Stacy Bartlett, currently the chief of staff at Point University in Georgia, will become the institution’s president, effective July 1.
Michael Benson, president of Coastal Carolina University, has been named the 27th president of West Virginia University, starting in July.
John Butler, the Haub Vice President for University Mission and Ministry at Boston College, has been appointed the institution’s president, beginning in the summer of 2026.
Elizabeth Cantwell, president of the Utah State University system, has been appointed president of Washington State University, effective April 1.
Sylvia Cox, executive vice president and chief academic officer at Southeastern Community College, has been named president of Rockingham Community College, effective May 1.
Wendy Elmore, currently executive vice president and provost of Lamar State College–Orange in Texas, has been named the institution’s next president, effective June 1.
Andrea Goldsmith, dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, will become the seventh president of Stony Brook University, effective Aug. 1.
Adam Hasner, executive vice president of public policy for the Geo Group, has been named president of Florida Atlantic University.
Elizabeth Kiss, who most recently served as CEO of the Rhodes Trust, will become president of Union College, effective July 1.
Michelle Larson, president and CEO of the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, has been named president of Clarkson University, effective April 1.
Dean McCurdy, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Ivy Tech Community College, has been named president of Colby-Sawyer College, effective June 1.
Heather Norris, formerly the interim chancellor of Appalachian State University, has been appointed to the position permanently, effective March 1.
Joseph Odenwald, president of Southwestern Michigan College, has been named president of Alma College, effective June 1.
Andrew Rich, dean of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at the City College of New York, has been appointed president of Franklin & Marshall College, beginning this summer.
Daniel Shipp, the president of Pittsburg State University, has been named president of Maryville University in Missouri, starting in June.
Shane Smeed, president of Park University in Missouri, has been appointed president of Utah Tech University.
Gentry Sutton, currently executive vice president and vice president of advancement at Warner University in Florida, has been appointed president of the institution.
Suzanne Walsh, president of Bennett College in North Carolina, has been named president of City University of Seattle, effective July 1.
Jermaine Whirl, who most recently served as president of Augusta Technical College, has been appointed president of Savannah State University, effective April 1.
When President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency set out to slash billions from the federal budget, it puzzled me as to why one of their first targets was an obscure data collection and research agency, the Institute of Education Sciences, a relatively modest operation buried deeply in the corridors of the Department of Education, and indeed one few had ever heard of. Since then, the newly installed secretary of education has ordered a review of all the department’s functions as part of what she ominously called the department’s “momentous final mission.”
A conversation with a trusted colleague helped me understand the cuts to IES, noting that the action should be seen as part of a new breed of autocrats around the world who seek to control information to hide the impacts of their actions from the public. In contemporary authoritarian governments, control of information—or what has come to be known today as informational autocracy—often substitutes for brute force.
Similar to how the Trump administration is seizing control of the White House press pool, canceling contracts for independent, high-quality education research is another way of controlling information. As Democratic lawmakers wrote in a Feb. 21 letter decrying the cuts, “The consequences of these actions will prevent the public from accessing accurate information about student demographics and academic achievement, abruptly end evaluations of federal programs that ensure taxpayer funds are spent wisely, and set back efforts to implement evidence-based reforms to improve student outcomes.”
IES houses a vast warehouse of the nation’s education statistics. Data collected by the agency is used by policymakers, researchers, teachers and colleges to understand student achievement, enrollment and much more about the state of American education. With IES being among the largest funders of education research, cutting it limits public access to what’s happening in the nation’s schools and colleges.
In the Obama years, public data helped reveal bad actors among for-profit colleges, which were receiving millions in federal aid while delivering inferior education to poor and working-class students who yearned for college degrees. Since so few actually completed, what many got instead was crushing college debt. Luckily, good data helped drive nearly half of all for-profit programs to shut down. Publicly disseminated data exposes where things go wrong. But you can’t track down con men without evidence.
Ideally, in a well-functioning democracy, with a richly informed public, data helps us reach informed decisions, leading to greater accountability and enabling us to hold officials responsible for their actions. With access to reliable information about what’s happening behind closed doors, data helps us understand what may be going on, even to protest actions we may oppose.
Lately, however, things aren’t looking good. Since Trump and his top officials have slashed race-conscious programs and moved to prohibit funding for certain areas of research, higher ed leadership has remained mostly silent, with only a handful of college presidents protesting. Most have shrunk into the wings, cowed by Trump’s power to defund institutions. It already has the eerie feeling of watching your step.
Shutting down potentially revealing data collection is perhaps the least worrisome page in an autocrat’s playbook. As Trump continues to follow the authoritarian path set by leaders in Hungary, Turkey and elsewhere, we should expect other, more damaging and more frightening higher ed moves that have been imposed by other autocrats—selecting college presidents, controlling faculty hiring and advancement, punishing academic dissent, imposing travel restrictions.
Just a few months ago, there was comfort in knowing everything was there—data on enrollments, graduation rates, participation rates of women and other groups. All very neatly organized and accessible whenever you wanted. Even though some found IES technology old and clunky, it felt like higher ed was running according to a reliable scheme, that you could go online and open data files as in a railroad timetable. Without it, there might be a train wreck ahead and you wouldn’t know it until it was too late. Now these luxurious numbers may soon be lost, with decades of America’s academic history pitched into digital darkness.
It’s frightening to realize that we’ll no longer be operating on solid intelligence. That we’ll no longer have guideposts, supported by racks of sensibly collected numbers to tell us if we’re on the right path or if we’re far afield. Trump’s wrecking ball has smashed our confidence, a confidence built on years of reliable data. We’ll soon be in the dark.
Robert Ubell is vice dean emeritus of online learning at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering and senior editor of CHLOE 9, the ninth national survey of higher ed chief online learning officers. A collection of his essays on virtual education, Staying Online: How to Navigate Digital Higher Education, was published by Routledge.
Stacy Bartlett, currently the chief of staff at Point University in Georgia, will become the institution’s president, effective July 1.
Michael Benson, president of Coastal Carolina University, has been named the 27th president of West Virginia University, starting in July.
John Butler, the Haub Vice President for University Mission and Ministry at Boston College, has been appointed the institution’s president, beginning in the summer of 2026.
Elizabeth Cantwell, president of the Utah State University system, has been appointed president of Washington State University, effective April 1.
Sylvia Cox, executive vice president and chief academic officer at Southeastern Community College, has been named president of Rockingham Community College, effective May 1.
Wendy Elmore, currently executive vice president and provost of Lamar State College–Orange in Texas, has been named the institution’s next president, effective June 1.
Andrea Goldsmith, dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, will become the seventh president of Stony Brook University, effective Aug. 1.
Adam Hasner, executive vice president of public policy for the Geo Group, has been named president of Florida Atlantic University.
Elizabeth Kiss, who most recently served as CEO of the Rhodes Trust, will become president of Union College, effective July 1.
Michelle Larson, president and CEO of the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, has been named president of Clarkson University, effective April 1.
Dean McCurdy, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Ivy Tech Community College, has been named president of Colby-Sawyer College, effective June 1.
Heather Norris, formerly the interim chancellor of Appalachian State University, has been appointed to the position permanently, effective March 1.
Joseph Odenwald, president of Southwestern Michigan College, has been named president of Alma College, effective June 1.
Andrew Rich, dean of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at the City College of New York, has been appointed president of Franklin & Marshall College, beginning this summer.
Daniel Shipp, the president of Pittsburg State University, has been named president of Maryville University in Missouri, starting in June.
Shane Smeed, president of Park University in Missouri, has been appointed president of Utah Tech University.
Gentry Sutton, currently executive vice president and vice president of advancement at Warner University in Florida, has been appointed president of the institution.
Suzanne Walsh, president of Bennett College in North Carolina, has been named president of City University of Seattle, effective July 1.
Jermaine Whirl, who most recently served as president of Augusta Technical College, has been appointed president of Savannah State University, effective April 1.
According to 2024 general election exit polling, 42 percent of voters with college degrees voted for now-President Donald Trump, compared to 56 percent of those without college degrees. Asked how they feel about this growing education gap in the electorate—what researchers call the diploma divide—25 percent of college and university presidents say they’re very or extremely concerned about its implications for their institution.
More say they’re highly concerned about the growing divide’s impact on higher education in general (58 percent) and on American democracy (64 percent). That’s according to a new analysis of findings from Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents, completed with Hanover Research.
Presidents also offer a scathing review of how higher education has responded to this divide thus far: Just 3 percent think the sector has been very or extremely effective, versus not at all, somewhat or moderately effective. The leaders have a similarly dismal view of how higher education is responding to declining public confidence: A mere 1 percent, rounded up, think it has been highly effective. Much larger shares of presidents think higher education has not been at all effective in responding to the public confidence crisis, with presidents of private nonprofit institutions especially likely to say so, or to the growing education divide in the electorate.
The Diploma Divide
Experts say that the diploma divide can’t be decoupled from the public confidence crisis, and that both have implications for the intensifying debate over, and presidential communication about, higher education’s value—especially in this political moment.
More on the Survey
Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents was conducted with Hanover Research starting in December and running through Jan. 3. The survey included 298 presidents of two- and four-year institutions, public and private, for a margin of error of 5 percent. Download a copy of the free report here, and check out reporting on the survey’s other findings, including what presidents really think about faculty tenure and student mental health, and their expectations for the second Trump administration.
On Wednesday, March 26, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will present a webcast with campus leaders who will share their takes on the findings. Register for that discussion here.
“Presidents should be making very clear and very concrete what the practical benefits of their university are, not just for the students that attend that university but for the community, the state at large,” said Joshua Zingher, an associate professor of political science and geography at Old Dominion University who studies elections and political behavior, including the diploma divide. “Thinking about the long-term development of the U.S. as a science power or a technology power is very much a story of the university.” He noted that football games at the University of Iowa, in his home state, pause after the first quarter so that fans can wave to patients in the campus children’s hospital—an example of how society depends on thriving colleges and universities, and how cuts to university research and other funding have ripple effects.
Matt Grossman, professor of American politics and public policy and director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, who co-authored the 2024 bookPolarized by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics, agreed there is reason for presidents to be concerned about the diploma divide, in that the “analogies are not great.” Just think of the politically polarized trust in so-called mainstream media, an institution in which both Democrats and Republicans were once largely confident.
But whereas Zingher said that presidents might have to “take a position” at some point, even if many loathe being seen as political figures, Grossman pointed to existing public polling linking declining confidence to concerns about ideological bias within institutions, at least among Republicans. So Grossman said he was surprised by how few presidents in IHE’s annual survey most attribute declining trust to concerns about ideological bias (11 percent). About double that share say concerns about ideological bias are very or extremely valid (22 percent).
Grossman explained that higher education has always been culturally liberal, but as social and cultural issues become more central to how people vote, it’s harder for institutions to “be above the fray.” Indeed, higher education is now a wedge issue. As for how campus leaders should respond to the diploma divide, Grossman said, “The first step would be a realization that they know that they are facing these complaints.”
Presidents of private nonprofit institutions are somewhat more likely than their public counterparts to express the highest level of concern about the divide’s impact, including on higher education in general. Region also appears to matter, with presidents in the South least likely to worry about the divide. Regarding its impact on American democracy, for example, some 45 percent of presidents in the South are very or extremely worried, versus 62 percent of those in the Midwest, 73 percent of those in the West and 75 percent in the Northeast.
The widening diploma divide means that voters without a college degree are increasingly likely to vote Republican and those with a degree are increasingly like to vote Democratic. With the Republican Party growing more critical of higher education, this has real consequences for college and university missions and budgets.
But Keith Curry, president of Compton College and chief executive of the Compton Community College District, emphasized that educating students, including about voting, transcends politics: “It’s important that as leaders we’re bipartisan, and to focus on helping students register to vote and participate in the [democratic] process. They have to understand the issues and how to gather the information. They make their own decisions.”
For what it’s worth, faculty members in a fall poll by IHE and Hanover overwhelmingly said that they planned to encourage students to vote in the 2024 election. But just 2 percent planned to tell students to vote for a particular candidate or party.
Jay Akridge, trustee chair in teaching and learning excellence, professor of agricultural economics and former provost at Purdue University, offered a slightly different take. Calling the diploma divide “concerning,” he said it might “make higher ed think more about students with parents who did not go to college and how to better serve this group of first-generation students.”
The Value Debate
If not concerns about ideological bias, to what do presidents most attribute declining public confidence in higher education?
From a list of survey options, the plurality (49 percent) cite concerns about the value of a college education and/or whether college is worth it. A less common choice: concerns about lack of affordability, including high tuition (18 percent). And very few presidents point to concerns about whether colleges are adequately preparing students for the workforce (7 percent).
Some differences emerge by institution type, with public presidents more likely to cite concerns about whether college is worth it than their private nonprofit peers (54 percent versus 43 percent, respectively). But presidents of private nonprofits are somewhat more likely to blame concerns about affordability (22 percent versus 15 percent of public institution presidents).
As for whether presidents think that such concerns are actually founded, half say that concerns about affordability are very to extremely valid, with presidents at public institutions (57 percent) significantly more likely to say so than those at private nonprofits (39 percent).
And while very few presidents over all (1 percent) most attribute declining public confidence in higher education to concerns about equity, including access and outcomes for historically underrepresented groups, a quarter (26 percent) think that such concerns are highly valid. The same goes for higher education being disconnected from society (24 percent say this is highly valid)—something that’s arguably linked to the diploma divide, as well.
Just 15 percent of presidents say the value question is highly valid. Some 40 percent say it’s not at all valid, while an additional 46 percent rate it as somewhat or moderately valid.
In IHE’s 2024 Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers with Hanover, 94 percent of CBOs somewhat or strongly agreed that their institution offers good value for what it charges for an undergraduate degree. Just 9 percent of CBOs said their institution charges too much for an undergraduate degree.
As for the student perspective, in IHE’s 2024 Student Voice survey series, most current two- and four-year students agreed that they’re getting a valuable education. But they were much less likely to agree that their college was affordable.
Martha Snyder, partner at HCM Strategists, says the education firm’s own U.S. polling and other research has found a general, even bipartisan belief “that education beyond high school in some form or fashion is necessary and important for longer-term economic viability, prosperity and longer-term job security.” But—similar to the Student Voice findings—the “disconnect tends to be in accessibility and affordability.” That is, even as Americans may understand the long-term value of higher education, it is undercut by the immediate challenges of paying for it—especially when weighed against the opportunity cost of not working, or perhaps not working as much, while pursuing a degree.
Snyder says this also points to a need for institutional transparency on cost of attendance and for better presidential communication as to why higher education works the way it does.
“Think about the notion of a credit hour, right? The complex way that pricing happens is not easily understood by students and families. And even though net price has fallen, well, what is net pricing?” she said. “So there’s another disconnect in how we are communicating the information we’re providing to individuals about the opportunities, about the pathways and about what the end result is, in terms of career opportunities and career advancement.”
Akridge, of Purdue, also noted the gap between the relatively large share of presidents who think concerns about the value of a degree are driving declining public confidence and the relatively small share who point to concerns about whether or not colleges are adequately preparing students for the workforce, as these two points are connected. Moreover, he said, there “are plenty of valid questions raised by employers about whether or not college graduates are ready for the work world.”
In just one example, a recent survey of U.S. employees and human resources leaders by Hult International Business School found that 85 percent of recent graduates wish their college had better prepared them for the workplace, and 75 percent of HR leaders say most college educations aren’t preparing people at all for their jobs. There’s a lot to mine here‚ some of it probably generational (Gen Z employees aren’t necessarily mangers’ favorites, and they have their own expectations about work).
Employer-led skills training has long been on the decline, as well. In any case, Akridge said that given employer perceptions about lack of preparation, “presidents are missing an opportunity—the so-called skills gap is an issue they can take action to close. And this is an issue where such actions will be well received by the public and will make a great story to tell.”
Akridge and David Hummels, professor of economics and dean emeritus at Purdue, last fall launched “Finding Equilibrium: Two Economists on Higher Ed’s Future,” a Substack newsletter seeking to inform the value conversation. It has offered a number of ideas for improving the career readiness of college graduates, including elevating teaching and learning as a priority through curricular and co-curricular design, innovation and delivery; rethinking organizational structures and student support with a focus on career readiness; and strengthening connections and feedback loops with employers. Akridge and Hummels have also written about how the economic case for college remains strong and how the price students actually pay to attend college has fallen.
Hummels told Inside Higher Ed that presidents are especially well positioned to share this kind of information with the public, to address the value debate head-on: “They are not passive actors. They need to get out in their communities and around their states, talking to high schools and chambers of commerce and the like, making the case that college is affordable with grant aid. That the return on college is large and positive when you take challenging courses of study and make the most of co-curricular opportunities.”
The big asterisk here is that completion rates hover in the mid–60 percent range for four-year institutions. Students pursuing more expensive college options but moving into lower-wage jobs is another problem. So it’s also “clear higher ed does not work for everyone,” Akridge said. “We don’t create value for all students.” And how to get better remains “an essential question.”
More on Affordability—and the Diploma Divide
Curry, president of Compton College, said he has no doubts about higher education’s value, but that affordability is a highly valid concern at his institution.
“We have students who are thinking about, ‘Do I buy a book for math class, or do I get food?’ They have to make some real decisions based off of their current finances about to going to college. It is not just the tuition cost. It is the total cost of education—what does that look like?”
Similarly, students are weighing the cost of working versus going to college. This means that they have to be able to see higher education’s value in real time, Curry said. One way the college is helping students understand this is with program maps that list careers, salaries and other opportunities connected to various areas of study.
For Hummels, affordability also points right back to the diploma divide in terms of future funding for higher education. If a majority of voters without a college education vote for one party and express a growing conviction that college is not worth it, he said, “then it becomes easier to cut back on Pell Grants, on subsidized student loans, on state support for universities.”
The impacts of these cuts would be felt most strongly by lower-income and lower-education households, he continued, and “the lack of support becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. College will become out of reach for these households.”
Even as someone who has done his fair share of thinking and writing about teaching writing, I did not realize that his landmark book, Writing Without Teachers, was first published all the way back in 1973. For sure, the approach to writing he advocated for in Writing Without Teachers and subsequent books challenged the prevailing dogma of academic writing by emphasizing freedom, student agency and audience above correctness and authority, but to consider the full import of Elbow’s message and compare it to what happens in writing classrooms, it’s tough to see a full “transformation” at work.
At the time I started teaching freshman composition as a graduate TA (1994), I had never heard of Peter Elbow, and none of the people tasked with preparing me for the job introduced me to his work. In fact, I would not encounter Elbow until 2001, when I expressed frustration with teaching through the lens of rhetorical “modes” and how I wished that I could get students writing more freely and authentically because I was tired of reading performative B.S. written for a grade.
“You should try Peter Elbow,” I was told. I did, and it was like the clouds suddenly parted and I could see the sun for the first time. Anyone who teaches writing as a process, who uses peer review and reflection, is working from Elbow-ian DNA. This surely fits any definition of transformation, doesn’t it?
But also, why was I not introduced to Peter Elbow as a beginning writing teacher? Why, at the time I did discover him, were departments still teaching rhetorical modes, or composition as (essentially) essays responding to literature?
In hindsight, I can tell that Elbow’s views on writing must have had a significant impact on the kind of writing I was asked to do in school and how I did it. I’ve written extensively how my grade school teachers of the 1970s privileged creativity and writing problem solving over correctness, engendering a lifelong curiosity about how writing works.
But by the time I was a teacher, it seems as though whatever transformation Elbow had caused had been beaten back, at least to some degree. Focus on process and revision remained, but this process was deployed in the making of very standard, significantly prescriptive artifacts that were easy to explain, straightforward to grade—as they fit established rubrics—and (at least in my experience) largely uninteresting to read and (in the experience of many students) uninteresting to write.
It isn’t surprising that attempts at giving students room to maneuver, which make it difficult to compare them to each other or standards of sufficiency, are resisted by those who prefer order to exploration. The most popular composition textbook of recent years is They Say/I Say (well over a million copies sold) a book that literally coaches students to write using Mad Libs–style templates to imitate forms of academic writing, under the theory students will learn academic expression through osmosis.
Having tried this book for half a semester, I understand its appeal. It’s really just a more refined version of the prescriptive process I used in the 1990s teaching rhetorical modes. If your primary goal is to have students turn in an artifact that resembles the kind of writing that would be produced through a scholarly process, it is very handy.
If the goal is to get students to think like scholars or go through a process that requires them to wrestle with the genuine challenges of academic inquiry and expression, it is a lousy choice. These are simulations of academic artifacts, predating the simulations now easily created by large language models like ChatGPT.
The orderly logic of “schooling” seems to repeatedly win over the mess and chaos of learning. Elbow argued that discovery and differentiation was the highest calling of the learning process, and that writing was an excellent vehicle for fulfilling this calling. This requires one to get comfortable with discomfort. For some reason this is serially viewed as a kind of threat to school, rather than what it should be, the focus of the whole enterprise.
The New York Times obituary calls Elbow’s approach a “more reflective and touchy-feely process,” which I read a signal as to the lack of rigor of the approach, but in truth, it’s the opposite. There’s nothing particularly rigorous about compliance, particularly when enforced by an authority above with all the power, like a teacher wielding their grade book.
As I’ve found over and over in my career, including weekly in this space for the last 13 years, there is nothing more demanding than being asked to deliver a thought that could only come from your unique intelligence. There is also nothing more interesting for both the writer and the reader.
Ultimately, I evolved in ways that make me not quite a full Elbow-ian. The experiences in The Writer’s Practice are structured in ways that do not quite square entirely with Writing With Teachers, though even as I write this sentence, I cannot help but note that calling the assignments in the book experiences, and the fact that I wrote the book in such a way that it could be engaged in the absence of a teacher, suggests that maybe the gap isn’t as wide as I perceive.
While I was working on the manuscript of what would come to be called More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, I would play around with possible titles, as the title on the proposal—“Writing With Robots”—was used for the purpose of getting attention for a book proposal, not something that genuinely reflected the sentiments of the book I planned to write.
One of the titles I considered was “Everyone Should Write,” a reference to one of Elbow’s later collected volumes, Everyone Can Write.
One of the gifts of the existence of large language models has been to demonstrate the gap between machine prose and that which can be produced by a unique human intelligence. In a way, this only revalidates Elbow’s original insights of Writing Without Teachers, that we, as humans, have a higher purpose than producing school artifacts for a grade.
I’m not giving up hope that we can accept this gift.
Legal challenges to the Education Department’s guidance ordering colleges to rescind all race-based programming are piling up.
A week after the American Federation of Teachers sued the Trump administration over the guidance, the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit that seeks to restrain the department from enforcing the Feb. 14 letter.
Similar to the AFT lawsuit, the NEA argues that the letter and its threat to cut federal funding would hamper public schools’ function as “the nation’s ‘nurseries of democracy.’” The NEA lawsuit was filed in the New Hampshire federal district court, while the AFT’s challenge is in Maryland district court.
“The Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for … fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance,” Becky Pringle, president of the NEA, said in a news release. “We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons.”
NEA alleges that the Dear Colleague letter “imposes vague and viewpoint discriminatory prohibitions,” “invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” and causes “substantial, irreparable harm.” The NEA wants the court to declare the letter contrary to constitutional rights and place a permanent restraint on the department, preventing it from enforcing the letter’s orders.
After a year of many last events, Cabrini University celebrated its final commencement ceremonies last May and a “legacy” event to ceremonially close the institution and pass the legacy to Villanova University, which purchased the campus. As the emotions have tempered, and Cabrini’s president and academic leadership team have moved on to new career opportunities, we offer these lessons learned for financially struggling colleges that may be facing the possibility of closure, as well as insights for colleges in positions of financial strength on how they can help.
If Your College Is Struggling Financially
The quickest route to a chaotic close is running out of cash. Depending on how liquid an institution is—a combination of how much actual cash it holds with how many assets it has that can quickly be converted to cash—running out of cash can happen suddenly. A constant awareness of liquidity is imperative to avoid such a terrible outcome, and any potential partner will ask how long the cash will last as a preliminary decision criterion.
This is the third part of a three-part series. Parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here.
For many institutions, the most accessible cash resource is the unrestricted portion of the endowment. This can be both a blessing and a curse. Some institutions today are actively drawing more on their endowment than the historic 4 to 5 percent in support of annual operations in order to solve potentially existential challenges (the blessing)—but if the revitalization effort fails, then institutional resources may not be available to preclude closure (the curse). Without the Villanova partnership, Cabrini would have faced a significant cash crunch, which would have forced very difficult choices, especially related to supporting employees in the final stages of closing.
Rating agencies have also called out the growing amount of deferred maintenance colleges are facing. This is an in-the-weeds problem that many institutions are not addressing, at their great peril. In Cabrini’s case, we had to close a residence hall due to a heating system failure, and a heavily used campus road was so frequently repaired that it was difficult to traverse. We also could not provide competitive equipment for students in one of our most popular majors.
For institutions on the brink, deferred maintenance can be a real deterrent when considering deal terms with potential partners. Villanova has announced that it will spend $75 million to upgrade the Cabrini campus.
Here are some additional factors financially struggling institutions should consider:
Your accreditor will not tell you to close until it is too late. Cabrini did not receive any warnings from its accreditor in the decade prior to closure. The institution remained accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education through graduating its final class and even moved through the required accreditation self-study process in the final year of operation. Do not rely on your accrediting body to make decisions for you.
Be honest and transparent with your campus community about enrollment and the college’s financial reality.
Consider the cash reserves necessary to close with dignity. Your expenditures will be higher than normal during the wind-down period. You will need to secure an excellent legal team with expertise in closing colleges. There will also be costs associated with exiting long-term contracts and licenses as well as severance and retention costs. Anticipating these increased costs and decreased revenues in the final year is critical to the success of the closure.
Anticipate that alumni may want to “save the college.” If you do not have a history of alumni making large gifts, these efforts will be unlikely solutions. When entertaining such possibilities, consider the amount necessary to raise not just to keep the institution open for another year, but to sustain operations over time.
Plan for a closing timeline, even if you are not certain you will close. Choosing the right time in the academic calendar to announce a closing is an especially challenging task. Primary consideration must be given to future educational opportunities for students, followed by maximizing employment opportunities for faculty and staff. If it is possible to announce a closing after the end of an academic year for two years into the future, that affords the opportunity to graduate juniors and seniors while preparing sophomores and first-year students for teach-out, and gives faculty up to two academic recruiting cycles, which is especially helpful for tenure-stream faculty. Having sufficient funding on hand is key to offering a two-year closing time frame, given that fiscal and human resources start to deplete as soon as a closing announcement is made.
As you plan for a closing timeline, consider the ethical responsibility to deliver a robust student experience. In its final year, Cabrini prioritized using funds for student events and experiences and reduced or eliminated budgets for employee travel, professional memberships and other non-student-facing services.
If Your College Is Preparing for a Closure Announcement
If your institution has decided to close, consider the following steps before you announce:
Build a website with critical information so that all of your constituents—students, employees, alumni and donors—can receive information. Continue to add to FAQs as more information becomes available.
Keep the circle of people who know about the impending closure small to avoid leaks prior to having as much planned as possible. Using nondisclosure agreements is critical. While holding this news may be questioned as unethical, the decision to wait to announce until plans are in place provides the community with more clarity on partner/teach-out institutions, career counseling, mental health counseling, health care, plans for severance and retention agreements, etc.
Consider hiring a crisis management team to prepare you for the announcement.
Plan to host open forums (virtually and in person) for parents, students and faculty to support their transitions immediately after the closure announcement. Understand that the messaging may not be absorbed when people are upset. Post recordings or PowerPoint slides on your closing website.
Plan for mental health support for employees and students, with both in-person and virtual options.
Plan for the many human resources issues you will need to consider. Compliance with the federal WARN Act is crucial in order to not incur additional costs. If you provide a notice of a year or more, you will want to retain key faculty and staff. Simultaneously, you will want some melt of employees to align with the melt of students (and tuition income) that will occur. This means you will need to consider both retention and severance agreements, while complying with terms laid out in employee handbooks.
Remain in close communication with your accreditor(s) and continue to report on compliance with standards as well as the closure plan. They have processes and expectations that colleges need to honor in order to retain accreditation for the final graduating class. As noted earlier, Cabrini had to complete a regularly scheduled Middle States self-study process, including the site team visit, in the final year of operation, while also completing processes related to closure and the asset purchase agreement.
Anticipate that there will be additional administrative tasks to finish after students and faculty leave. In this regard, there will seem to be multiple dates that feel like an ending—the date when academics cease and degrees are no longer awarded, the date when accreditation ends, the date when a transaction occurs for the property, the date the endowment transfer process happens through the Orphan’s Court—a process specific to Pennsylvania—and more. Audits, financial aid close-out and reporting requirements, tasks related to tax compliance, discontinuation of vendor relationships, transition of student records, withdrawal from the federal international student program and other administrative tasks will need to occur after most campus employees have been terminated. Understanding these requirements and creating a checklist for closure will keep your leadership team on track.
If Your College Has Announced Plans to Close
Request department chairs work collaboratively to identify students who can realistically graduate prior to closing, determine what courses these students need and schedule classes to meet these needs. Closing institutions need to be flexible but not sacrifice the quality of the education. Modifying degree requirements to the point where students do not have the skills and knowledge that is expected of the degree is unethical.
Adapt catalog policies to ensure due process for managing grievances, academic standing determinations, grade disputes/changes, hearing requests, etc., within the timeline for closure. Once closed, transcripts cannot be modified.
Establish a working group on record retention to determine what needs to shift to another institution or agency and what needs to be shredded.
Prepare faculty and staff on campus to assume many roles as their faculty and staff colleagues depart throughout the year.
Anticipate that alumni will suddenly be more engaged than they have been in recent years. Your focus must remain on taking care of your current employees and students, who deserve a robust experience.
Give yourself grace and extend that to everyone around you. Everyone is experiencing some level of grief, stress and trauma. Be flexible even while knowing that at times you will need to have firm deadlines to respect people’s bandwidth and complete processes. Understand that students and employees will react differently and move on different schedules.
Have hope. There are moments of your closure period that will be horrific. There is no other way to describe it. There will also be moments of solidarity and togetherness. Ultimately, a closure can be a period of forced growth for many people. Many Cabrini employees found a new job opportunity that advanced their careers.
If Your College Isn’t Closing, but a College in Your Area Is
If a college or university in your area is closing or is rumored to be closing, talk with them to ask how you can best support them. Before posting information on your website or speaking with the media about welcoming the students from the closing college or university, ask the closing institution directly about how you can best support their students and employees for a smooth transition.
Working with institutions to establish memorandums of understanding for supportive transitioning of students is important, as is acting with transparency and honesty. Unfortunately, there were institutions that exhibited predatory behaviors toward Cabrini students with flashy, false promises that led vulnerable students to spend more time and money to complete their degrees. Don’t be that institution.
If a college provides a notice period, understand that actively recruiting their students or employees prior to closure might negatively impact the closing institution. If you would like to offer employment to someone at a closing institution who is in a key position such as director of financial aid or registrar, consider communicating with the closing institution to seek a solution that can provide a transition period, possibly splitting the employee’s time between the two institutions.
Final Reflection
In an ideal world of higher education, no institution would have to endure a sudden or planned closure. However, the current financial and enrollment pictures at many colleges and universities point to a harsher reality.
For others working at institutions that are exploring mergers, acquisitions or closures, do not work in isolation. There are now many higher education professionals who have lived through this experience who can offer advice confidentially and understand the need for nondisclosure. Higher education will be stronger if we work together, not in competition, and recognize our shared mission to serve students and our communities.
The final two years were a very difficult time for Cabrini University’s community. The institution’s leadership is forever grateful to the faculty and staff, all of whom rose to the occasion to embrace the many lasts. Their selfless work and sacrifice will serve as a legacy for Cabrini, as will the colleges where Cabrini students chose to continue their educations and the institutions where former Cabrini faculty and staff will continue their careers.
Helen Drinan served as interim president of Cabrini University. Previously, she served as president of Simmons University.
Michelle Filling-Brown is associate vice provost for integrated student experience and a teaching professor in the Department of English at Villanova University. She formerly served as chief academic officer/dean for academic affairs at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Richie Gebauer is dean of student success at Bryn Mawr College. He formerly served as assistant dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University.
Erin McLaughlin is the interim dean of the College of Arts, Education and Humanities at DeSales University. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Business, Education and Professional Studies at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Kimberly Boyd is assistant professor of biology and anatomy and physiology at Delaware County Community College. She formerly served as dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 25 years.
Missy Terlecki is dean of the School of Professional and Applied Psychology at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Arts and Sciences at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 19 years.
Lynda Buzzard is associate vice president and controller at Villanova University. Previously, she served as the vice president of finance and administration at Cabrini University in its final year.
In addition to having sufficient clinicians and trained professionals to support students in crisis, finding ways to deliver wellness support to students before they’re in crisis is critical.
One strategy is embedding mental health counselors into student spaces or academic departments. By integrating services into a physical location, such as a student center, clinicians can connect with students in informal and intentional ways, gaining their trust and supporting specific pockets of the campus community. Around 32 percent of college counseling centers employ an embedded clinician, according to a recent survey by the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors.
In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader spoke with Estevan Garcia, chief wellness officer at Dartmouth College, to learn more about public health approaches to mental health support on college campuses. Later, hear from Casey Fox, associate director of integrated services at the University of South Carolina, who leads the university’s integrated mental health program, about how efforts have scaled.
An edited version of the podcast appears below.
Inside Higher Ed: The focus on health and wellness is an ever-present and growing concern in higher education, as more institutions realize the potential that negative health and wellness can have on student retention and outcomes and their thriving throughout their college experience. We’ve seen more recently, mental health has grown as a concern; students are telling us that, national data is showing that.
I wonder if you can talk a little bit about the public mental health crisis that we’re seeing among young people, especially college students, and just this ever-growing need for more support and more resources to help our young people?
Estevan Garcia, Chief Wellness Officer at Dartmouth College
Dartmouth College / Katie Lenhart
Estevan Garcia: To think about where we are today, and a little bit about how we got here, as far as young adults, adolescents, teenagers as well, and the challenges around mental health, the way I look at this is probably, for the last 10-plus years, we’ve seen an increase in mental health concerns, an increase in depression, anxiety.
I’m a clinician; I work in emergency departments. And in about 2012, 2014 in that area, I started seeing children and young adults coming in in crisis with mental health crisis. This is not something that we saw before.
I tell folks all the time that I did not have a significant amount of training around emergent mental health crisis in children and young adults—even though my specialty is pediatric emergency medicine, which is this area where we take care of kids in the emergency department—and I say young adults, because we really do cover till about age 25.
So this was not looked at as a need for the training back then, and I trained in the ’90s up to about 2000, but then we saw this really increased need, I think, and most researchers believe that this coincides significantly with the use of a cellphone or the use of an iPhone, and the idea that social media has become so pervasive in everything that our children do.
That is something that we know is a contributor. There’s quite a bit of evidence that suggests that. So what we’ve understood, that we were in crisis for several years, we were starting to see these needs of our children, adolescents and young adults, and then the pandemic hit in 2020 and that really tipped us over.
The reason that happened, and we all understand this now, at the time, I was a public health practitioner and so really was an advocate of, “Let’s make sure we’re not spreading COVID. Let’s close those schools,” and do all of the things that we thought were the way we kept our kids safe and our faculty safe.
What happened is, any of those social connections that students had really dissipated during the pandemic. They were not allowed to be in school together. They weren’t allowed to even play outdoors. We were so worried about the pandemic. That was kind of the fraying of the social fabric that was supporting many of these kids.
So that’s when this really did peak, and what we’ve noticed since then—it wasn’t as if those students in college in 2020 to 2024, it’s over once they graduate. That’s not it at all. Because there were children in middle school who weren’t able to go to school. They were children in elementary school, those kids in high school that clearly impacted their ability to have social cohesion and support from peers.
And what we’ve seen in colleges now is there is a leveling off of the anxiety and depression numbers we were seeing—and that’s good news—since about 2021, 2022. And we’re hopeful that what that means is that we’re starting to see some correction here, but it’s still significant. There’s still a significant need. We’ve kind of returned to that pre-pandemic level of anxiety, depression and need, and that is ongoing. It’s across college campuses, whether you’re an Ivy League or you’re a community college. It’s across high schools, junior highs, and there’s real need for us to pay attention, to support students through this process and happy to talk about that some more, but that need is there. It’s real, and we need to really focus on how we address those needs.
Inside Higher Ed: We know from research also that sometimes college students who have the most need are not the ones accessing resources, as well. We see students from historically marginalized backgrounds, who may come from less resourced communities, feel more independent where like they can solve problems on their own.
I’m thinking of our first-gen students who are historically rewarded for being independent and solving their own problems, and then get to college and might not access those same resources. Providing access to support for these students with greater mental health concerns is a growing issue.
I wonder if you can talk about the clinician role in helping students break down those barriers to accessing mental health resources and understanding the role that they can have in their recovery and their support throughout college.
Garcia: I think it’s important to divide our efforts into two camps, or two ways of really approaching this.
You have individuals who have clinical needs, and at Dartmouth, that’s about 20, 25 percent, and those clinical needs are clinical diagnoses of anxiety or depression … and that is what we provide on campus and a bunch of different ways. I’m happy to address those.
In addition to that, I think we need to work with the rest of the student body from a preventative wellness approach, to make sure that they understand that they have access to wellness activities, to things that build resilience. It’s a toolbox or a tool kit of ways to manage daily stressors in life, failing a test, breaking up with a significant other, potentially loss of a family member—all of the things that they’re going to encounter, in addition to being in academics and being in college.
We need to build their portfolio of resources. That’s also, I think, very important in the way we approach this kind of mental health crisis, is to really look at it from a preventative lens.
So to your point about making sure that we are addressing the individual needs of communities, especially marginalized communities, potentially first-generation communities, I think it’s important to not paint this with a broad brush. We need to be individual, and we need to work with the individuals. We need to look at our individual groups and really understand what they need.
This is when we partner with our students: Our students are telling us what they need, and we can’t assume that they’re going to come to us; we need to come to them. We need to make sure that we’re embedding mental health resources where the students would access them and not [saying], “Come to the counseling center, and that’s when we’ll meet with you.”
One example that I give is our really integrating our ability to support students and their mental health in our athletic programs. And at Dartmouth—we call it DP2, it’s really our Dartmouth Peak Performance—and we are embedding within the varsity sports, but also our club sports intramurals. About 60, 65 percent of students participate in athletics at Dartmouth.
We are really trying to embed within those different systems supports that make it easy for a student to reach out and to talk to the coach, we then help the coach understand how to identify a student in need, what to do if they if they have higher needs, and [if] the coach and or the athletic trainer is comfortable managing, we do training and mental health first aid.
We also do something we call Campus Connect, that allows us to identify the resources for students, and then obviously they can engage my office if there are real concerns about students, that they’re afraid, that need immediate support, and we do that as well. So that is just one example of how we embed within the activities that students are doing every day that they may not think have a wellness component or have this potential counseling component, and they’re there.
Inside Higher Ed: I’m so glad that you bring up this network of supports for students, because there is no silver bullet when it comes to supporting student mental health, and every student’s needs are going to look a little different. It really does take a public health approach to addressing student needs, because they’re all different.
I want to go back to your example of athletics-embedded resources, because I think that’s a really interesting student population that we have where they’re very competitive, they’re driven, they’re engaged, they’re super involved on campus. And sometimes that can result in some of these challenges when it comes to juggling mental health and academics or their personal lives or things like that, and how those targeted resources can address those specific needs that those athletes might have compared to the general student population.
The benefit that it brings, one, to the students, but also to the practitioners who are working with them, and that intimate relationship that they get to cultivate with those athletes. So I wonder if you can just talk about that a little bit more, the relationship between how embedded resources are targeted but also personalized and intimate.
Garcia: For our athletes, and certainly our varsity athletes here, we do have a fairly robust set of offerings. There are two embedded psychologists that have expertise in sports psychology, embedded for the varsity teams and the varsity athletes.
But in addition to that, there are performance coaches, which is a different level of support, but focusing on what the needs are … You would understand that some athletes maybe need nutrition and sleep coaching and support. We have embedded nutritionists; we have sleep support. We have an entire module and support around leadership. So these are all areas across the campus that we’re offering to our athletes.
Initially, this was offered really to our varsity athletes, but as we’re growing our understanding of what our … intramural students participating in sports need, we’ve selected a couple of our really winning supports, and we’re going to be able to expand those in the future to the larger population of athletes on campus. That includes that leadership component, the sleep and nutrition and mental performance. Those are three areas that we will be then taking best practices from varsity athletes and expanding the trainings, the offerings and the supports to other athletes.
Then our ultimate goal is to be able to share these resources with any student on campus who is interested in learning in this way.
There is a direct link from, of course, from our sports psychologist to our overall counseling center. And if they believe someone needs more in-depth counseling, or if they’re identifying other concerns, maybe an eating disorder, we’re able to utilize our system of care here on campus to support the students that have those needs identified through the sports psychologists and performance coaches … and if they need, they’re then moved to our counseling center. We have a close relationship with Dartmouth Health, which is actually our health system here, even being in a rural location, and so we have access to experts across the field, and we’re able to engage with them as well, so that that really does tie in here.
Inside Higher Ed: Placing access where students are is one way to remove barriers to formal mental health care. Are there other strategies or interventions that you’re all considering when it comes to helping students move past the stigma of utilizing mental health resources?
Garcia: Interestingly enough, the stigma for college students is real. It’s still there. It’s probably more significant for male college students than female college students. But it’s clearly something that we see. We mentioned a little bit about marginalized groups and their use of mental health services. I will say one thing we’re proud of at Dartmouth is that our use of mental health services is the same for that 20, 25 percent, depending on the year, is [reflective] of all students. Our first-generation students or historically marginalized students do not utilize health services at a lower rate than anybody else here. We’re really proud about that.
We’ve made the idea of mental health services part of who you are. We’re integrating the idea of wellness into academics. I think that’s something that we forget. Oftentimes people feel like you can move it separate: You’re a student at one point, and then when you’re depressed, you’re not a student, or you’re not somebody who’s worried about the academics. And we clearly know that the pressures of academics for college students and being successful will impact them as well.
So certainly, I think it’s important to understand that you want to go back and you want to see where the students are and meet their needs. But one thing that I think is really important is the idea of peer support.
We have a mental health student union here on campus, and last year, they held a town hall for students, and … four individual students who had mental health concerns and diagnoses came forward and talked about those individual concerns they had and how they were able to receive the help they needed on campus, as well as through the networks, and really bringing forward the idea that it’s OK to have these conversations. They shouldn’t be talked about only in an office. They shouldn’t be talked about in whispers; we really do need to make it clear that if you have concerns or and need support, it’s here.
We train students to be peer advisers and peer supporters, and we do it in many different areas across campus, but that is also very important, because often students will go to a fellow classmate first before they come to us. And I think that’s really important to understand. Our peer supporters get good training. They’re not expected to be counselors. They’re expected to be a shoulder to lean on, and then they understand what the resources are and available on campus. So peer support is really important as well. And I think we need to continue to strengthen those engagements between students as well.
Inside Higher Ed: I’m so glad that that’s something that you touched on, because I think at Ivy institutions specifically, there can be a stereotype or a misconception that students are hypercompetitive. They are obviously high-achieving students, but that they are able to perform those interpersonal relationships and be vulnerable with each other about the struggles that they’re going through as well, I think really helps break down that barrier of “Everybody else is doing just fine, but I’m not,” or “I’m the only person who’s struggling with this” and really creates a community of care where students can lean on one another, and, like you said, be referred to more resources as they need.
The University of South Carolina is one institution that has designated embedded counseling supports as a focus for holistic student care. Casey Fox from Carolina shares more about the campus work.
Inside Higher Ed: When we talk about the integrated services program, what does that mean on a practical and logistical level?
Casey Fox, a licensed marriage and family therapist, professional counselor and professional counselor supervisor, as well as the associate director of integrated services at the University of South Carolina.
University of South Carolina
Casey Fox: Right now, we have integrated clinicians in four spaces across campus. We are a large urban campus, and we have a central hub where we provide our counseling services.
In 2022 we identified a space in the law school, so we embedded a clinician over there, and she has been there doing wonderful work since then, but we now have clinicians that are in three other spaces across campus. So we’ve got the First-Gen Center, we’ve also got Global Carolina, and then we’ve got an embedded clinician in the engineering and computing school.
The idea of integrated services is really just looking at the barriers to access. One of the pieces with that is, when you look at the central hub for coming over for services, a lot of students, depending on positionality, are not able to get to this location. Maybe it’s the parking, maybe it’s the gaps between their classes, maybe they don’t live on campus, and just even coming to that main space is difficult based on all of their competing values.
What we’ve looked at is ways that we can spread staff out in order to address that and remove some of those barriers, so that we’re welcoming students in some spaces that maybe they’re more likely to walk into.
Inside Higher Ed:You mentioned that you started with the law school, and that’s a population when it comes to embedded counseling I haven’t seen quite as much. We talk a lot about athletes or underrepresented minority students. What are some of those barriers for law school students that they’re not engaging at that central facility?
Fox: When we’re looking at the barriers for law school students, I think historically, if we look at the nature of what it is like to be in the law school and be a law student, there’s a lot of time in between courses that students are really just in that space studying.
But the other side of that, we’ve got students who, in many ways, are not traditional students anymore. Law school is not undergraduate, and so there’s a lot of things that are competing for time. There’s some law school students that are parents, there’s some law school students that have families that they attend to, and so coming over to the other side of campus for counseling services, I think can be really difficult.
But the other piece of that, not just time, but I think there’s some perceived stigma. I think that there’s a competitive nature to being a law school student, and with that, I maybe don’t want to say that I feel weak, or this idea that I need the support or help, because this is supposed to be stressful. Then there’s this perception, I think very often, of, like, “If I need any form of mental health resources or services, that must mean that I’m not doing well, or there’s something acutely wrong with me.”
I think what’s really beautiful about embedding someone in that space in particular, is that we’ve been able to do some of this wraparound care and mental health literacy, to really address, right, that, like, “Hey, it’s really normative to need these services.” Our embedded clinician there has become a part of that team and unit, and it’s really normalized what it means to have a conversation with someone in the world of mental health, what it means to maybe acknowledge that mental health has multifaceted layers, and that there’s a lot of areas around prevention. Like, if I’m feeling overwhelmed, maybe I need to talk to somebody to develop some coping strategies so that I can better manage this, so that it doesn’t become something that is maybe acute or pervasive.
Inside Higher Ed: I love the relational element of integrated counseling services, because, like you’ve mentioned, it’s not just that one-on-one time. They’re also not omnipresent, but very present in those spaces, and can build relationships. I wonder if you can talk about that element and how that also decreases barriers to access.
Fox: The relationship part is one of my favorite parts. I am over in the First-Gen Center, and I love the relationships that I’m building, not just with the students in those spaces, but also with any faculty or staff member.
What’s really important to acknowledge is, if we look at students, if we look at faculty and staff, I think everyone genuinely cares about the Carolina community and wants to support each other, but sometimes we don’t know how. I think with faculty staff as well, there’s a lot of things that are competing for our time and energy, and if we feel like maybe we don’t have that skill set, we might not know how to navigate a difficult conversation or sit with a student in distress.
So the relationship building, in particular, for me feels so important, because I’m able to then become a friendly face that students are like, “OK, I chatted with her about the cookies she brought in, and so now I’m feeling a little overwhelmed, and maybe I can go and chat with her about this thing that I’ve never shared with anyone.”
Really similarly with faculty and staff, where they want to help students, but maybe are feeling like they’re not sure how. If they know me, if they’ve met me and had a conversation with me, they are much more likely to say, “Casey, I’d like to consult with you,” which is a significant part of an embedded clinician’s role is: to offer space to consult.
The other piece that I talk about a lot is we consult with a lot of students who actually are wanting to care for friends—sometimes family, too—but friends that are students here. I have people who come in and they’re like, “I’m really worried about my roommate, and I don’t know what to do. I don’t think I need counseling. But can I talk to you about what’s available to me or how I navigate this?” I love that preventative component of this. Not only are we building relationships with a lot of stakeholders and campus partners, but we’re actually out there with students, and I think experiencing, too, some of the emerging needs and really paying attention to some of the specific components of what it means to be a law school student or engineering student.
Yesterday, I was at a career fair for the engineering students, and I watched people walk around, and I thought to myself, “This is really intimidating, right?” I think even being in those spaces, and getting a feel for what that might be like for students allows for me to walk into a space feeling more informed and navigating that with that student.
Inside Higher Ed: There’s obviously benefits to the student, and like you mentioned, the faculty and staff by having you be present in these spaces, but for you as a clinician as well, it helps build your knowledge of what those student needs might be, and gives you an ear to the ground on campus. Can you talk a little bit more about that?
Fox: I believe that is part of our role. We are looking at, what are the trends, what are the themes? Law school students in particular, something our clinician has done there, has named that like during different parts or stages of the semester, there’s things that I want to home in on because students are really focusing hard on all the things they have to do. Some of their courses are comprehensive exams that can be really stressful. There are initiatives that are put in place to provide support and care with awareness of how that structure academically maybe looks different than other structures.
Another, I think, really important piece to acknowledge is that our embedded clinician law school is aware and privy to information on, what does the bar [association] need? Another barrier right is that sometimes people are like, “Well, if I do come in for counseling, is that going to be reported to the bar? Am I not going to be able to then sit for the bar—like, what are the implications of this?”
Our embedded clinician knows the ins and outs of that, knows how to walk students through that and to offer care and comfort around “Hey, like, this is a normative experience, and this is how this process looks, and this is what you need from me,” so that students can get the care they need without feeling that worry on the front side that really is misinformed. Like, “Oh, I can’t do this, because if I do this, then it’s going to mean this thing,” but without that information, or somebody really speaking to that, like, on the ground, I don’t know how students would know otherwise.
Inside Higher Ed: We’ve talked a little bit about how having somebody in the ecosystem with relationships can benefit students and that access, but I also wonder the physical element of just being in student spaces like the first-gen center, and how that can create relationships and, again, remove that barrier to access. Can you talk about the physical environment as well?
Fox: It’s a different environment. Our central hub is part of our health center, and so students feel sometimes, “If I walk into the health center, that means I’m going for this thing that I need.” So whether I’m not feeling well, or I’m going in for therapy, or whatever they might be coming to this space for, and I think it’s really important, when we’re in these communities with students, what we’re doing is we’re not only saying this is really normative and becoming a part of just the culture of that space, but we’re also building relationship and connection for them to feel like they can broach a conversation.
The First-Generation Center in particular is a living-learning community, so there’s a lot of students who live in that space. So I’ll sit in the lobby sometimes with students, and they’re playing board games, or they’re just hanging out in that space eating pizza, and I’m chatting with them again, not even about anything mental health connected, but just being a face and someone that they can maybe feel connected to and feel willing to then come and talk to.
I try to open that up all the time, of, like, if you ever need something from me, if you ever want to talk about anything you might be experiencing, if you have questions, if you’re not sure how to navigate something, let me know what I can do to support you. And again, I think the difference is that’s a really different environment. They’re really comfortable, they’re lounging, they’re eating pizza, or they’re coming to me and saying, “I don’t know if I want to talk to you, but I saw you had cookies,” and I’m like, “Take a cookie. You don’t have to talk to me. I ask nothing of you, other than for you to know that I’m here and I care.” And I think that has been really powerful in itself.
Inside Higher Ed: I think taking those baby steps to understand what mental health services could look like or could feel like is so important for students, especially who might have never engaged with those services previously, or have a misconception of what that looks like and what that means for them. So that’s wonderful that you get to do that.
When it comes to identifying groups that are receiving embedded counselors, how does the university go about that process? Or what are some of those priorities when it comes to identifying where to place counselors?
Fox: We are continuing to develop that process. Moving forward, I think that the demand will continue for this resource.
The law school identified an interest and has a significant amount of care and the mental health of the students there, so it makes a lot of sense that that was our first launching of an embedded clinician. And the other ways that we’ve identified is looking at maybe students that we want to pay a lot of attention to around retention, so wanting to be really on purpose with what we offer, wanting to have somebody who can really advocate for and speak to that.
I think there’s a lot of assumptions we make about the time students want to be seen. If we were to look at just freshman students, there’s this idea of like, well, they want to be seen in the evenings. We often will base some of what we navigate in a counseling center on information that doesn’t maybe comprehensively link to all needs. I think identifying that there’s some unique needs, there’s some unique needs in being an engineering and computing student, and so that has been how we’ve navigated it thus far, is really looking at like, again, we want to retain these people. We want to offer support.
Honestly, the other piece of what we’ve done has been based on this awareness from faculty and staff that have shared, like, “You know what? I think that we maybe need this.” I also want to acknowledge that a lot of these requests are coming from the departments or units themselves, which I feel is really powerful, because for me, that shows this culture of care that is within those units or schools. I really love that. I know engineering, right, like, they really want us in that space, and I can say the same for all of these locations, but we’re welcomed. There’s a lot of care around mental health and sustainable well-being for students, and that is coming from everyone that is working in those units. That feels really powerful, that ask of, like, “I really want to support these students in these spaces, and I’m aware of these unique needs.”
It has been this concerted effort that we’ve made, not just with counseling [services], because this wasn’t necessarily coming from our end. I think that that’s really important to acknowledge these requests [that] were coming from these departments or units or colleges, and that is a really powerful piece, too, where then they’re showing their care for their students.
I have a lot of love for that idea, or concept of, like, not only are we showing up and offering what I believe to be really good-quality care and concern for students, but for them to know that my college, or this part of my identity, cares so much about me being here, that they’re advocating and pushing for a clinician to be in this space, I feel like even just that sets a standard of just welcoming conversation around needs.
Inside Higher Ed: It also seems like the only way to really create these successful partnerships is to be in community with the faculty and staff and really have that trust and relationship. National data has told us that faculty and staff see these issues, but being able to make that partnership and bridge that gap is so critical. So it’s wonderful that you all have that community of care that is able to do that successfully.
If you had to give advice to a practitioner who is looking to get either into this space by finding an embedded counselor to work alongside, or a clinician who’s interested in becoming an embedded counselor, what sort of insight or advice would you give?
Fox: I think as an embedded counselor, we are wearing many hats, and so I think that you have to enjoy wearing many hats. My role shifts so much. Of course, there’s my associate director piece of what I do. But outside of that, I am sitting in spaces where I’m doing one-on-one counseling. I am then walking into [student] tabling [events]. I am walking into maybe some strategic group spaces where we’re looking at some really targeted intentional workshops based on different needs for the population. I’m sitting in these spaces with our stakeholders where I’m, like, talking about what we’re doing and advocating for that and mingling.
Throughout my day, I love that variety, and I think if, you know, somebody were to say, “Would this be something I would want to do?” I would ask that question of, “Do you think that you would enjoy wearing many hats and maybe being in multiple spaces throughout the day?” I boogie around campus. I’m in several places throughout a day as well.
The other piece is this love or care for mental health literacy. I have been at this university for going on seven years, and anyone who knows me here laughs when I say mental health literacy, because it is like something I’ve said a million times since I’ve been here. I love the idea of mental health literacy, the idea that every person who is employed by the University of South Carolina is a critical piece of all students’ sustainable well-being. If I can change that for faculty and staff or a student caring for another student, or student caring for themselves, that feels so incredible to me. This awareness that I can influence not only the individual I’m sitting with, but influence a college or unit or the system in a really meaningful, sustainable way. Anyone who loves that idea of mental health literacy and informing and educating all campus partners on that, this would be a really interesting role that they would probably enjoy.
Historically, some of the data has shown us that these positions at times have led to some feelings of maybe being siloed or separated from the main center, and there’s something really magical about our main center. I love being in that space, because I can consult with all my colleagues that I just think are wonderful and are doing such great work.
When you’re in embedded sites, it makes so much sense, and I’ve worked really hard to do this since I’ve taken on the associate director role of checking in with my embedded staff to make sure that I’m attending to their needs. I don’t want them to feel alone. I want them to feel supported and cared for. But I think when you’re out there and you’re wearing so many hats, and you’re transitioning so much throughout the day, that can be hard to even know to ask for that or when to ask for that. Then you’re also building the relationship with the faculty and staff and the spaces you’re in. And so again, how much of my time and energy do I have to then shift gears for this other need? So I think there has to be a lot of intentionality in how we care for staff in these spaces.
But I am really excited about our move. My position is new, and so we’ve not had anyone in this space, and so that I’m meeting with the staff in those spaces, we’re meeting collectively. We’re meeting individually, and I’m working really intentionally, to make sure that they’re feeling the support and care that you would feel if you were in this main center.
Inside Higher Ed: We’ve talked a little bit about [how] your position is new, and there’s a lot of new things happening on campus when it comes to embedded in integrated counseling. But is there anything else new we haven’t talked on that you want to share?
Fox: I think, over all, embedded counseling is a really important initiative, and I’m really happy that the University of South Carolina is looking at ways that we can expand this. We are looking at a variety of options. I don’t know that there’s a one-size-fits-all [approach].
I’ve talked to so many wonderful people doing the role that I’m doing at other universities across the U.S., trying to inform myself of what some of these best practices are and what I’ve learned. I keep showing up the table saying, “I don’t know that there’s a one-size-fits-all.”
There’s so many nuanced components to what it means to be in some of these spaces and to do this work—what we’re going to do in the School of Computing and Engineering is very different than what we’re going to do in a first-gen center. I have really appreciated getting to maybe understand the flexibility that we need to have, and how we view this.
I think the University of South Carolina is holding a lot of care for this idea that we want to care for all of Carolina, and we want to be really strategic in how we do that. I believe as we move forward, we will continue to be able to collect some really good data that shows the benefit of this.
I speak a lot to the piece of prevention, and I love this idea of “let me have a conversation with someone before this becomes so problematic that now I’m feeling it physically in my body, let me know that it’s really normal that during final exams, I am just really struggling and I’m feeling overwhelmed.”
I think one of the things that embedded clinicians are really able to do in these spaces is normalize a whole lot of concerns for students, faculty and staff, and then really highlight, too, like, the mental health awareness component of when do we need to have some conversations and just care for each other, and when does somebody need therapy? I think that’s a really powerful thing that we need to address as we move forward, that I think embedded is going to be a part of, is really acknowledging that.
The statement that’s come out a lot is we could never hire enough people to meet the need, and I think that what we’re doing is trying to acknowledge that we’re aware of the needs. How can we normalize, how can we offer skills? How can we offer all of these things on the front side, so that students can feel empowered and equipped to navigate what they need for themselves, and to trust that when they do need a higher level of response or more individualized services, or one on one, that they can trust in the care that they will receive, but also trusting in their capacity to care for self when they can, or trusting that I could also have a conversation with a faculty member or staff member? Because all of the University of South Carolina cares about the Carolina community.
Travel receipts from Mott Community College show the institution paid tens of thousands of dollars for former president Beverly Walker-Griffea to travel back and forth between her home in Virginia and the campus in Michigan, MLive Media Group reported.
The college spent more than $78,000 on Walker-Griffea’s travel between the two states in 2022 and 2023, including on her stays in Michigan hotels, car rentals and per diems for meals, the publication found. Her contract required her to live within 20 miles of the “nearest college district boundary.”
Anne Figueroa, former chair of the Board of Trustees in 2021 and 2022, told MLive the president’s residence in Michigan was undergoing a renovation and Walker-Griffea was attending to health concerns with doctors on the East Coast. (Walker-Griffea owned a home in Virginia from her time working at Thomas Hampton Community College.) Figueroa said there was “no decline in her performance” during that period.
Board members expressed mixed feelings about the unusual arrangement in her last years at the college.
“One of the key roles the president does is to be the representative of the college in the community,” trustee John Daly told MLive, “and, from my perspective, that’s difficult to do if you’re gone a significant amount of the time.”
Walker-Griffea, who left Mott in spring 2024, now directs the Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential, launched by Governor Gretchen Whitmer in December 2023. A department official told MLive that Walker-Griffea was living in Michigan again by the time she left the college.
As part of his administration’s broad push for government transparency, on Feb. 18 President Donald Trump ordered all federal agencies to publicize “to the maximum extent permitted by law” the complete details of every program, contract or grant they terminated.
“The American people have seen their tax dollars used to fund the passion projects of unelected bureaucrats rather than to advance the national interest,” Trump wrote in the memo, tilted “Radical Transparency About Wasteful Spending.” “[They] have a right to see how the Federal Government has wasted their hard-earned wages.”
Immediately after receiving a copy of the order, Inside Higher Ed reached out to the Department of Education and requested a comprehensive list of any and all such cuts, as well as explanations for why each contract was terminated. But two weeks later, the Education Department has yet to respond, and neither the department nor the staff it has partnered with from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have publicly released any more information about the terminated contracts and grants.
In fact, DOGE—the agency leading the crusade of cuts—has continuously made edits to the “Wall of Receipts,” where it was supposedly outlining the cuts that have been made. Late Sunday night, the group deleted hundreds of contracts it had previously claimed to cancel, The New York Times first reported and Inside Higher Ed confirmed.
“It’s absolutely hypocrisy,” said Antoinette Flores, director of higher education accountability and quality at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “It feels like we’re all being gaslit. I don’t know why they are saying they want to be transparent without being transparent.”
For weeks, higher education leaders, policy experts and advocates have raised concerns as the department terminated more than 100 assorted grants and research contracts. Combined, the cuts are purportedly valued at nearly $1.9 billion, according to the department, and will affect a swath of institutions, including the department’s largest research arm as well as regional labs and external nonprofits that collaborated with local officials to improve learner outcomes. Combined, the cuts will dramatically impact the data available to researchers and policymakers focused on improving teaching and learning strategies, experts say.
Education scholars are worried that the cuts will leave state officials and college administrators with little evidence on which to base their strategies for student success and academic return on investment. One professor went as far as to say that the cuts are “an assault on the U.S.’s education data infrastructure.”
And though the Trump administration has flaunted its transparency and glorified DOGE’s website as a prime example of their success in providing public records, policy experts on bothsides of the political aisle say the collective contract value displayed is an overestimate. Calculating savings is more nuanced than just listing a contract’s maximum potential value, they say—and even if they saved money, some of the terminated programs were congressionally mandated.
Over all, the sudden nature of the cuts, combined with the questionable accuracy of reported savings and a lack of further transparency, have left higher education advocacy groups deeply concerned.
“The cuts that happened recently are going to have far-reaching impacts, and those impacts could really be long term unless some rapid action is taken,” said Mamie Voight, president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a national nonprofit that campaigns for college access and student success. “This information is useful and essential to help policymakers steward taxpayer dollars responsibly.”
“To eliminate data, evidence and research is working in opposition to efficiency,” she later added.
The department did not respond to requests for comment on Voight’s and Flores’s criticisms.
A Data ‘Mismatch’
For many in higher ed, the executive actions Trump has taken since January raise questions about executive overreach and government transparency. But Nat Malkus, deputy director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, said, “It’s not a matter of deception” or even simply a question of transparency.
Instead, he said, “The question is, what’s the quality of the transparency? And what can we make of it?”
In a recent analysis, titled “Running Down DOGE’s Department of Education Receipts,” Malkus compared a leaked list of the 89 terminated Institute of Education Sciences contracts, along with detailed data from USASpending.gov, to those DOGE had posted on its website. He said he found major inconsistencies, or a “mismatch” in how they defined the purported contract value.
He also noted that though the “Wall of Receipts” has two separate tabs, one listing a contract’s value and another listing its savings, it displays the overall contract value first. The agency also declines to explain the difference between value and savings or how it calculates either.
As is the case with contract values, DOGE has been inconsistent in how it calculates savings. But what the agency most often displays to the public is how much a contract could theoretically cost if all options and add-ons are utilized—known as the potential total—minus the amount the government had currently agreed to spend by the end of the contract, or the total obligation. So in other words, Malkus said, DOGE is sharing how much the government could save if it were to continue the contract and receive the promised deliverables without adding any extra bells and whistles.
But that’s not what DOGE has done. Instead, it has terminated the contracts, and the Education Department won’t receive the final product it was paying for.
To best represent savings in that scenario, Malkus said, DOGE would calculate the difference between how much the government had agreed to spend by the end of the contract—the total obligation—and how much the government has already spent, or the total outlay.
“It’s weird because DOGE is publishing one set of savings that I don’t think actually makes sense to anybody, and they’re ignoring savings that they actually are conceivably getting,” Malkus said. “There are some good reasons that they might choose to do that. But DOGE would do well to explain what these dollars are, because right now, no one can tell.”
Malkus first spoke with Inside Higher Ed on Friday. But since then, the DOGE database has changed. Malkus said Tuesday that some of the initial trends in the way DOGE appeared to be calculating savings are no longer present and he has yet to find a new, even semiconsistent formula for how DOGE is calculating savings.
“The pace of change on DOGE’s numbers is dizzying even for someone like me who works at analyzing these receipts,” Malkus said. “Each week there have been changes to the number of contracts and within contracts the values and savings that DOGE is publishing. It’s hard to know if they are trying to get this right, because it’s impossible to find a consistent trail.”
I don’t attribute it to a desire to falsely advertise transparency and not deliver on it. I just think they need to do a much better job in the execution.”
—Nat Malkus
And even if there were a consistent, uniform formula for how DOGE officials are calculating efficiency, in some cases they still choose to highlight overall contract value rather than the direct savings. For example, a DOGE social media post about the Institute of Education Sciences cuts noted the contracts were worth $881 million in total.
“So are the actual savings equal to that implied? No, they are not,” Malkus said. “They are far, far less than that amount, somewhere around 25 percent of the total.”
The agency’s website doesn’t detail the team’s methodology or offer any explanation about why the cuts were made. Malkus believes this lack of clarification reflects the Trump administration’s effort to make notable cuts quickly. He added that while he doesn’t agree with every cut made, he understands and supports the “aggressiveness” of Trump and Musk’s approach.
“If they don’t move quickly, then there’s commissions, and then you have to go to the secretary, and they have interminable meetings and everything gets slowed down,” he said. “So one of their priorities is to move fast, and they don’t mind breaking things in the process.”
From Malkus’s perspective, the inconsistencies in how each cut is documented, the many edits that have been made to the DOGE database and the lack of explanation for each cut isn’t a matter of “malice or dishonesty,” but rather “mistakes.”
“I don’t think their savings are a clear estimation of what taxpayers are actually saving. But I don’t attribute it to a desire to falsely advertise transparency and not deliver on it. I just think they need to do a much better job in the execution,” he said.
A ‘Disregard for the Law’
Flores from New America conducted similar research and, like Malkus, found that the DOGE data doesn’t add up and exaggerates the savings. However, she had different views on the cause and effects of the agency’s aggressive, mistake-riddled approach.
“It’s like taking a wrecking ball to important government services,” she said. “If you’re trying to be efficient, you should take into consideration how far along is a contract? How much have we spent on this? Are we getting anything for the investment we’ve made?”
The Trump administration has broadly explained its cuts as a response to the “liberal ideology” of diversity, equity and inclusion and an effort to increase efficiency. But to Flores, they target anything but “waste, fraud and abuse.”
“The reason why the Trump administration says it wants to eliminate the Department of Education is because you don’t see improvement in student performance,” she said. “But if you want to improve student performance, you need to understand what is happening on the ground with students and evidence-based research on how to help students improve.”
And many of the studies affected by the contract cuts were nearly completed, she said. They were projects on which the agency had already spent hundreds of millions of dollars. So by cutting them now, the department loses the data and wastes taxpayer funds.
It’s absolutely hypocrisy. It feels like we’re all being gaslit.”
—Antoinette Flores
“I’ve talked to some researchers who worked at one of the organizations that had their contracts cut, and they said all work has to stop,” she said. “No matter how close it was to being finished, it just has to stop.”
Flores also noted that some of the studies terminated via contract cuts—particularly the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study—are congressionally mandated, so ending them is unconstitutional.
“The people making these cuts don’t necessarily understand the math. They don’t necessarily understand the contracts or the purpose of them, and there’s a disregard for the law,” she said.
Voight from IHEP agreed, describing projects like NPSAS as “core data sets that the field relies upon.”
“Lawmakers often turn to these types of longitudinal and sample studies to answer questions that they have as they’re trying to build policies. And states turn to this type of information to help them benchmark how they’re faring against national numbers,” she said. “So these studies themselves are a really, really devastating loss.”
Even some contracts that weren’t cut will suffer consequences, Voight noted. For example, though the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant program has so far been shielded from outright termination, she said, it didn’t come away entirely unscathed. The data systems rely on key information from a program called Common Education Data Standards, which was slashed; without CEDS, the grant program won’t be nearly as effective.
“The cuts have actually been misunderstanding the interrelationships between many of these different products,” Voight said.
Over all, she believes the Department of Education, and specifically IES, are not the best places for efficiency cuts. The $807.6 million budget for the Institute of Education Sciences in fiscal year 2024 is just “a drop in the bucket” compared with the amount spent on other research and development groups, like the $4.1 billion given to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency the same year.
“To think about how to build efficiencies is certainly not a bad question to ask. But IES is already such a lean operation, and the way that they are trying to build evidence is critical,” she said. “So we should really be focusing on investment in our education research infrastructure and taking a strategic approach to any changes that are going to be made.”