Crossroads: The Impact of Project 2025 on Higher Education

This series is titled Crossroads to reflect the pivotal moment that Higher Education currently faces—a decisive turning point. The direction it takes will either be actively shaped or passively imposed upon institutions. Higher Education grapples with a serious image crisis. Additionally, it is failing to produce a skilled workforce, neglecting to recruit key segments of the student population, and becoming unwisely entangled in political matters. Project 2025, a comprehensive plan for reshaping education governance, funding, and regulation, is a reaction to this. It poses a significant challenge to the current landscape of Higher Education. This slash-and-burn strategy, championed by conservative think tanks and policymakers, envisions sweeping changes that could fundamentally alter the structure, funding, and priorities of colleges and universities across the nation.

?

At the heart of Project 2025's Higher Education agenda is a radical overhaul of the accreditation system. The plan proposes to strip accreditors of their power to mandate diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. On the other hand, it seeks to protect faith-based institutions from requirements that may conflict with their religious missions, a move that will be welcomed by many schools across the country.

?

Perhaps most surprisingly, Project 2025 suggests allowing states to recognize accreditors for federal aid eligibility. This shift could lead to a patchwork system where educational quality and standards vary dramatically from state to state, undermining the national cohesion of American Higher Education. The potential shift described in Project 2025 could create a scenario where higher education becomes highly variable and less predictable, which is a fundamental departure from the national standards that have long ensured a measure of cohesion and comparability across the system.

?

The plan's approach to student loans is alarming. It proposes privatizing all federal lending, eliminating vital programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness, and consolidating existing loans into a single, less forgiving repayment plan. These changes could make Higher Education financially unattainable for countless students, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds. This proposal poses a significant threat to virtually all institutions of higher learning and should concern the entire educational community.

?

Project 2025 also takes aim at research funding, proposing to cap indirect costs paid to universities. While framed as a measure to prevent support for "leftist agendas," this move could cripple vital research programs across disciplines, from science and technology to the humanities.

?

The plan's vision for civil rights enforcement in Higher Education is equally concerning. By moving the Office for Civil Rights to the Department of Justice and limiting its enforcement capabilities, Project 2025 could weaken protections for students and staff, potentially reversing decades of progress in creating inclusive educational environments.

?

It is clear that a second Trump term would be disastrous for Higher Ed. As Larry Ladd from the Association of Governing Boards noted on LinkedIn recently, "A second Trump presidency will pay far more attention to colleges and universities than in his first term. He had essentially no agenda for the sector in the first term, but that is very different this time around." This increased focus, combined with the comprehensive nature of Project 2025, could lead to more aggressive policy changes than we saw during Trump's first term.

?

What makes Project 2025 particularly dangerous is the political momentum behind it. With Republicans needing to win only one house of Congress to conduct hearings that could initiate these changes, the threat is imminent even if Trump does not win the presidency.

?

The country is deeply divided, with both sides largely isolated in their own echo chambers. Our current political dynamics have been compared to the back-and-forth struggles of early 20th-century Spain, particularly in the years leading up to the Spanish Civil War. During that period, the shift from monarchy to the Second Republic saw multiple elections and leadership changes, marked by a growing polarization between left and right. While the situation in the U.S. is unlikely to escalate to anything as extreme as Spain’s civil conflict, the pattern of political retaliation remains strikingly similar. Project 2025 represents an extreme response to these divisions, and its advancement does not rely solely on a Trump presidency.

?

In addition to political concerns, the sector grapples with a host of other challenges: unstable leadership, declining enrollment, complexities in campus management, and the growing influence of international politics on the educational landscape, to name a few. Moreover, social dynamics among students have shifted markedly since the Pandemic, with dating and interpersonal interactions undergoing significant changes.

?

Given these kinds of pressures, Project 2025's proposals could push many institutions to the brink. The Higher Education community must recognize this threat and take action to protect the core values and structures that have made American colleges and universities global leaders in education and research.

?

To fully comprehend the potential impact of Project 2025, it is crucial to understand its origins and the political context in which it has emerged. As Katherine Knott reports in her Inside Higher Ed article, Project 2025 Would Radically Overhaul Higher Ed. Here's How, this plan is the latest in a series of policy manuals from the Heritage Foundation dating back to 1981. The success of the first edition, which saw over 60% of its recommendations become policy under President Ronald Reagan, has inspired subsequent iterations.

?

Knott notes that the 2016 edition, published shortly before Donald Trump was elected, proved equally effective. According to the Heritage Foundation, two-thirds of its recommendations had been either enacted or embraced by the Trump administration by 2018. This track record lends credibility to the potential impact of Project 2025, making it a threat that Higher Education cannot afford to ignore.

?

The comprehensive nature of Project 2025 is particularly concerning. As Knott explains, "Project 2025 reflects Republicans' push against diversity, equity and inclusion policies across the federal government, calling for stripping DEI requirements and references to sexual orientation and gender identity, among other terms, from 'every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.'" This sweeping approach could have far-reaching consequences for Higher Education institutions that have made significant investments in DEI initiatives over the past decade.

?

Moreover, the plan's vision for Higher Education extends far beyond policy changes in order to undermine the fundamental role of the sector in society. As Knott reports, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts writes in the foreword to the manual, "This book, this agenda, the entire Project 2025 is a plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors." This framing of Higher Education as part of an "elite" that needs to be challenged puts a target on the backs colleges and universities.

?

As we consider the potential impact of Project 2025, it's important to note that the challenges facing Higher Education are not uniform across all institutions. In his article "The Distinction for Small Colleges Just Can't Be That They Are Small," Jeff Selingo, a New York Times best-selling author and Special Advisor to the President for Innovation at Arizona State University, points out that about 40% of American colleges enroll 1,000 or fewer students, with another 40% enrolling fewer than 5,000 students. These small colleges face unique challenges in the current landscape and may be particularly vulnerable to the sweeping changes proposed by Project 2025.

?

Selingo argues that small colleges need to find distinctive identities beyond just their size to survive in an increasingly competitive environment. He cites the example of Simmons University in Boston, which has leveraged its identity as a women's college for undergraduates and co-educational institution for graduate students to create a unique value proposition. This kind of strategic thinking and adaptation will be crucial for institutions looking to navigate the potential upheavals that could result from the implementation of Project 2025.

?

The fact is small colleges are far more vulnerable to rapid change than large institutions. If the Republicans stain the college model with a toxic tone raw enrollment numbers could drop significantly across the board, affecting colleges that welcome fewer students the most. Rather than an equal share of a percentage, there could be a massive consolidation movement where students fearing criticism would only be willing to risk an education by a ‘big name’ school. After all, when you have 50,000 other people around you going to the same school it is easier to get lost in the crowd. When your sophomore class is 1,500 students or 500 students it is more risky for you to take a chance on investing in a degree whose value is openly being questioned at the national level.

?

Additionally, if Trump does win, the potential impact of a second Trump term on Higher Education is further explored in another article by Katherine Knott of Inside Higher Ed in her article How a Second Trump Term Could Turn Up the Heat on Higher Ed. Knott reports that while Higher Education wasn't a top priority during Trump's first term, the political landscape has shifted significantly since then. As she notes, "Higher education could be in for greater scrutiny and heightened pressure if he wins. Higher education wasn't high on Trump's priority list the first time around, but an increasing anti-higher education sentiment among Republicans and sectors of the public has shifted the political winds. That could open the door to more radical policy options."

?

Knott cites several policy proposals that Trump has already floated, including vowing to "fire" accreditors and reclaim colleges from the "radical left," calling for the creation of a free national online university paid for by taxes on wealthy colleges, threatening to deport campus protesters, and backing the extension of green cards to college graduates. These proposals, combined with the comprehensive approach outlined in Project 2025, suggest that a second Trump term could indeed bring significant changes to the Higher Education landscape.

?

The article also highlights the potential impact of Trump's choice for vice president, Ohio senator J.D. Vance, who has been an unsparing critic of universities. Knott quotes Vance as characterizing universities as being dedicated to "deceit and lies, not to the truth" and controlled by "left-wing foundations." This rhetoric, coming from a potential vice president, underscores the heightened scrutiny that Higher Education institutions might face under a second Trump administration.

?

Brendan Cantwell, a Professor of education at Michigan State University, offers a sobering assessment of the potential impact of these proposals. As quoted by Knott, Cantwell sees a systematic approach in Trump's agenda and other conservative plans for Higher Education. "I see the possibility of one or more of these levers being used to fundamentally remake the higher education sector as we know it," Cantwell says. "Federal policy is what facilitated the creation of the higher education sector that we know today, and it's the federal government that can undo it."

?

The potential impact of these changes is magnified by the current challenges facing Higher Education. As Knott reports, "Trump's potential return to the White House comes at a time when colleges and universities are grappling with numerous challenges, from declining enrollment and shrinking budgets to campus tensions and a drop in public confidence. A potential second Trump term would likely exacerbate those challenges, according to interviews with a dozen liberal and conservative policy experts as well as college professors and leaders."

?

One of the key factors that could make Higher Education more vulnerable to sweeping changes is the decrease in public trust over the last decade. Knott cites Gallup polling data showing that confidence in Higher Education has dropped from 57% in 2015 to just 36% in 2023. This erosion of public trust makes it easier for politicians to target the sector for reform and could make it more difficult for Higher Education leaders to resist potentially harmful changes.

?

The article also highlights the potential for bipartisan support for some reforms, which could make it easier for sweeping changes to be implemented. As Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies for the American Enterprise Institute, is quoted as saying, "There's a good chance that higher ed could be front and center because it has made itself a target of populist frustration."

?

Given this context, it's clear that the Higher Education sector needs to take the threat posed by Project 2025 seriously and begin preparing for potential changes. This preparation should involve a two-pronged approach: first, addressing legitimate concerns and criticisms to strengthen the sector's position, and second, developing strategies to resist potentially harmful changes.

?

The Impact of Project 2025 on Research and Innovation

Project 2025's proposal to cap indirect costs paid to universities for research could have severe implications for America's position as a global leader in innovation and scientific discovery. This policy, while ostensibly aimed at reducing costs, fails to recognize the complex ecosystem that supports groundbreaking research in Higher Education institutions.

?

Indirect costs, often referred to as facilities and administrative (F&A) costs, cover essential expenses that enable research to take place. These include maintaining and upgrading laboratory facilities, providing administrative support for grant management, ensuring compliance with research regulations, and covering utilities and security for research spaces. By capping these costs, Project 2025 could inadvertently cripple the research infrastructure that has made American universities the envy of the world.

?

The potential impacts of this policy are far-reaching. Universities may be forced to scale back their research activities, leading to fewer discoveries and innovations. This could slow progress in critical areas such as medical research, clean energy development, and advanced technologies. Furthermore, top researchers might move from universities to private sector research positions where funding is more robust. This could lead to a concentration of research talent in corporate labs, potentially shifting the focus from basic research to more immediately profitable applied research.

?

The implications for national security are also concerning. Much of the research that underpins national security, from cybersecurity to advanced materials, is conducted in university labs. Reducing this capacity could leave the U.S. more vulnerable in an increasingly competitive global landscape. The economic impact could be equally significant. University research often leads to patents, spin-off companies, and new industries. Limiting this research could slow economic growth and job creation, particularly in high-tech sectors.

?

Interdisciplinary research, which often yields the most innovative breakthroughs, could be particularly at risk. These projects, which may not have immediate commercial applications, could be especially vulnerable to funding cuts. The impact on STEM education is another crucial consideration. Research opportunities are vital for training the next generation of scientists and engineers. Reduced research funding could lead to fewer opportunities for students, potentially weakening the STEM workforce pipeline.

?

To mitigate these risks, universities may need to explore alternative funding models. This could include increased partnerships with industry, although care must be taken to maintain academic independence. Institutions might also need to streamline their research operations, finding efficiencies without compromising quality. Moreover, the Higher Education sector must make a stronger case for the value of basic research and the necessity of indirect costs. This will require improved communication with policymakers and the public about the long-term benefits of investment in university research.

?

The Economic Implications of Reshaping Higher Education

The sweeping changes proposed by Project 2025 could have significant economic ramifications, both for individuals and for the nation as a whole. These implications extend far beyond the immediate impact on Higher Education institutions themselves.

?

Project 2025's emphasis on vocational training and job-ready skills could lead to a short-term increase in workers prepared for current job market needs. However, this approach risks prioritizing immediate job placement over the development of adaptable, critical thinking skills that are crucial for long-term career success and innovation. The proposed changes could result in a workforce that is less able to adapt to rapid technological changes and shifting economic conditions. This could lead to increased structural unemployment in the long term as workers find their skills quickly becoming obsolete.

?

By potentially making Higher Education less accessible, particularly for lower-income students, Project 2025 could exacerbate existing income inequality. The privatization of student loans and the elimination of loan forgiveness programs could deter many from pursuing Higher Education, limiting their earning potential and social mobility. This could lead to a more stratified society, with educational opportunities increasingly correlated with family wealth. The long-term consequence could be a calcification of social classes, undermining the ideal of meritocracy and reducing overall economic dynamism.

?

Many communities, particularly in rural areas and smaller cities, rely heavily on Higher Education institutions as economic drivers. These institutions often serve as major employers, attract businesses to the area, and contribute significantly to the local tax base. If Project 2025 leads to the downsizing or closure of some institutions, it could have devastating effects on these local economies. This could accelerate the existing trend of economic concentration in major urban centers, further widening the urban-rural divide.

?

The United States has long been a leader in the innovation economy, with Higher Education institutions playing a crucial role in basic research, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship. By potentially reducing research funding and narrowing the focus of education, Project 2025 could weaken this innovation ecosystem. This could result in a decline in patent filings, startup formations, and the development of new industries. Over time, this could erode America's competitive advantage in high-tech and knowledge-intensive sectors.

While Project 2025 aims to reduce federal spending on Higher Education, the long-term fiscal implications could be negative. A less educated workforce could lead to lower tax revenues and increased social welfare costs. Additionally, if the changes lead to a less innovative economy, it could result in slower economic growth, further straining government budgets at all levels.

?

The proposed changes to accreditation and federal aid could create significant market distortions in the Higher Education sector. Some institutions might benefit from reduced regulatory burdens, while others could struggle to adapt. This could lead to a period of instability in the sector, with potential mergers, acquisitions, and closures entailing a reconfiguration the Higher Education landscape.

?

To address these economic challenges, Higher Education institutions and policymakers will need to work together to find balanced solutions. This could include developing new models of education that combine liberal arts education with practical skills training, creating stronger partnerships between Higher Education institutions and employers to ensure curriculum relevance without sacrificing academic rigor, and implementing progressive funding models that maintain access to Higher Education while ensuring fiscal sustainability. Additionally, investing in retraining and lifelong learning programs to help workers adapt to changing economic conditions and developing policies that support the role of Higher Education institutions in local economic development will be crucial.

?

By addressing these economic implications, the Higher Education sector can work to shape reforms that support both individual opportunity and national prosperity.

?

Addressing Concerns to Rebuild Public Trust

In the vibrant intellectual landscape of 5th century BCE Athens, a debate raged that bears striking parallels to the challenges facing modern Higher Education in the face of initiatives like Project 2025. This was the era when the Sophists, itinerant teachers focused on rhetoric and practical skills, clashed with philosophers like Socrates and later Plato, who emphasized moral virtue and the pursuit of truth.

?

The Sophists, responding to the growing demands of Athenian democracy, offered education in skills directly applicable to public life. They taught rhetoric, argumentation, and the art of persuasion – tools essential for success in the Athenian assembly and law courts. Their approach was pragmatic, focusing on what they saw as immediately useful knowledge for their students.

?

On the other hand, Socrates and his disciples, including Plato, advocated for a deeper, more reflective form of education. They questioned the very foundations of knowledge and ethics, arguing that true education should focus on developing moral character and critical thinking skills rather than just providing practical tools for success.

?

This intellectual divide mirrored the current debate in Higher Education about the balance between practical, career-focused education and broader, liberal arts education. The Sophists' approach could be seen as analogous to modern calls for more vocational training and job-ready skills, while the Socratic method aligns with the traditional view of Higher Education as a place for intellectual growth and character development.

?

The debate between these two approaches came to a head but didn't result in a wholesale dismantling of either system. Instead, Aristotle, a student of Plato, founded the Lyceum in 335 BCE. While Plato's Academy focused primarily on abstract philosophical inquiry, Aristotle's Lyceum took a more empirical approach. It broadened its curriculum to include natural sciences, logic, and practical ethics alongside philosophy. This expansion can be seen as a form of educational reform, adapting to the changing needs of society while still maintaining a commitment to deep intellectual inquiry.

?

The Lyceum's approach represented a middle ground between the purely practical focus of the Sophists and the abstract philosophical bent of Plato's Academy. It demonstrated that educational institutions could evolve and incorporate new areas of study without abandoning their core intellectual mission.

?

The lesson we can draw from this historical example is twofold. First, the tension between practical skills and broader intellectual development is not new – it has been a part of the educational discourse for thousands of years. Second, Higher Education can adapt from within rather than be disrupted from without, leading to innovations in education that balance different needs and perspectives. That is one of the primary messages we need to carry to the Republican side of the aisle.

?

As we face the challenges posed by Project 2025 and calls for radical reform in modern Higher Education, we would do well to remember the example of ancient Athens. The debate between the Sophists and philosophers, and the subsequent evolution represented by Aristotle's Lyceum, shows that it's possible to adapt to changing societal needs without abandoning the core values of Higher Education.

?

To be sure, the reforms proposed by Project 2025 are far more sweeping and potentially disruptive then those faced by ancient Athens. While some changes may indeed be necessary to address the sector's current challenges, a wholesale overhaul risks undermining the very foundations that have made American Higher Education a global leader.

?

Rebuilding public trust and strengthening Higher Education's position is crucial in the face of potential sweeping changes proposed by Project 2025. This process involves addressing legitimate concerns that have eroded confidence in the sector. Let's explore some key areas where Higher Education can take proactive steps:

?

One of the most persistent criticisms of Higher Education is the rising cost of tuition and fees. To address this concern, institutions must prioritize transparency in their budgeting and spending processes. This could involve publishing detailed annual financial reports that break down expenditures by category, including administration, instruction, research, and student services. Institutions might also implement interactive online tools that allow students and families to see exactly how their tuition dollars are being used. Hosting regular town hall meetings or forums where administrators explain budget decisions and address community concerns could further enhance transparency. By providing clear, accessible information about how funds are allocated and spent, institutions can help rebuild trust and demonstrate their commitment to fiscal responsibility. This transparency can also help counter misconceptions about wasteful spending in Higher Education.

?

Here are some ways that these issues can be addressed:

1. Cost Containment: Developing and implementing strategies to control the rising cost of tuition and fees, potentially including administrative streamlining, shared services between institutions, and innovative financial models.

In the face of potential funding disruptions, institutions must adopt a rigorous approach to fiscal management. This could involve creating consortia for shared services to pool resources efficiently. Institutions should also explore innovative financial models, such as income share agreements, which tie student payments to post-graduation earnings, creating a more symbiotic relationship between the institution and its alumni.

?

2. Outcome Measurement: Creating more comprehensive and transparent methods for measuring and reporting student outcomes, including not just graduation rates but also employment success, skill acquisition, and long-term career progression.

In an era of increased scrutiny, institutions must become meticulous in tracking outcomes. This could involve developing longitudinal studies that track graduates over decades, measuring not just employment rates but also career satisfaction, civic engagement, and contributions to society. Institutions should also consider adopting value-added measures that account for students' starting points, thus demonstrating the true impact of the educational experience.

?

3. Curriculum Relevance: Regularly reviewing and updating curricula to ensure they align with evolving workforce needs and societal challenges, while maintaining a strong foundation in critical thinking and liberal arts education.

The curriculum must evolve with agility, adapting to new realities while retaining its essential nature. This could involve creating interdisciplinary programs that blend liberal arts with emerging technologies, developing "challenge-based" curricula that tackle real-world problems, and incorporating futures thinking and scenario planning into all disciplines to prepare students for an uncertain world.

?

4. Alternative Credentialing: Exploring and developing alternative credentialing systems that provide more flexible pathways to education and career advancement, such as micro-credentials, stackable certificates, and competency-based degrees.

Institutions must create a marketplace of credentials. This could involve developing a system of micro-credentials that can be stacked to form larger qualifications. Competency-based degrees could be structured with students progressing through levels of mastery. Blockchain technology could be employed to create secure, verifiable credentials that follow learners throughout their lives.

?

5. Technology Integration: Embracing emerging technologies to enhance learning experiences, improve administrative efficiency, and expand access to education.

Institutions must harness technology with an inventive spirit. This could involve creating immersive virtual reality environments for experiential learning, developing AI-powered tutoring systems that provide personalized instruction, and implementing blockchain-based systems for secure, transparent record-keeping. The goal should be to use technology not just as a tool, but as a means of reimagining the very nature of education.

?

6. Community Engagement: Strengthening ties with local communities through service-learning programs, community-based research, and partnerships with local organizations.

Universities must become integral to their communities. This could involve creating "civic laboratories" where students and faculty work alongside community members to solve local challenges, developing "knowledge exchange" programs that bring community expertise into the classroom, and establishing university-run ventures that provide services to the community while offering experiential learning opportunities for students.

?

7. Improving Governance: Developing more effective strategies for governance that go beyond surface-level changes to ensure truly effective learning environments.

Governance structures must be robust and adaptable, capable of navigating both periods of stability and times of crisis. This could involve implementing rotating leadership roles to ensure fresh perspectives, creating advisory boards of external experts to provide insight on emerging trends, and developing rigorous training programs for board members on the complexities of Higher Education management.

?

8. Student Socialization Support: Expanding and improving mental health services for students, recognizing the growing need for socialization support in Higher Education since the Pandemic.

Institutions must approach the lack of student socialization holistically, recognizing the interconnectedness of students as a top priority. This could involve integrating mental health education into all aspects of campus life, creating peer support networks, and developing new ways of bringing students together. Institutions should also consider reimagining campus spaces to promote interaction among students.

?

9. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Breaking down silos between academic disciplines to foster more innovative research and prepare students for complex, multifaceted career environments.

The walls between disciplines must become permeable. This could involve creating "intellectual hubs" where scholars from different fields regularly interact, developing funding mechanisms that prioritize interdisciplinary research, and redesigning physical spaces to encourage chance encounters between researchers from diverse fields. The goal should be to create an academic ecosystem that is diverse and interconnected.

?

10. Lifelong Learning: Developing robust continuing education and professional development programs to support learners throughout their careers and lives.

Education must become a lifelong pursuit. This could involve creating personalized learning pathways that adapt to an individual's changing needs over time, developing "knowledge subscription" models that provide ongoing access to educational resources, and creating intergenerational learning communities that leverage the wisdom of older learners while keeping them engaged with younger generations.

?

11. Crisis Management: Enhancing crisis management strategies to deal with rapidly evolving challenges in the Higher Education landscape.

Institutions must approach crisis management with strategic foresight. This involves not just having plans in place, but regularly conducting sophisticated simulations of complex, multi-faceted crises. Every institution should have a crisis management team capable of responding swiftly and effectively to any threat.

?

Moreover, each institution should have a dedicated crisis manager or firm on retainer, with deep connections in media and government. This expert should be integral to the institution's operations, constantly scanning the horizon for potential threats and providing guidance on how to navigate turbulent times. Regular tabletop exercises should be conducted, involving all levels of institutional leadership, to ensure that response protocols are internalized and can be executed flawlessly under pressure.

?

By implementing these strategies, Higher Education institutions can build a resilient foundation, capable of weathering the storms of change while continuing to fulfill their essential mission of enlightenment and progress.

?

Higher Education can demonstrate its responsiveness to societal needs and its capacity for self-improvement. A proactive approach will give Higher Ed first-mover advantage, helping to preemptively build public trust and strengthen the sector's position in policy debates, thereby reducing the perceived need for externally imposed reforms.

?

The Role of Federal Lobbying in Protecting Higher Education

Given the comprehensive nature of the threats posed by Project 2025 and the potential for sweeping changes under a second Trump administration, federal-level lobbying efforts are of paramount importance. Higher Education institutions and their representatives must engage in sustained, strategic lobbying to protect the sector's interests and values.

?

At the federal level, Higher Education lobbying efforts should focus on promoting policies that incentivize institutional transparency. This could include advocating for federal grants or tax incentives for institutions that meet certain transparency benchmarks. Lobbyists might also push for legislation requiring all institutions receiving federal funding to provide standardized, easily understandable financial disclosures. The creation of a national database of Higher Education financial information to facilitate comparisons and informed decision-making could also be a priority.

?

Another key concern is the perceived value of a college education in today's job market. To address this, institutions must focus on enhancing their career services and improving job placement rates. This could involve expanding internship and co-op programs to provide students with real-world experience before graduation. Developing stronger partnerships with local and national employers to create direct pipelines for graduates would also be beneficial. Institutions might implement comprehensive career counseling programs that begin in a student's first year and continue through graduation and beyond. Tracking and publicizing detailed job placement and salary data for recent graduates could help demonstrate the value of a degree. By showing a clear link between Higher Education and successful career outcomes, institutions can reinforce the value proposition of a college degree.

?

Federal lobbying efforts in this area should focus on advocating for increased federal funding for career services programs at colleges and universities. Supporting legislation that encourages partnerships between Higher Education institutions and employers could also be beneficial. Promoting the creation of a national job placement database for college graduates to provide more comprehensive data on career outcomes might also be a priority.

?

Concerns about ideological bias and restrictions on free speech have become increasingly prominent in discussions about Higher Education. To address these issues, institutions should develop and enforce clear policies protecting freedom of expression on campus. Creating programs that promote civil discourse and encourage exposure to diverse viewpoints could help address these concerns. Establishing ombudsman offices to handle complaints related to viewpoint discrimination or free speech violations might also be beneficial. Regular assessment and reporting on the state of viewpoint diversity and free speech on campus could demonstrate a commitment to these principles. By showing a dedication to open inquiry and diverse perspectives, Higher Education can counter criticisms of ideological bias and reinforce its role as a marketplace of ideas.

?

At the federal level, lobbying efforts should focus on supporting legislation that protects free speech and academic freedom on college campuses. Advocating for federal grants to support programs promoting viewpoint diversity and civil discourse could also be beneficial. Opposing any attempts to impose ideological litmus tests on Higher Education institutions or faculty should be a priority.

?

To increase accessibility and address concerns about the cost and relevance of Higher Education, institutions should focus on developing more flexible and affordable degree programs. This could include expanding online and hybrid learning options to accommodate diverse student needs and schedules. Creating accelerated degree programs that allow students to complete their studies more quickly might also be beneficial. Developing competency-based education models that focus on skills mastery rather than seat time could provide more flexibility for students. Implementing stackable credential systems that allow students to build towards a degree over time might also increase accessibility. By offering more diverse and flexible pathways to a degree, Higher Education can demonstrate its ability to adapt to changing student needs and economic realities.

?

Federal lobbying efforts in this area should focus on advocating for changes to federal financial aid policies to better support non-traditional students and innovative program models. Supporting legislation that encourages experimentation with new educational delivery models could also be beneficial. Promoting federal investment in technology infrastructure to support online and hybrid learning might also be a priority.

?

The tenure system, while crucial for protecting academic freedom, has come under scrutiny for potentially shielding underperforming faculty and limiting institutional flexibility. To address these concerns, institutions should consider implementing more rigorous post-tenure review processes to ensure ongoing productivity and excellence. Developing alternative career tracks for faculty that provide job security without the limitations of traditional tenure might also be beneficial. Creating more opportunities for interdisciplinary work and collaborative research could help keep tenured faculty engaged and innovative. Establishing clearer metrics for evaluating teaching effectiveness and community engagement alongside research output might also improve the tenure system. By reforming the tenure system, Higher Education can demonstrate its commitment to accountability and excellence while preserving the essential protections for academic freedom.

?

Federal lobbying efforts related to tenure reform should focus on advocating for federal research funding policies that incentivize collaboration and interdisciplinary work. Supporting legislation that protects academic freedom while allowing for greater flexibility in faculty employment models could also be beneficial. Promoting federal grants for innovative faculty development and evaluation programs might also be a priority.

?

Higher Education does not exist in isolation; it is deeply interconnected with various sectors of the economy and society. By building strong coalitions with these sectors, Higher Education can demonstrate its broader impact and garner support for its mission. This could involve partnering with major employers to develop curricula that address workforce needs, collaborating with industry associations to showcase the role of Higher Education in driving innovation and economic growth, working with K-12 education systems to create seamless pathways from high school to college, and engaging with community organizations to highlight the civic and cultural contributions of Higher Education institutions. These coalitions can provide a powerful voice in support of Higher Education, especially when facing potential policy changes that could harm the sector.

?

At the federal level, lobbying efforts should focus on organizing joint advocacy campaigns with industry partners to highlight the economic impact of Higher Education, supporting legislation that incentivizes partnerships between Higher Education institutions and private sector employers, advocating for federal funding programs that support collaborations between Higher Education and other sectors, and building relationships with key congressional committees responsible for education policy and funding.

?

Effective public advocacy is essential for communicating the value of Higher Education to a broader audience and countering negative narratives. This could involve developing comprehensive media strategies to highlight student success stories and institutional achievements, creating public education campaigns about the societal benefits of Higher Education, engaging alumni networks to serve as ambassadors for their institutions and Higher Education in general, and utilizing social media and digital platforms to reach younger audiences and shape public opinion. By proactively shaping the narrative around Higher Education, institutions can build public support and resilience against potential threats.

?

Federal lobbying efforts in this area should focus on advocating for increased federal funding for outreach and public education programs related to Higher Education, supporting legislation that protects the ability of Higher Education institutions to engage in public advocacy, promoting the inclusion of Higher Education representatives in federal advisory committees and policy discussions, and developing relationships with national media outlets to ensure fair and accurate coverage of Higher Education issues.

?

In the face of potentially unconstitutional or harmful policies, Higher Education institutions must be prepared to mount legal challenges. This could involve establishing legal defense funds to support litigation when necessary, forming consortia with other institutions to share legal resources and coordinate responses to policy threats, developing relationships with constitutional law experts and civil liberties organizations, and creating rapid response teams to quickly assess and respond to new policy proposals or executive orders. By being prepared to defend their rights and autonomy in court, Higher Education institutions can serve as a crucial check on overreach and protect academic freedom.

?

Federal lobbying efforts related to legal strategies should focus on advocating for legislation that strengthens legal protections for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, supporting the appointment of federal judges who understand and value the role of Higher Education in society, promoting federal funding for legal aid programs that support students and institutions in education-related cases, and engaging with the Department of Justice to ensure fair enforcement of education-related laws and regulations.

?

Strong institutional governance is crucial for resisting external pressures and maintaining the integrity of Higher Education. This could involve developing clear policies and procedures for responding to external pressures or interference, strengthening shared governance models to ensure faculty input in key decisions, providing training for board members on their roles in protecting institutional autonomy, and implementing robust conflict of interest policies to maintain institutional independence. By fortifying their internal structures, Higher Education institutions can better withstand attempts to undermine their mission or values.

?

Federal lobbying efforts in this area should focus on advocating for federal guidelines that protect the independence of institutional governing boards, supporting legislation that strengthens protections against political interference in Higher Education governance, promoting federal funding for programs that train Higher Education leaders in effective governance practices, and engaging with federal agencies to ensure regulations respect institutional autonomy and shared governance principles.

?

The most important adjustment for intuitions to make is to hire their own lobbyist or lobbying firm. By integrating professional advocates into a holistic strategy, institutions can ensure a consistent approach to their government relations. These advocates, working alongside legal counsel and crisis managers, form a crucial part of the institution's leadership team. They provide a vital link between the academic world and the political sphere, helping to navigate complex policy landscapes and protect the interests of Higher Education. Their role is particularly crucial for institutions whose presidents have taken public stances on contentious issues, as they can help contextualize such comments and prevent political disagreements from overshadowing the important work of the university.

?

1.? Unified Voice: Higher Education institutions should strive for a unified voice through national associations to counter external threats. Each institution should employ a professional advocate who collaborates with these associations, ensuring the institution's unique perspectives are represented while contributing to the sector's cohesive message. These advocates should work together to amplify Higher Education's collective influence in Washington.

2.? Bipartisan Outreach: The professional advocate at each institution must cultivate relationships across the political spectrum. They should organize collaborative policy development sessions with lawmakers from both parties, fostering a sense of shared ownership in Higher Education’s success. These advocates should also coordinate regular bipartisan forums hosted by their universities, positioning Higher Education as a bridge-builder in an increasingly polarized landscape.

3.? Data-Driven Advocacy: Institutional advocates should spearhead comprehensive economic impact studies that quantify their school's contributions in terms of economic output, social mobility, civic engagement, and cultural enrichment. They should ensure these studies are conducted with scientific rigor, possibly collaborating with independent think tanks to enhance credibility, and use this data to inform their lobbying efforts.

4.? Targeted Messaging: Professional advocates must craft messages that resonate with specific stakeholders. They should create detailed policy briefs for different congressional committees, highlighting their institution's relevant research and success stories. These advocates should also develop a "rapid response" capability, working closely with faculty experts to provide timely commentary on emerging policy issues.

5.? Grassroots Mobilization: Institutional advocates should lead efforts to mobilize their school's constituents. They could oversee the creation of a sophisticated digital platform allowing alumni, students, and supporters to easily contact their representatives and coordinate advocacy efforts. These professionals should also establish "advocacy academies" to train community members in effective civic engagement techniques.

6.? Coalition Building: Professional advocates should be tasked with forging alliances across sectors on behalf of their institutions. They could initiate formal consortia with shared research agendas and policy goals. These advocates should also organize regular "future of work" summits, bringing together academic, industry, and government leaders to demonstrate Higher Education's central role in driving innovation and economic growth.

7.??Proactive Policy Proposals: Institutional advocates should lead "Higher Education Policy Labs" that bring together academics, policymakers, and industry experts to develop innovative solutions to sector challenges. They should oversee the production of regular white papers and draft legislation, positioning their institution and Higher Education as a whole as sources of solutions rather than targets of reform.

8. Continuous Engagement: Professional advocates should manage ongoing, substantive engagement with policymakers. They could coordinate "Legislative Scholars-in-Residence" programs, inviting lawmakers and their staff to spend time on campus. Conversely, these advocates could oversee "Policy Fellows" positions, arranging for faculty to work in legislative offices, thereby enhancing mutual understanding and collaboration.

9.??Expertise Sharing: Institutional advocates should position their schools as invaluable resources for policymakers. They could contribute to a centralized "Higher Education Policy Resource Center" that curates and disseminates relevant research findings, expert analyses, and policy recommendations. These professionals should also organize regular "State of Higher Education" briefings for policymakers and their staff.

10.? Media Strategy: Professional advocates should work closely with their institution's communications team to shape public opinion effectively. They could help coordinate a "Higher Education Newsroom" that proactively pitches stories, provides expert commentary, and rapidly responds to misinformation. These advocates should also guide sophisticated social media strategies, leveraging the reach and influence of faculty, alumni, and student "micro-influencers" to amplify key messages.

Specific Federal Lobbying Priorities

In light of the threats posed by Project 2025, Higher Education lobbyists should focus on a limited set of critical priorities:

1. Preserving Federal Financial Aid: Advocate for the continuation and expansion of federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants and federally subsidized loans. Resist efforts to privatize student lending or reduce federal support for Higher Education.

2. Protecting Research Funding: Lobby for sustained and increased federal funding for research across all disciplines. Emphasize the critical role of university research in driving innovation, economic growth, and national security.

3. Defending Institutional Autonomy: Advocate for legislation that reinforces the principle of institutional self-governance.

4. Strengthening Workforce Development: Advocate for federal support for programs that enhance the connection between Higher Education and the workforce, including funding for career services, internship programs, and industry partnerships.

5. Protecting Accreditation Independence: Resist efforts to weaponize the accreditation process or undermine its independence. Advocate for a system that maintains high standards while allowing for innovation in Higher Education delivery.

6. Defending Diversity Initiatives: While acknowledging the need for viewpoint diversity, lobby against blanket bans on current programs. Advocate for policies that allow institutions to pursue inclusive excellence within legal boundaries.

7. Supporting Free Speech: Promote legislation that protects free speech and academic freedom on campus while allowing institutions to maintain a safe and respectful learning environment.

8. Advocating for Infrastructure Investment: Lobby for federal funding to support Higher Education infrastructure, including facilities upgrades, technology enhancements, and sustainability initiatives.

A certain amount of horse trading will need to occur. Unlike Cotton Law, lobbyists will never be able to make everyone happy. Of course, we generally handle presidential transitions where everyone is happy to come to agreement, so it is not really a fair comparison. In the case of lobbying efforts, focusing on a set of limited priorities and engaging in strategic, sustained advocacy at the federal level, boards can work to mitigate the potential negative impacts of Project 2025 and shape a policy environment that supports the sector's vital mission.

?

George Mason University - A Potential Test Case for Project 2025

As an alumnus of George Mason University (GMU), I find the recent developments at my alma mater particularly concerning. The situation at GMU provides a concrete example of how the ideas proposed in Project 2025 might be implemented at the institutional level.

?

Alex Walters, in his article for The Chronicle of Higher Education Could George Mason U. Be Republicans' 'Test Case' for Project 2025?, outlines some alarming developments. Walters reports that as of July 2024, Governor Glenn Youngkin's appointees will make up a supermajority on George Mason's Board of Visitors. What's particularly noteworthy is the background of these appointees. As Walters notes:

?

"Among them are numerous researchers and activists with ties to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank. One board member is a lead author of Project 2025, a blueprint for a second Trump administration that many critics have called authoritarian."

?

This direct connection between Project 2025 and the governance of a major public university is deeply troubling. It suggests that the ideas outlined in Project 2025 are not merely theoretical but are already being put into practice.

?

Walters goes on to report on the potential focus of this new board:

"At a meeting on Friday, George Mason's new board is expected to elect a chair, called a rector in the state's Jeffersonian jargon. Eradicating diversity, equity, and inclusion is the primary force driving conversations about who should lead the board, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions."

?

This focus on eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives aligns closely with the goals outlined in Project 2025. It represents a concrete example of how the broader ideological battle over Higher Education is playing out at the institutional level.

?

The article also highlights the potential vulnerability of GMU to these changes. Walters quotes Bethany Letiecq, a professor in George Mason's College of Education and Human Development and President of the National Council on Family Relations:

?

"My feeling is, we've been captured," she added. "We've had a strong sense as faculty that once the board shifted to 12-4, the gloves would come off."

?

This sentiment reflects the fears of many in Higher Education about the potential for rapid, ideologically driven changes if initiatives like Project 2025 gain traction.

?

However, it's important to note that GMU's situation is complex. As Walters points out:

"In some ways, George Mason appears an obvious choice: Its law school, named for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has close ties with Washington's conservative legal movement. Record-breaking gifts from the right-leaning Charles Koch Foundation have created new professorships in free-market economics."

?

"But in other ways, the anti-DEI movement is at odds with a university like George Mason. The student body is the most diverse in Virginia. Administrators have boasted that intentional inclusion efforts support that diversity and help prevent achievement gaps."

?

This tension between GMU's conservative ties and its diverse student body underscores the complexity of the challenges facing Higher Education in the current political climate.

?

The situation at GMU serves as a warning for other institutions. As Walters reports, Governor Youngkin has been explicit about his intentions for university board members. At an orientation for his board picks in 2022, Youngkin reportedly told appointees "he needed to dispel 'this myth that board members are cheerleaders for the university' and instead should be 'a responsible extension of the executive branch.'"

?

This view of board members as extensions of the executive branch, rather than independent stewards of the institution, represents a significant departure from traditional norms of university governance. It aligns closely with the more centralized, top-down approach to Higher Education governance suggested in Project 2025.

?

The developments at GMU highlight the urgent need for Higher Education institutions to strengthen their governance structures and build resilience against potential ideological capture. They also underscore the importance of engaging with state-level politics, as governors and state legislatures often have significant influence over public universities.

?

As we consider the broader implications of Project 2025, the situation at GMU serves as a stark reminder that the threats to Higher Education autonomy and academic freedom are not abstract. They are real, immediate, and already unfolding at institutions across the country. The Higher Education community must be prepared to respond swiftly and decisively to protect the core values and mission of our institutions.

?

Adapting to Change

The challenges posed by Project 2025 and the potential for sweeping changes under a second Trump administration represent a critical juncture for American Higher Education. The sector must navigate these turbulent waters with strategic thinking, proactive reform, and robust advocacy.

?

By addressing legitimate concerns, resisting harmful changes, and engaging in effective federal lobbying, Higher Education can work to shape its own future rather than having it imposed from outside. The stakes are high, not just for individual institutions but for the nation as a whole. Higher Education plays a vital role in fostering innovation, promoting social mobility, and maintaining America's global competitiveness.

?

As we move forward, it will be crucial for all stakeholders in Higher Education—administrators, faculty, students, alumni, and supporters—to remain engaged and vigilant. The decisions made in the coming years will shape the future of American Higher Education for decades to come.

?

In facing these challenges, we might draw inspiration from the wisdom of the ancient Athenians, who understood that education was not just about imparting knowledge but about shaping citizens and leaders. As we confront our own moment of crisis and potential transformation, let us strive to preserve the best of our educational traditions while adapting to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world. The challenge, as it was in ancient Athens, is to strike the right balance – to evolve without losing sight of the fundamental purpose of Higher Education. As we navigate the potential reforms and challenges posed by initiatives like Project 2025, we must strive for a synthesis that preserves the best of our educational traditions while adapting to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world.

?

The road ahead may be challenging, but with careful navigation, strategic thinking, and a commitment to our core values, Higher Education can emerge from this period of turbulence stronger and more relevant than ever. The future of American Higher Education—and indeed, the future of our society—depends on our ability to rise to this challenge.

?

?