The American Historical Association says that President Trump’s executive order targeting the Smithsonian Institution “egregiously misrepresents the work” of the organization and “completely misconstrues the nature of historical work.”
In the executive order issued late last week, Trump criticized what he saw as “a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history” that replaces “objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.”
The order cites an exhibit at the American Art Museum that examines the “role of sculpture in understanding and constructing the concept of race in the United States,” according to the museum’s website. The order also notes that the “National Museum of African American History and Culture has proclaimed that ‘hard work,’ ‘individualism,’ and ‘the nuclear family’ are aspects of ‘White culture.’”
The order, titled “Restoring Truth And Sanity To American History,” puts Vice President JD Vance in charge of ensuring that Smithsonian museums, research centers and the National Zoo don’t put on exhibits or programs that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race.”
The AHA defended the work of historians in the statement released Monday, adding that “historians explore the past to understand how our nation has evolved.”
“Our goal is neither criticism nor celebration; it is to understand—to increase our knowledge of—the past in ways that can help Americans to shape the future,” said the statement, which has been signed by 16 other organizations. “By providing a history with the integrity necessary to enable all Americans to be all they can possibly be, the Smithsonian is fulfilling its duty to all of us.”
A professor who’s long been controversial for defending colonialism has settled the lawsuit he filed more than two years ago against a former communication manager at the University of Oregon who blocked him from interacting with a university account on Twitter.
Bruce Gilley—a Portland State University politics and global affairs professor currently serving a stint as A Presidential Scholar in Residence at New College of Florida—filed the lawsuit in August 2022 a former communication manager for the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion.
Gilley alleged that the Equity and Inclusion Twitter account published a post urging people to “interrupt racism,” suggesting they use this line: “It sounded like you just said [blank]. Is that really what you meant?” Gilley said he was blocked by the account after retweeting the post with the caption “My entry: … you just said ‘all men are created equal.’”
Gilley and the University of Oregon reached a settlement agreement last week in which the institution admitted the communication manager blocked Gilley. The university agreed in the settlement that its insurer would pay from $95,000 to $382,000 in attorneys’ fees to Gilley’s representatives—the Institute for Free Speech and the Angus Lee Law Firm—and the institution further agreed to a detailed process to clarify its social media policies and train social media managers on them. There will be an email address for people to complain about being blocked, and the whole plan will have a 180-day supervision period for implementation.
“The guidelines will more clearly state that third parties and the content they post must not be blocked or deleted based on viewpoint, even if that viewpoint can be viewed by some as ‘offensive,’ ‘racist’ or ‘hateful,’” the settlement agreement says.
In a statement, the university said it “does not agree that it committed any of the violations alleged in Bruce Gilley’s complaint. The agreement reached between the university and Mr. Gilley ended the lawsuit without admission of liability or fault.”
Harvard is the second Ivy League institution to be targeted by the Trump administration for how it handled alleged instances of antisemitism on campus.
Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images
Harvard University is the latest higher education institution to be investigated by the Trump administration in response to its alleged mishandling of antisemitic harassment on campus. The institution will undergo a “comprehensive” analysis of nearly $9 billion in federal grants and contracts, according to a multi-agency news release.
The review, announced Monday afternoon, is part of ongoing efforts by the Justice Department’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism to tackle alleged antisemitic harassment on college campuses. The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration will carry out the investigation to “ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities,” the news release said.
The task force said its review process for Harvard will be similar to the one it is currently carrying out at Columbia University.
“This initiative strengthens enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order titled ‘Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,’” which “ensures that federally funded institutions uphold their legal and ethical responsibilities to prevent anti-Semitic harassment,” the news release said.
In a matter of weeks, the task force’s investigation into Columbia has upended the institution. It received a notification in early March that the government had launched a review into $54.1 million in federal contracts. Then, on March 7, the department retracted $400 million in grants and contracts, andon March 13 it sent the university a sweeping list of demands, calling for immediate compliance in order to regain the funding. Columbia agreed to nearly all of the demands a week later, but the administration has not reinstated the funds.
Shortly after announcing the decision to comply, the university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, resigned.
The administration has said it will now review more than $255.6 million in federal contracts and $8.7 billion in multiyear grant commitments at Harvard.
As with Columbia, the agencies will consider stop-work orders for any contracts the review identifies. But Harvard has also been ordered to submit a list of all federal contracts—both direct and through affiliates—that were not identified in the task force’s initial investigation.
Addressing the review in a letter to the Harvard community, President Alan M. Garber acknowledged that nearly $9 billion in research funding is at risk: “If this funding is stopped, it will halt life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation.”
He said the institution had “devoted considerable effort” to addressing antisemitism on campus for the past 15 months, but added, “We still have work to do” and committed to working with the task force.
“We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom,” he said.
Critics have broadly opposed the Trump administration’s tactics, saying they are prime examples of using claims of antisemitism to justify “aggressive” executive overreach.
“What we’re seeing is an attempt to weaponize federal funding to punish schools that don’t align with their political views,” said Wesley Whistle, a project director at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “That kind of pressure stifles the free exchange of ideas—and that’s the whole point of higher education.”
Meanwhile, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the university’s “failure to protect students on campus from antisemitic discrimination—all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry—has put its reputation in serious jeopardy.
“Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus,” she said.
One of the most common questions I get from Ph.D. students and postdocs is “When should I begin my job search?” Most of the time, they are referring only to the application process—they are asking when they should start actually applying for jobs. While I generally recommend applying three to four months before you are available to start, the job search itself should begin much earlier. There is a lot of information and data that you need to gather in advance so that you are well positioned to recognize that a job is a good fit and make an informed decision with confidence.
I see a lot of similarities between the job search and the way you might approach committing to a large purchase such as that of a car or home: The more research and preparation you do, the more confident and informed you’ll be when the right opportunity comes along.
Like a house, a job needs to align with your values, interests and goals. However, compromise is inevitable. Just as home buyers must balance their wish list with budget constraints and market realities, job seekers must consider factors such as location, salary, job stability and growth potential. A strategic, long-term approach ensures that when the ideal opportunity presents itself, you can recognize it and act decisively.
That said, it’s important to recognize that in both job searching and home buying, there are many variables we can’t control. Many Ph.D. students and postdocs I speak with are understandably concerned about the uncertainty of the job market they’ll be entering into in light of federal employee layoffs and university hiring freezes. This is unfortunate but makes long-term, careful planning all the more important.
The House-Hunting Approach to Job Searching
When I was a postdoc, my husband and I wanted to buy our first home. Initially, I had a long list of must-haves: a safe neighborhood close to work, hardwood floors, a spacious updated kitchen, three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a fireplace, a deck, a two-car garage and a lush yard for gardening. We determined our budget and began our search.
For six months, we attended open houses and scoured online listings, refining our expectations along the way. We learned what features were common in our price range and which ones were unrealistic. We adjusted our priorities, and when we finally found the right home, even though it wasn’t exactly what we had first envisioned, we were confident in our decision because of the knowledge we had gained along the way.
The job search follows a similar process. The more job descriptions you analyze and the more people you talk to, the more attuned you become to industry norms, required skills and job value. This preparation allows you to confidently apply and evaluate offers, just as a seasoned home buyer recognizes a great deal when they see one.
To best position yourself for success, your job search should start long before you submit applications. Here’s a suggested timeline.
More Than One Year Out: Laying the Foundation
Identify your career interests: Before house hunting, you need a vision for your ideal home. Likewise, before applying for jobs, you need a clear sense of your desired career path. If you’re unsure, conduct informational interviews to learn from professionals in different fields. Ideally, these conversations would be taking place throughout your graduate and postdoctoral training. More about informational interviewing can be found at Live Career. Resources such as MyIDP (for the sciences) and ImaginePhD (for humanities and social sciences) can help you explore career options. Vanderbilt University’s “Beyond the Lab” video and podcast interview series explores a variety of biomedical career paths, and InterSECT Job Simulations offers job simulation exercises to help Ph.D.-level scientists and humanists learn about various career options. Finally, the Propelling Careers podcast is another resource I would recommend that provides valuable insights into career exploration topics and the entire job search process.
Build your professional presence: Just as no one starts house hunting without securing their financing and mortgage pre-approval, you shouldn’t enter the job market without your professional documents ready. A strong, polished application package is like a solid financial foundation—it ensures you’re taken seriously and can move quickly when the right opportunity appears.
Prepare your CV or résumé well in advance, tailoring it to the roles you’re considering. The National Institutes of Health Office of Intramural Training and Education has a great resource for these on their website. For jobs outside of academia, you will need a résumé, and this can take time to do well. Seek feedback from colleagues and career advisers to refine it. An up-to-date and well-crafted résumé also can be extremely valuable when you are conducting informational interviews to share with the professionals you meet; they will understand your background better, can provide feedback and may pass your document along to hiring managers.
Updating your LinkedIn profile is equally important—it serves as both your online résumé and a networking and research tool. A polished LinkedIn profile increases your visibility and credibility within your target industry.
One Year Out: Researching the Market
Track job postings: A year before you plan to transition, start monitoring job postings, just as you would start researching and looking at houses online and driving through neighborhoods. Save descriptions of roles that interest you and analyze them for common themes. This practice helps refine your job search keywords and informs the skills you should highlight on your résumé.
Identify skill gaps: By analyzing job descriptions early, you may discover missing skills that are crucial for your target roles. By recognizing this in advance, you can take online courses, join organizations or gain hands-on experience to strengthen your qualifications before applying.
Prepare for additional requirements: Depending on the field, you may be asked to share a writing sample or coding project. If you’ve been preparing throughout the year, you won’t be caught off guard.
Experiment with AI assistance: AI tools like ChatGPT can help analyze job descriptions to identify key themes and skills. They can also provide feedback on your résumé and help tailor application materials to specific roles.
Be open to exceptional opportunities: Occasionally, a job posting might appear that is a perfect fit—what I call a “Cinderella’s slipper” job. Even if it’s earlier than your planned timeline, consider applying or reaching out to someone in the organization. Expressing interest might open doors for a future opportunity.
Three to Four Months Out: Start Applying
Start submitting applications: At this stage, it’s time to actively apply for jobs while continuing to network. Informational interviews remain valuable, as many jobs are never publicly posted. Take this time to reach back out to the contacts you have made over the past year or so to let them know you are on the market.
Tailor your application materials: Customize your résumé and cover letter for each application, incorporating language from the job description to highlight your fit. If the application allows an optional cover letter, always include one—it may be the deciding factor between you and another equally qualified candidate.
Leverage networking for hidden opportunities: Identify organizations of interest and connect with employees to learn more. This proactive approach often leads to learning about openings before they’re publicly listed. We’ve all heard stories of people reaching out to homeowners with letters expressing interest in a house—even if it’s not for sale—hoping the owners might consider selling in the future.
Secure references: Consider who can provide strong recommendations. Reach out in advance to confirm their willingness to serve as references and keep them updated on your search.
Keep a job search log: Maintain a spreadsheet to track applications, including submission dates, job descriptions and tailored résumé and cover letter versions. This record will be invaluable when preparing for interviews and following up with employers.
Conclusion: Finding Your Dream Job
Job searching is a complex and important decision-making process, one that also has to remain flexible in light of changing market conditions and unique personal constraints. Just as home buyers don’t purchase the first house they see, job seekers shouldn’t rush into the first opportunity that arises. A strategic job search, like a well-planned home-buying journey, requires research, patience and flexibility. By starting early, refining your criteria, and actively engaging with your field, you’ll be well prepared when the right job—your “dream home” in the professional world—becomes available. With knowledge and preparation, you can confidently apply, interview and accept an offer, knowing you’ve found the right fit for this stage of your career.
Ashley Brady is assistant dean of biomedical career engagement and strategic partnerships and associate professor of medical education and administration at Vanderbilt University in the School of Medicine’s Biomedical Research, Education and Training Office of Career Development ASPIRE Program. She is also a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing a national voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.
A survey of community colleges finds, across five states, Pell Grant recipients have lower success rates compared to their peers.
Eduard Figueres/iStock/Getty Images
Low-income students can experience a variety of barriers to success in college, and new data from the Richmond Federal Reserve points to gaps in success and completion among Pell Grant recipients at community colleges, compared to their peers.
An analysis of a 2024 survey of two-year public institutions in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia identified a 13-percentage-point gap in success rates between Pell Grant recipients and those who do not receive the Pell Grant. Forty percent of Pell Grant students achieved at least one metric of success, versus 53 percent of non-Pell recipients.
Methodology
The 2024 Survey of Community College Outcomes includes data from five states—Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia—and 121 colleges. Data includes all degree- or certificate-seeking students enrolled during the 2019–20 academic year, including dual-enrollment students.
Around 34 percent of students included in the study received a Pell Grant while enrolled at a community college, (compared to the national average of 32 percent). Dual-enrollment students are not eligible for the Pell Grant.
The background: Pell Grant recipients, who are low-income students enrolled in a college or university in the U.S., are more often to be enrolled at public institutions, and the greatest share are from families who earn less than $20,000 annually.
Success, as defined by the Richmond Fed, means a degree- or certificate-seeking student at a community college completed one of the following over a four-year period following enrollment:
Earned an associate degree
Earned a diploma or credit-bearing certificate
Earned an industry- or employer- recognized licensure or credential
Transferred to a four-year institution prior to degree or award attainment
Persisted by completing at least 30 credit hours
Over all, Pell and non-Pell students completed an associate degree at similar rates (19 percent), but Pell students were less likely to transfer (10 percent of Pell versus 20 percent of non-Pell) or complete a credential (6 percent versus 7 percent).
Digging into the data: Researchers qualify that while there is a correlation between receiving a Pell Grant and graduation, that does not imply causation, or that receiving Pell Grant funding leads to lower outcomes.
“Students who qualify for and receive Pell Grant funding may have substantively different characteristics than non-Pell students—differences that could be driving the differences in outcomes,” wrote Laura Dawson Ullrich, director of the Community College Initiative at the Richmond Fed, in a blog post.
North Carolina was the only state with higher associate degree completion rates among Pell students, but this could be due to how the state classifies dual-enrollment students as degree-seeking and their ineligibility for the Pell Grant.
South Carolina had the highest transfer rate among Pell (19.3 percent) and non-Pell recipients (27 percent), which could be a result of Clemson University and the University of South Carolina’s bridge programs with community colleges, Ullrich wrote.
Low-income students are more likely to experience basic needs insecurity, which can hinder persistence and completion. The Richmond Fed plans to conduct more surveys focusing on wraparound student supports and how the existence of these resources may contribute to Pell Grant recipients’ success.
New College of Florida fired a Chinese adjunct instructor after he asked why he wasn’t being paid and officials replied that they had overlooked regulations prohibiting his employment, according to a Suncoast Searchlight investigation.
Kevin Wang—whose area of concentration was listed as Chinese Language and Culture on his now-deleted college directory page—told the nonprofit news outlet that he previously lost his professorship in China over criticizing Chinese leader Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. He’s seeking asylum and is allowed to work in the U.S., Searchlight reported.
But New College fired him March 12, citing a university regulation based on Florida’s “countries of concern” law, the outlet reported. This came two days after Wang inquired why he hadn’t been getting paychecks all semester, Searchlight wrote. New College didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Friday.
Florida’s Legislature has passed multiplelaws limiting public colleges’ and universities’ relationships with listed “countries of concern,” such as China. The Searchlight story pointed to 2023’s Senate Bill 846, which—with exceptions—bars institutions from participating “in any agreement” with a “foreign principal.” The law defined foreign principals as “any person who is domiciled in a foreign country of concern and is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.” The Florida Board of Governors followed up the law by releasing guidance, Searchlight reported.
Wang told the outlet, “I truly hope that such interference undermining academic freedom will not occur again in a place that claims to be a ‘beacon of democracy.’”
More than 17,400 high school seniors last fall got the sweetest news any anxious student can get: Congratulations, because of your high school GPA, you’re automatically admitted to one of 10 California State University campuses of your choice — and they’re all relatively affordable.
Even with less than a week to go before the campuses wrap their final decisions about whom to admit, a pilot program focusing on Riverside County is already showing that more students have been admitted from the county than last year, about 10,600 so far in 2025 compared to last year’s roughly 9,800.
The pilot builds on Cal State’s efforts to enroll more students and works like this: High school seniors receive a notice in the mail that they’re automatically admitted as long as they maintain their grades, finish the 15 mandatory courses necessary for admission to a Cal State, and complete an admissions form to claim their spot at a campus. Cal State was able to mail the notices because it signed an agreement with the Riverside County Office of Education that gave the university eligible students’ addresses.
Now in the program’s first year, Cal State joins other public universities across the country in a growing national movement to automatically admit eligible students. From November through January, Cal State informed students they were accepted to the 10 campuses. To claim a spot, students needed to go online and pick at least one campus.
If past admissions and enrollment trends hold, Cal State as a system will educate hundreds of more students, all from Riverside, than they would have without the pilot. That’d be a boon for a system that prides itself on its affordability and motto that it’s the people’s university; Cal State admits a far higher percentage of students than the University of California. It also could serve as a much-needed budget boost from the extra tuition revenue those students bring, especially at campuses with sinking enrollment.
Eight campuses — Channel Islands, Chico, East Bay, Humboldt, Maritime Academy, Monterey Bay, San Francisco, and Sonoma — are so under-enrolled that Cal State is pulling some of their state revenues to send to campuses that are still growing. Cal Maritime is soon merging with another campus because of its perilous finances. The pilot also includes the two closest campuses to the county, San Bernardino and San Marcos.
The system chose Riverside County because all of its public high school students were already loaded onto a state data platform that can directly transmit student grades to Cal State — a key step in creating automatic admissions. Riverside is also “ethnically and economically representative of the diversity of California — many of the students the CSU is so proud to serve,” a spokesperson for the system, Amy Bentley Smith, wrote in an email.
At Heritage High School, a public school in Riverside County, the pilot encouraged students who previously didn’t even consider attending a public four-year university to submit the automatic admission forms to a Cal State.
Silvia Morales, a 17-year-old senior at Heritage, got an automatic admissions letter. “I was pretty set on going to community college and then transferring, because I felt like I wasn’t ready for the four-year commitment to a college,” she said.
Even with a 3.0 GPA, higher than the 2.5 GPA Cal State requires for admission, she nearly didn’t submit the forms to secure her admission until early January. That’s well past the standard Nov. 30 admissions deadline.
It wasn’t until her counselor, Chris Tinajero, pulled her into a meeting that she decided to opt into the pilot. “I went through the sales pitch like, ‘Hey, you get this guaranteed admission, you’re an amazing student,’” he recounted.
The pitch worked. Though Cal State sent a physical pamphlet and her high school also emailed her about the pilot, “I wasn’t really paying attention,” Morales said. She needed an adult she trusted at the school to persuade her that the applications were worth the effort, she said.
Morales applied to three Cal State campuses in the pilot plus two outside the program that were still accepting late applications — Chico, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Northridge and San Bernardino. She got into each one, she said.
Her parents are “proud of me because I want to go to college,” Morales said. Neither went to college, she added.
Final enrollment figures won’t be tallied until August, including how many of the students admitted through the pilot attended one of the 10 campuses. But the system’s chancellor’s office is already planning to replicate the pilot program in a Northern California county, which will be named sometime in April, Cal State officials said.
A bill by Christopher Cabaldon, a state senator and Democrat from Napa, would make automatic enrollment to Cal State for eligible students a state law. The bill hasn’t been heard in a committee yet.
A boost in application numbers
Of the 17,000 students who received an invitation to secure their automatic admissions, about 13,200 submitted the necessary forms. That’s about 3,000 more students who applied from the county than last year.
Those who otherwise wouldn’t have applied to a Cal State include students who were eyeing private colleges, said Melina Gonzalez, a counselor at Heritage who typically advises students who are already college-bound.
Nearby private colleges offer all students application fee waivers; at Cal State, typically only low-income students receive fee waivers. But the pilot provided each Cal State student one fee waiver worth $70, which was a draw to students and their parents who don’t qualify for the fee waiver but might struggle to pay.
Last year, 10 of the 100 senior students Gonzalez counseled didn’t apply to a Cal State. This application season, all her students submitted at least one Cal State application, she said.
“It was big, it was really cool, their eyes, they were so excited,” she said of the automatically admitted students. “They would come in and show me their letters.”
Parents called her asking if the pamphlet from Cal State was authentic. With guaranteed admission, some parents ultimately decided to pay for additional applications to campuses in the pilot, knowing it wasn’t in vain.
At Heritage, high school counselors reviewed Cal State’s provisional list of students eligible for the pilot to add more seniors, such as those who hadn’t yet completed the mandatory courses but were on track to do so.
Tinajero was also able to persuade some students who hadn’t completed all the required courses for Cal State entry to take those, including online classes. Still, others with qualifying grades didn’t apply because they weren’t persuaded that a four-year university was for them. Tinajero sees program growth in the coming years, assuming Cal State continues with the pilot. Younger high school students who witnessed the fanfare of automatic admissions may take more seriously the need to pass the 15 required courses to be eligible for a Cal State or University of California campus, he said.
That’s part of Cal State’s vision for this pilot, said April Grommo, the system’s assistant vice chancellor of strategic enrollment management: Begin encouraging students to take the required courses in ninth grade so that by 11th and 12th grade they’re more receptive to applying to Cal State.
Pilot leads to more applications
The automatic admissions pilot is likely what explains the jump in overall applicants, said Grommo. “If you look at the historical numbers of Riverside County students that have applied to the CSU, it’s very consistent at 10,000, so there’s no other accelerator or explanation for the significant increase in the applications,” she said.
Some campuses in the pilot are probably going to see more students from Riverside County than others. The eight under-enrolled Cal State campuses each enrolled fewer than than 100 Riverside students as freshmen, a CalMatters review of 2024 admissions data show. Two enrolled fewer than 10 Riverside students as freshmen.
Cal State isn’t solely relying on past trends to enroll more students. Grommo cited research that suggests direct admissions programs are associated with increases in student enrollment, but not among low-income students, who are less familiar with the college-going process or have additional economic and family demands, like work and child care.
The quad at San Francisco State University in San Francisco on July 7, 2023. Photo by Semantha Norris, CalMatters
Even after students are admitted, some don’t complete key steps in the enrollment process, such as maintaining their grades in the second semester, completing registration forms to enroll, and paying deposits. Others, especially low-income students, have a change of heart over summer about attending college, which scholars call “summer melt.” Then there are the students who got into typically more selective campuses, such as at elite private schools and the University of California, and choose instead to go to those.
To prompt more students to actually enroll, Cal State officials in early March hosted two college fairs in Riverside County for students admitted through the pilot. About 2,600 students signed up to be bussed from their high schools to large venues, including the Riverside Convention Center, where they met with staff, alumni and current students from all 10 Cal State campuses participating in the program. Those were followed by receptions with students and parents.
Grommo said they maxed out capacity at both venues for the student events. While it’s common for individual campuses to host events for admitted students, it was a first for Cal State’s central office.
The event costs, physical mailers to students about their admissions guarantee, invitation to the college fairs and another flyer about the relative affordability of a Cal State cost the system’s central office around $300,000, Grommo estimates. But if the event moves the needle on students agreeing to attend a Cal State, the tuition revenue at the largely under-enrolled campuses alone would be a huge return on investment.
The effort is a far more targeted approach than another admissions outreach effort Cal State rolled out last fall to inform students who started but didn’t finish their college applications that they’re provisionally accepted, as long as they complete and send their forms. The notification went to 106,000 students and was the result of a $750,000 grant Cal State won from the Lumina Foundation, a major higher education philanthropy. The system will know by fall if this notification resulted in more students attending a Cal State.
But that was aimed at students who already applied. The Riverside pilot brings in students, like Morales, who wouldn’t have applied without the mailers and entreaties from counselors. She’s leaning toward picking Cal State San Bernardino for next fall. It’s close to home and an older cousin recently graduated who had a good experience there, she said.
Her next task? Working with her parents to complete the federal application for financial aid by April 2, the deadline for guaranteed tuition waivers for low- and middle-income students.
It’s possible that Cal State may take the direct admissions pilot statewide. All counties are required by state law to join the state-funded data system that Riverside is already a part of to electronically transmit students’ high school grades to Cal States and UCs. Doing so removes the need for schools to send campuses paper transcripts. The deadline for all counties to join the state data system is summer of 2026.
Katrina Armstrong took on the top position at Columbia after her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, stepped down amid backlash for her response to campus protests.
Sirin Samman/Columbia University
After agreeing to the Trump administration’s sweeping demands and then appearing to backtrack to faculty, Columbia’s interim president stepped down Friday night—a move that federal officials praised, though it may add to the upheaval at the Ivy League institution that’s facing criticism on multiple fronts, from the federal government to faculty to students.
Katrina Armstrong, who has served as the interim president since last August, is returning to her previous post leading the institution’s Irving Medical Center, according to the Friday announcement.
In a brief statement, she said it had been a “singular honor to lead Columbia University in this important and challenging time … But my heart is with science, and my passion is with healing. That is where I can best serve this University and our community moving forward.” Claire Shipman, a former broadcast journalist and a co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, will take over as acting president while the university begins a nationwide search for a permanent leader.
The leadership shake-up comes after weeks of turmoil at Columbia as the Trump administration has waged war against the Ivy League institution, stripping it of $400 million in federal contracts for what it calls Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment” against Jewish students on campus. Trump’s antisemitism task force, which was formed by executive order in early February, then demanded the university implement a number of sweeping reforms, including restructuring its disciplinary process under the Office of the President, expanding the authority of its campus security force and placing its Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department into receivership.
The university announced a week ago that it would comply with the demands, to the frustration of critics who argued that the demands may be unlawful and that giving in to them undermines academic freedom and free speech. On CNN, Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised Armstrong, saying she had had productive conversations with the then-interim president and that Columbia was “on the right track” to having its funding restored.
But according to a transcript of a virtual meeting between Armstrong and faculty members obtained by Bari Weiss’s news outlet, The Free Press, Armstrong told faculty members that many of the changes the university had promised the antisemitism task force would not come to pass. She said there would be “no change” to masking and admissions policies, that the MESAAS department wouldn’t be placed into a receivership, and that the disciplinary process would not move under the Office of the President.
Armstrong seemingly denied those claims in a statement Tuesday, writing, “Let there be no confusion: I commit to seeing these changes implemented, with the full support of Columbia’s senior leadership team and the Board of Trustees … Any suggestion that these measures are illusory, or lack my personal support, is unequivocally false.”
Her sudden resignation was met with enthusiasm from the federal antisemitism task force, which appeared to imply in a statement released Friday night that her leadership would have impeded the task force’s ability to move toward a resolution with Columbia.
“The action taken by Columbia’s trustees today, especially in light of this week’s concerning revelation, is an important step toward advancing negotiations as set forth in the pre-conditional understanding reached last Friday between the University and the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism,” the statement read.
While many faculty had strongly opposed Columbia’s choice to give in to the Trump administration’s demands, Armstrong appeared to be generally well-liked among the faculty; in a recent Inside Higher Ed article, Michael Thaddeus, vice president of the campus’s American Association of University Professors chapter, said she was one of the most open leaders he had worked with in his time at Columbia.
Shipman, now the acting president, also praised Armstrong’s leadership in that article, calling her an “exceptional leader” who “came in to help us heal and get our campus in order” and who is skilled at working under “crisis conditions.”
But one AAUP leader noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that, though he was personally surprised that Armstrong stepped down, it will do little to change the AAUP’s ongoing work to oppose Trump’s crusade against higher education.
“Katrina Armstrong’s resignation changes almost nothing,” wrote Marcel Agüeros, Columbia AAUP’s chapter secretary. “For the past two years, we have been advocating for a greater role for faculty in the decision-making processes of the university. That, and defending our university and all universities against unwanted and likely unlawful interference by the federal government, remains our North Star.”
The AAUP chapter at Columbia last week sued the Trump administration in an effort to restore the $400 million in funding. The lawsuit argues that the funding freeze was a “coercive tactic” that’s already caused irreparable damage.
Clare Shipman joined the Columbia board in 2013.
Shipman will be the third leader of Columbia in nine months; Armstrong took over the role when Minouche Shafik, who had led the New York institution for a little over a year, stepped down in August. Shafik resigned after backlash from both pro-Palestinian students and faculty and Republican lawmakers for how she handled pro-Palestinian encampments at Columbia. Shipman testified before Congress with Shafik last April at a hearing about antisemitism at Columbia.
“I assume this role with a clear understanding of the serious challenges before us and a steadfast commitment to act with urgency, integrity, and work with our faculty to advance our mission, implement needed reforms, protect our students, and uphold academic freedom and open inquiry,” Shipman said in a news release. “Columbia’s new permanent president, when that individual is selected, will conduct an appropriate review of the University’s leadership team and structure to ensure we are best positioned for the future.”
In a statement, Rep. Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, warned, “Ms. Shipman, while we wish you all good success, we will be watching closely.”
The Department of Justice launched investigations into admissions practices at four California universities on Thursday night, accusing them of flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling banning affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The “compliance reviews,” as the department called them, will target Stanford University and three University of California campuses: Berkeley, Los Angeles and Irvine.
In a statement announcing the investigations, the Justice Department wrote that the investigations are “just the beginning” of their efforts to “eliminate DEI” in college admissions.
“President Trump and I are dedicated to ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity across the country,” U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi wrote in the statement.
It’s unclear what prompted the investigations or what evidence the department has to support its suspicions of illegal racial preferences in admissions at the targeted institutions. Some affirmative action opponents have suggested that institutions that enrolled higher numbers of minority students last fall, the first class admitted after the Supreme Court decision, may have done so illegally.
Berkeley, UCLA and Irvine all reported upticks in the number of Black and Hispanic students enrolled in the Class of 2028 last fall: 45 percent of students who enrolled at a UC system campus this fall were underrepresented students of color, a 1.2 percent increase from 2023 and a record for the system.
Just hours before the DOJ announced its probe, the Department of Health and Human Services launched its own investigation into admissions practices at UCLA’s medical school, accusing it of illegally considering applicants’ race.
The UC system has been banned from considering race in admissions since 1996, when the state passed a referendum making the practice illegal at public institutions. That hasn’t stopped anti–affirmative action watchdogs from accusing the system of doing so secretly.
Last month, the newly formed public interest group Students Against Racial Discrimination filed a lawsuit accusing the system of practicing affirmative action behind closed doors, citing increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its most selective campuses, namely UCLA and Berkeley, and labeling recent admissions policies—like the decision in 2020 not to consider standardized test scores—proxies for affirmative action.
“Since Proposition 209 banned California’s public institutions from considering race in admissions, UC has implemented admissions practices to comply with it,” a UC spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “The UC undergraduate admissions application collects students’ race and ethnicity for statistical purposes only. This information is not shared with application reviewers and is not used for admissions.”
Stanford, unlike the UC schools, reported a marked decline in first-year underrepresented students last year, according to the university’s Common Data Set, released last month. Black enrollment at the university fell by nearly 50 percent, and Hispanic enrollment by 14.4 percent; meanwhile, white and Asian enrollment rose by 14.5 percent and 10 percent, respectively.
Luisa Rapport, Stanford’s director of media relations, said the university has not flouted the affirmative action ban, and that following the SFFA ruling, it “immediately engaged in a comprehensive and rigorous review to ensure compliance in our admissions processes.”
“We continue to be committed to fulfilling our obligations under the law, and we will respond to the department’s questions as it conducts this process,” she wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.
‘Just the Beginning’
Angel Pérez, president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said he’s heard “extraordinary concern” from admissions officers and deans in recent weeks that investigations could spread to their institutions. They don’t know how to prepare because “we have no idea what these compliance reviews even entail.”
What they do know, he said, is that investigations could throw their offices into chaos during the height of admissions season.
“These kinds of reviews are extremely disruptive. They’re also extremely expensive,” Pérez said. “There are some institutions that, you know, may not survive a compliance review given the legal costs.”
In an interview with Inside Higher Ed last month, Edward Blum, president of SFFA and the architect of the nationwide affirmative action ban, said he expected schools that reported higher enrollment of racial minorities in the fall to invoke legal scrutiny, both from the courts and the Trump administration. He said he believed a number of institutions could be “cheating” the SFFA ruling, including some that were not included in this first round of investigations: Yale, Duke and Princeton.
“So many of us are befuddled and concerned that in the first admissions cycle post-SFFA, schools that said getting rid of affirmative action would cause their minority admissions to plummet didn’t see that happen,” he said.
Some colleges are withholding demographic information about their incoming classes altogether. On Thursday, hours after the Justice Department probes were launched, Harvard admitted its Class of 2029 but did not release any information—including demographics, acceptance and yield rates, and geographic data—for the first time in more than 70 years.
In response to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed about what the compliance reviews would entail or how the department plans to pursue its investigations into admissions offices, a Justice Department spokesperson referred to the initial statement announcing the investigations.
“No further comment,” he wrote via email.
There are some hints, though, as to what form a federal admissions investigation could take. In a December op-ed in The Washington Examiner outlining a plan that has reflected the Trump administration’s higher education agenda so far with uncanny accuracy, American Enterprise Institute fellow Max Eden suggested Bondi initiate “a never-ending compliance review” targeting Harvard University and others to enforce the SFFA ruling.
“She should assign Office of Civil Rights employees to the Harvard admissions office and direct the university to hold no admissions meeting without their physical presence,” Eden wrote. “The Office of Civil Rights should be copied on every email correspondence, and Harvard should be forced to provide a written rationale for every admissions decision to ensure nondiscrimination.”
For the four universities at the center of the investigations, this disruption could be especially pronounced right now, as colleges begin sending out acceptance letters and enter the busiest season for building their incoming classes.
“This could not come at a worse time. It is April; this is enrollment management season,” Pérez said. “For institutions to take the time, energy and resources to [respond to compliance reviews] means that they’re going to have a harder time enrolling their classes.”
‘Absurd’ Accusations
The Department of Justice is alleging that in the year and a half since the SFFA ruling, colleges have skirted the law by continuing to consider race in the admissions process. Those grounds make its targets particularly confusing, given that the University of California system hasn’t used affirmative action in admissions for nearly three decades.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, banning the practice at public colleges. In the application cycles immediately after, Black and Hispanic enrollment fell precipitously. Pérez said it took many years of experimenting with race-neutral admissions, financial aid and recruitment policies for UC campuses to bring Black and Hispanic enrollment back to their prior rates.
In the months following the SFFA decision, Pérez said college admissions professionals turned to California for lessons in how to maintain diversity without running afoul of the new law.
“Officials and admission professionals [at UC] have been helping other institutions across the United States comply with the Supreme Court decision,” he said. “They have actually served as leaders in this space. To accuse them of violating any law is absurd.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is detaining a Harvard Medical School research associate who’s a Russian native. One of Kseniia Petrova’s lawyers says the government is trying to deport her to Russia, where she faces possible arrest due to her “prior political activism and outspoken opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
Gregory Romanovsky, the lawyer, said in a statement that Petrova was trying to re-enter the U.S. on Feb. 16 at Boston’s Logan International Airport when a Customs and Border Protection officer discovered she “had not completed the required customs paperwork for a non-hazardous scientific sample she was bringing from an affiliated laboratory in France.”
“CBP was authorized to seize the item and issue a fine,” Romanovsky wrote. “Instead, they chose to cancel Ms. Petrova’s visa and detain her.”
Petrova remains in ICE custody in Louisiana. The Boston Globereported earlier on her detention.
Romanovsky wrote that “CBP improperly invoked their extensive immigration authority to impose a punishment grossly disproportionate to the situation. This overreach reflects broader concerns about the treatment of international scholars by U.S. immigration authorities.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that Petrova was “detained after lying to federal officers about carrying biological substances into the country. A subsequent K9 inspection uncovered undeclared petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits. Messages found on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them. She knowingly broke the law and took deliberate steps to evade it.”
Harvard spokespeople didn’t provide an interview Friday about the situation or answer multiple emailed questions. In a brief email, the medical school’s media relations arm said, “We are monitoring this situation.”
Romanovsky has sued to restore Petrova’s visa.
“Ms. Petrova’s 1.5-month-long detention has caused significant disruption to both her professional and personal life,” Romanovsky said in his statement. “As a dedicated and highly respected researcher, her work is critical to scientific progress. We strongly urge ICE to release Ms. Petrova while her legal proceedings are ongoing.”
