smithsonian Institution museums, warning that the move represents an attempt to “erase or distort” Black history.

    The directive follows President Donald Trump’s social media post attacking the Smithsonian museums as “OUT OF CONTROL,” claiming they focus only on “how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.” The White House subsequently ordered a full review of all archival materials to determine alignment with Executive Order 14235, aimed at “Restore Truth and Sanity to American History.”

    “ASALH stands in fierce opposition to this latest directive and all efforts to erase or distort our history, to silence our voices, and to minimize our story,” said ASALH President Dr. Karsonya “Kaye” Wise Whitehead.

    The 110-year-old organization, which founded Black History Month, partnered with the African American Policy Forum to co-lead a “Hands Off Our History” rally at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History & Culture in Washington, D.C.

    Whitehead characterized the museum review as part of a broader pattern of attacks on diversity and inclusion efforts. She cited the 2023 banning of over 10,000 books, many featuring people of color, and recent executive orders eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs in higher education, medicine, and K-12 history courses.

    “These steps are veiled attempts to rewrite and distort the narrative by removing any mention of the racist actions, words, and deeds that have shaped American history,” Whitehead added.

    The ASALH president described the current moment as part of an escalating campaign that began with what she termed the “whitelash election” of 2017, followed by increased white supremacy after George Floyd’s murder, and culminating in current efforts to “defund libraries, whitewash history curricula, zero-base the Department of Education.”

    ASALH, founded in 1915, positions itself as a bridge between scholars and the public in preserving and promoting Black history. The organization is preparing for its annual conference in Atlanta, scheduled for September 24-28, 2025, which Whitehead said will serve as an opportunity to “organize and prepare ourselves to counter his next steps.”

    The controversy highlights ongoing tensions over how American history is taught and presented in educational and cultural institutions, with particular focus on narratives involving slavery, civil rights, and systemic racism.

    Whitehead added that the organization’s resistance draws inspiration from historical figures including Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, and Harriet Tubman, stating: “Our work as truth seekers obliges us to ‘speak the truth to the people’ and demands that we stay ready.”

    The Smithsonian Institution has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the White House directive.

    Source link

  • HBCUs Await Trump’s Pick to Lead White House Initiative

    HBCUs Await Trump’s Pick to Lead White House Initiative

    President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April promising to “elevate the value and impact” of the country’s historically Black colleges and universities—in part by selecting an executive director for the White House Initiative on HBCUs and a President’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs.

    But four months later, eight months into his second term, these roles remain unfilled.

    Some HBCU advocates say months-long waits are business as usual for these positions, and they remain confident in Trump’s support for HBCUs. Others worry that HBCUs lack their most direct line of communication to the White House at a time of rapid-fire higher ed policy changes.

    Since the 1980s, the executive director of the HBCUs initiative, established by President Jimmy Carter, has been responsible for advocating for HBCUs’ federal policy interests. The President’s Board of Advisors offers guidance to government officials about how to better support and strengthen these institutions.

    Appointees serve as HBCUs’ “in-house advocates,” said Ivory A. Toldson, a professor of counseling psychology at Howard University and editor in chief of The Journal of Negro Education. He served as deputy director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs from 2013 to 2015 and as executive director from 2015 to 2016 under former president Barack Obama. The director and board have historically sought out federal funding and partnership opportunities for these institutions and “made sure that executive-level priorities were shaped in a way that understood the needs of HBCUs.”

    Toldson said there are likely to be “missed opportunities” for HBCUs during the limbo period before an executive director is chosen. He said it’s easy for federal agencies, like the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health, to overlook smaller HBCUs for grants when no one is there to champion them.

    “By them not having representation within the federal government, it becomes difficult for them to advocate effectively for their needs,” he said.

    Robert Palmer, chair of the education department at Howard, said he worries HBCUs don’t have their “earpiece” to the Trump administration at a time when policy shifts, such as upcoming changes to the student loan program, will affect HBCU students.

    The unfilled roles are “quite concerning,” Palmer said. “It almost makes you wonder, is it a priority for him? Because that’s what it signals—that it’s not a priority.”

    Mixed Views

    Other HBCU advocates don’t see a problem. Lodriguez Murray, vice president of public policy and government affairs at the United Negro College Fund, which represents private HBCUs, said he isn’t troubled by the wait because organizations like his have still been able to have “high-power and high-level discussions” with the White House and Department of Education.

    “We’ve been able to get every concern addressed. We’ve been able to get every email returned. We’ve been able to get every meeting request handled,” he said. “The house is not burning down for us. And I have seen no lack of continuity and engagement on our issues at the highest levels.”

    He said it’s more meaningful to him that Trump issued an executive order reaffirming the White House Initiative on HBCUs within his first 100 days and fully funded HBCUs in his proposed budget. He’d also rather the administration take its time to pick “the right individuals” to fill these roles.

    “There have been many individuals who have had the role of executive director of the White House initiative on HBCUs [who] have fallen below what the expectations are of this community,” Murray said. “And so, if the White House is attempting to find the right person to meet a moment and to meet expectations, that’s fine with me.”

    Trump’s pick for executive director during his first term, speaker and consultant Johnathan Holifield, was met with mixed reactions by HBCU supporters because of his lack of prior experience with these institutions. Former president Obama also received criticism for some of his executive director choices, including multiple interim appointments between permanent directors.

    Murray said he’s hoping for someone “with the president’s confidence” who can help bring Trump’s plans to support HBCUs to fruition and who can simultaneously “speak truth to power and express to the president the concerns of HBCUs.”

    For Toldson, “institutional knowledge of HBCUs” and an “apolitical” approach will be critical to a new executive director’s success to avoid HBCUs getting mired in the anti-DEI crusade besieging other higher ed institutions.

    “Regardless of who’s in office, we need representation, and I think that the right representation would be able to balance the needs of the HBCU community with the broader direction of the government,” Toldson said.

    Mounting Anticipation

    Harry Williams, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which represents public HBCUs, said the amount of time it takes for presidents to fill these roles has varied historically. HBCUs have often waited months for these appointments, so the current timeline isn’t out of the ordinary, he said. Former president Joe Biden didn’t officially name an executive director until February 2022, a little over a year after his inauguration.

    Still, a long wait “creates uncertainty, and it creates anxiety,” Williams said.

    “We’ve gotten good information that this is something that will happen, but the timing of it has always been the challenge,” he added. TMCF is reassuring campuses that the administration plans to fill these positions, “but we don’t know exactly when.”

    David K. Wilson, president of Morgan State University, said he and other HBCU presidents are eager to get started on making the promises in Trump’s executive order a reality. They were glad to see the order call on federal agencies, businesses and foundations to partner with and invest more in HBCUs.

    Wilson said he hopes to see these positions filled soon “so that we can begin to express directly to the White House what some of the opportunities are for continued investment in these institutions.”

    “All of them will return unbelievable dividends to the nation,” he added.

    Wilson noted that Howard University recently regained Research-1 status, the coveted Carnegie Foundation classification for universities with very high research activity. Other HBCUs, including Morgan State, are poised to follow in the coming years. He wants to see appointees in place who can help maintain that momentum.

    “We can’t wait to see now what this next era of HBCU investments under the Trump administration will look like,” he said. “We were on a roll, and now the question is, can we roll faster?”

    Source link

  • How Redistricting Threatens Democracy in the 2026 US House Elections

    How Redistricting Threatens Democracy in the 2026 US House Elections

    As the 2026 midterm elections approach, efforts to manipulate congressional district boundaries—under the guise of redistricting—pose a serious threat to representative democracy in the United States. These efforts are not simply a matter of partisan politics; they represent a calculated attack on the principle of one person, one vote, and on the fragile trust working Americans place in democratic institutions.

    Across multiple states, redistricting maps are being drawn to favor incumbents and dominant political parties, most often through a practice known as gerrymandering. While both major parties have been guilty of gerrymandering, the recent wave of redistricting efforts has intensified in key battleground states, particularly following the 2020 Census and court rulings that rolled back federal oversight.

    Some of the most blatant manipulations are unfolding in Southern and Midwestern states, where legislatures have redrawn districts to dilute the voting power of Black, Latino, and low-income communities. In states like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio, courts have intervened—only to be ignored, delayed, or overruled by higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The result: districts that favor white conservative voters while silencing diverse urban and working-class voices.

    These distortions in representation aren’t merely political—they have real consequences for education policy, healthcare, labor rights, and civil rights. When working families and students find themselves in districts designed to neutralize their votes, their needs are less likely to be met by elected officials. Funding for public education, protections for contingent workers, and relief from student loan debt are often neglected in favor of corporate interests and ideological agendas.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision paved the way for even more aggressive gerrymandering, ruling that federal courts could not adjudicate claims of partisan gerrymandering. That decision effectively gave state legislatures a green light to draw lines with political intent, even when the result undermines basic democratic principles. And with the Voting Rights Act gutted in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), many communities of color no longer have a legal shield against discriminatory maps.

    In a just system, redistricting would be handled by independent commissions. In some states, this is happening—California, Michigan, Arizona, and a handful of others have taken steps toward fairer maps. But in most of the country, the party in power controls the process and uses sophisticated data tools—often developed by private firms with little transparency—to fine-tune districts down to the household level. This isn’t democracy. It’s data-driven voter suppression.

    For students, low-income voters, and working-class Americans, the implications are profound. A House of Representatives that does not reflect the electorate cannot be expected to act on behalf of its needs. Adjunct professors, student debtors, gig workers, rural teachers, and public librarians already operate on the margins. When their political voices are diluted, they are pushed even further to the periphery.

    These redistricting battles also have an educational cost. In states where partisan gerrymandering has secured one-party rule, legislatures have targeted curriculum content, attacked diversity and inclusion programs, cut higher education funding, and undermined faculty tenure—all without meaningful opposition. Political disempowerment leads directly to institutional decay.

    The Higher Education Inquirer calls attention to these developments not only because they distort elections, but because they warp the social and economic future of the country. The 2026 House elections may be won or lost not at the ballot box but on a redistricting map drafted behind closed doors in state capitals.

    The right to vote is hollow if the outcome is predetermined. The promise of representative government collapses if districts are engineered to deny equal voice. Without public awareness and pressure, these efforts to undermine democracy will go unchecked.

    It’s time to speak plainly: Unless there is a national movement to restore fairness to the process, the House of Representatives in 2026 will be even less representative of the people it claims to serve.

    Sources:

    • Brennan Center for Justice. “The Redistricting Landscape, 2023–2026.”

    • ProPublica. “How Politicians Use Redistricting to Lock in Power.”

    • NPR. “Supreme Court Ruling Lets Partisan Gerrymandering Stand.”

    • Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “Voting Maps and Racial Disenfranchisement.”

    • ACLU. “Gerrymandering: How It Works and Why It Harms Democracy.”

    • U.S. Census Bureau. “Apportionment and Redistricting Data.”

    Source link

  • Unfrozen: White House releases remaining $5B for K-12 programs

    Unfrozen: White House releases remaining $5B for K-12 programs

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The Trump administration will release the remaining fiscal year 2025 K-12 grant funds that it had frozen — nearly $5 billion — to states and districts, the Office of Management and Budget confirmed Friday. 

    The funding for student academic supports, English learners, immigrant students and teacher training was supposed to be available July 1, but was not released pending a “programmatic review” by OMB, the White House’s budget arm.

    That review was to ensure the grants align with Trump administration policies and priorities, OMB told K-12 Dive earlier this month. The office had said initial findings showed “many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”

    On Friday, a senior administration official told K-12 Dive in an email, “Guardrails are in place to ensure these funds will not be used in violation of Executive Orders or administration policy.” 

    Earlier this week, OMB began releasing $1.3 billion it had withheld for after-school and summer programming under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant, according to the Afterschool Alliance. 

    The remaining funds to be released are:

    • $2.2 billion for Title II-A for professional development. 
    • $1.4 billion for Title IV-A for student support and academic enrichment.
    • $890 million for Title III-A for English-learner services.
    • $375 million for Title I-C for migrant education.

    Education officials, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, education organizations, parents and nonprofits had all urged OMB to release the funds that were approved by Congress in an appropriations bill that President Donald Trump signed in March. They said the weekslong delay in accessing the money was already causing “budgetary chaos” for schools, which began cancelling contracts, laying off staff and eliminating programs when the funds didn’t arrive as scheduled.

    The disruption also spurred two lawsuits. 

    A survey by AASA, the School Superintendents Association, found ​​that nearly 30% of districts said they needed access to the withheld funds by Aug. 1 to avoid cutting programs and services for students. By Aug. 15, survey respondents said they would have to notify parents and educators about the loss of programs and services. The survey was conducted earlier this month and drew responses from 628 superintendents in 43 states.

    On Friday, David Schuler, AASA’s executive director, said in a statement that he was pleased the “critical” funds would now be available to schools.

    Sen Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement Friday, “There is no good reason for the chaos and stress this president has inflicted on students, teachers, and parents across America for the last month, and it shouldn’t take widespread blowback for this administration to do its job and simply get the funding out the door that Congress has delivered to help students.”

    Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, addressed the news during a keynote speech Friday at the Together Educating America’s Children conference in Washington, D.C., according to a press release. 

    “Today, they backed down: our lobbying, our lawsuits, and our advocacy for why these funds matter to kids, it worked.” Weingarten said.

    Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, said in a Friday statement, “These reckless funding delays have undermined planning, staffing, and support services at a time when schools should be focused on preparing students for success.”

    Source link

  • House Appropriators Propose 23% Cut to NSF

    House Appropriators Propose 23% Cut to NSF

    The agency received $9.06 billion in fiscal year 2025 but could lose $2 billion under the House plan.

    National Science Foundation

    House Republicans want to cut the National Science Foundation’s funding by about $2 billion, according to budget documents released Monday. 

    The House proposal shows Republicans’ priorities as funding talks for the coming fiscal year ramp up. Congress has until Sept. 30 to reach an agreement on a budget, which is made up of 12 appropriations bills, or else the government could shut down. The House appropriations committee has released several proposal bills, while its Senate counterpart is just getting started. 

    Still, funding for NSF is already one point of disagreement between House and Senate appropriators. Last week, Senate Republicans indicated that they would cut only about $16 million from NSF, leaving the agency with just over $9 billion.

    The House plan, which would give NSF about $7 billion, is just a proposal and doesn’t go as far as President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2026, which cuts more than $5 billion from the agency.

    A House appropriations subcommittee will review the spending bill at 12 p.m. July 15—a key step before the full committee and entire House can consider the legislation. The National Science Foundation’s budget is just one piece of the bill, which also includes spending plans for the Justice and Commerce Departments and other science agencies. Since the Senate and House have to agree on the bills, the 23 percent cut is likely not the final figure.

    Source link