Higher Education Inquirer : Search results for national american university

Showing posts sorted by date for query national american university. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, January 6, 2025

HEI Resources 2025

[Editor's Note: Please let us know of any additions or corrections.]

Books

Alexander, Bryan (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.
Alexander, Bryan (2023). Universities on Fire. Johns Hopkins Press.
Angulo, A. (2016). Diploma Mills: How For-profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Archibald, R. and Feldman, D. (2017). The Road Ahead for America's Colleges & Universities. Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, E. and Hamilton, L. (2015). Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Harvard University Press.
Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. University of Chicago Press.
Baldwin, Davarian (2021). In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities. Bold Type Books.
Bennett, W. and Wilezol, D. (2013). Is College Worth It?: A Former United States Secretary of Education and a Liberal Arts Graduate Expose the Broken Promise of Higher Education. Thomas Nelson.
Berg, I. (1970). "The Great Training Robbery: Education and Jobs." Praeger.
Berman, Elizabeth P. (2012). Creating the Market University. Princeton University Press.
Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education. Monthly Review Press.
Best, J. and Best, E. (2014) The Student Loan Mess: How Good Intentions Created a Trillion-Dollar Problem. Atkinson Family Foundation.

Bledstein, Burton J. (1976). The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. Norton.

Bogue, E. Grady and Aper, Jeffrey. (2000). Exploring the Heritage of American Higher Education: The Evolution of Philosophy and Policy.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace : The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton University Press.
Bousquet, M. (2008). How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low Wage Nation. NYU Press.
Brennan, J & Magness, P. (2019). Cracks in the Ivory Tower. Oxford University Press.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. The Diverted Dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press. (1989).
Cabrera, Nolan L. (2024) Whiteness in the Ivory Tower: Why Don't We Notice the White Students Sitting Together in the Quad? Teachers College Press.
Cabrera, Nolan L. (2018). White Guys on Campus: Racism, White Immunity, and the Myth of "Post-Racial" Higher Education. Rutgers University Press.
Caplan, B. (2018). The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. Princeton University Press.
Cappelli, P. (2015). Will College Pay Off?: A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You'll Ever Make. Public Affairs.
Carney, Cary Michael (1999). Native American Higher Education in the United States. Transaction.
Childress, H. (2019). The Adjunct Underclass: How America's Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students, and Their Mission University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, Arthur M. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, Randall. (1979/2019) The Credential Society. Academic Press. Columbia University Press.
Cottom, T. (2016). Lower Ed: How For-profit Colleges Deepen Inequality in America
Domhoff, G. William (2021). Who Rules America? 8th Edition. Routledge.
Donoghue, F. (2008). The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities.
Dorn, Charles. (2017) For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America Cornell University Press.
Eaton, Charlie. (2022) Bankers in the Ivory Tower: The Troubling Rise of Financiers in US Higher Education. University of Chicago Press.
Eisenmann, Linda. (2006) Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945–1965. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
Espenshade, T., Walton Radford, A.(2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.
Faragher, John Mack and Howe, Florence, ed. (1988). Women and Higher Education in American History. Norton.
Farber, Jerry (1972). The University of Tomorrowland. Pocket Books.
Freeman, Richard B. (1976). The Overeducated American. Academic Press.
Gaston, P. (2014). Higher Education Accreditation. Stylus.
Ginsberg, B. (2013). The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All Administrative University and Why It Matters
Gleason, Philip. Contending with Modernity: Catholic Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. Oxford U. Press, 1995.
Golden, D. (2006). The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys its Way into Elite Colleges — and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream.
Graeber, David (2018) Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Simon and Schuster.

Groeger, Cristina Viviana (2021). The Education Trap: Schools and the Remaking of Inequality in Boston. Harvard Press.

Hamilton, Laura T. and Kelly Nielson (2021) Broke: The Racial Consequences of Underfunding Public Universities
Johnson, B. et al. (2003). Steal This University: The Rise of the Corporate University and the Academic Labor Movement
Keats, John (1965) The Sheepskin Psychosis. Lippincott.
Kelchen, R. (2018). Higher Education Accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kezar, A., DePaola, T, and Scott, D. The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University. Johns Hopkins Press.
Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street: The Transformation of For-profit Higher Education
Kozol, Jonathan (2006). The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Crown.
Kozol, Jonathan (1992). Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. Harper Perennial.
Labaree, David F. (2017). A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Labaree, David (1997) How to Succeed in School without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education, Yale University Press.
Lafer, Gordon (2004). The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press.
Loehen, James (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me. The New Press.
Lohse, Andrew (2014). Confessions of an Ivy League Frat Boy: A Memoir. Thomas Dunne Books.
Lucas, C.J. American higher education: A history. (1994).
Lukianoff, Greg and Jonathan Haidt (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.
Maire, Quentin (2021). Credential Market. Springer.
Mandery, Evan (2022) . Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us. New Press.
Marti, Eduardo (2016). America's Broken Promise: Bridging the Community College Achievement Gap. Excelsior College Press.
Mettler, Suzanne 'Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream. Basic Books. (2014)
Newfeld, C. (2011). Unmaking the Public University.
Newfeld, C. (2016). The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them.
Paulsen, M. and J.C. Smart (2001). The Finance of Higher Education: Theory, Research, Policy & Practice. Agathon Press.
Rosen, A.S. (2011). Change.edu. Kaplan Publishing.
Reynolds, G. (2012). The Higher Education Bubble. Encounter Books.
Roth, G. (2019) The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press
Ruben, Julie. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University Of Chicago Press. (1996).
Rudolph, F. (1991) The American College and University: A History.
Rushdoony, R. (1972). The Messianic Character of American Education. The Craig Press.
Selingo, J. (2013). College Unbound: The Future of Higher Education and What It Means for Students.
Shelton, Jon (2023). The Education Myth: How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy. Cornell University Press.
Sinclair, U. (1923). The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education.
Stevens, Mitchell L. (2009). Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Harvard University Press.
Stodghill, R. (2015). Where Everybody Looks Like Me: At the Crossroads of America's Black Colleges and Culture.
Tamanaha, B. (2012). Failing Law Schools. The University of Chicago Press.
Tatum, Beverly (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria. Basic Books
Taylor, Barret J. and Brendan Cantwell (2019). Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status and Student Opportunity. Rutgers University Press.
Thelin, John R. (2019) A History of American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
Tolley, K. (2018). Professors in the Gig Economy: Unionizing Adjunct Faculty in America. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Twitchell, James B. (2005). Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld. Simon and Schuster.
Vedder, R. (2004). Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much.
Veysey Lawrence R. (1965).The emergence of the American university.
Washburn, J. (2006). University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education
Washington, Harriet A. (2008). Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. Anchor.
Whitman, David (2021). The Profits of Failure: For-Profit Colleges and the Closing of the Conservative Mind. Cypress House.
Wilder, C.D. (2013). Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities.
Woodson, Carter D. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro.
Zemsky, Robert, Susan Shaman, and Susan Campbell Baldridge (2020). The College Stress Test:Tracking Institutional Futures across a Crowded Market. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Activists, Coalitions, Innovators, and Alternative Voices

College Choice and Career Planning Tools

Innovation and Reform

Higher Education Policy

Data Sources

Trade publications

Wednesday, January 1, 2025

Higher Education – Nowhere to Go (Gary Roth)

“All we want are the facts, ma’am.” Jack Webb, from the television series, Dragnet (1951-1959)

If it were a matter of the facts alone, the right-wing attack on higher education would be unintelligible. From the attacks, one might think that the college scene is hugely skewed in favor of the underrepresented students towards whom diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are directed. Yet, a quick glance at census data (Chart 1) shows that collegiate admissions fairly accurately reflect the diversity that marks the population as a whole.

DEI initiatives are focused on the racial and ethnic differentials that have characterized the admission, retention, and graduation of college students, as defined by the broad demographic categories used in government publications and legislation. While initial enrollment rates have narrowed, they are still considerable gaps between groups, especially when the performance of Asian students are part of the comparison. Whites, Blacks (African Americans), and Hispanics (Latinx) lag some 20-25 percent behind. Larger disparities also define retention and graduation rates, over which colleges and universities seemingly have greater impact.[1] DEI initiatives are aimed at these interlocking factors.

Noteworthy in the data about higher education is the dramatic falloff in White participation. Whites are the only demographic group whose participation in higher education is less than their proportion in the general population, while every other group has either held their own or increased their collegiate participation beyond their presence within the general population.

The situation facing Whites has been interpreted in two broad and seemingly contradictory manners. In one, Whites, especially from the working class, are mired in a deep crisis that manifests in a decline in longevity, catastrophic rates of drug (fentanyl) and alcohol addiction, a paranoid perception of reality that leads to high rates of gun ownership, and a propensity to adopt outlandish theories regarding political behavior.

The other interpretation views Whites as a group that can heavily rely on kinship and friendship networks, neighborhood contacts, and their identity as Whites as means to procure jobs, thus obviating the need for a collegiate education as a pathway to employment. It is also possible that these two interpretations are flipsides of the same phenomenon, of a working class that is both relatively favored (privileged) vis-à-vis underrepresented minorities and deeply depressed regarding its present and future possibilities.

In hindsight, the fault of DEI programs is not their attention to African American and Latinx students, but their failure to include White students in their initiatives. Nonetheless, this limitation does not affirm the right-wing criticisms. Genuine concern would call not for the dismantling of DEI initiates, but for extra funding and a broadened scope. Instead, for the right, it is the group with the lowest rate of participation in higher education that becomes the vantage point for viewing the achievements of everyone else.

CHART 1 – RACIAL & ETHNICITY DIVERSITY^{^[2]}

(in percents)	Higher Education	US Population
Asian	8	6
Black (African American)	13	13
Hispanic (Latinx)	22	19
White	52	59
Two or More Races (Multiracial)	4	2

The right-wing has focused on state universities because of their use of government funds. Less obvious is the attention paid to the privately-governed and privately-endowed top-tier schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (HYP). In 2022, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton each limited their admissions to 2, 3, and 6 percent of their respective applicant pools, a level of selectivity found among other top-tier institutions as well. Considering that one-quarter of 4-year baccalaureate institutions abide by ‘open admissions’ policies, through which any applicant who satisfies the minimum entrance requirements and can afford the tuition and fees is admitted, and that only 10 percent of institutions accept less than half of their applicants, this indeed is a rarified situation.[3]

Each of these three institutions is characterized by a similar student demographic profile:

CHART 2 – RACE AND ETHNICITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS^{^[4]}

(in percents)	Harvard	Yale	Princeton
Asian	21	22	24
Black	9	8	8
Hispanic	12	15	10
White	35	35	38
Non-Resident Alien (International)	13	10	12
Two or More Races	7	7	7

Of upmost importance in terms of diversity is that no single group at any of the three institutions dominates demographically, a circumstance true at other top-tier institutions as well. When on campus, everyone belongs to a minority. Top-tier institutions now mirror the situation that developed at urban public institutions a quarter of a century ago. While whites remain the largest group, they no longer form the majority of the student population.

The top-tier colleges have embarked on a huge endeavor to integrate and diversify the top tiers of American society, insofar as their graduates are destined for lofty careers in business, government, the professions, academe, and in the non-profit sector. But despite the diversity at these institutions, traditionally underrepresented groups—specifically, Blacks and Hispanics—remain underrepresented. Diversity has not benefitted them in such a fashion that they attend top-tier colleges in numbers that reflect their overall participation in higher education or their presence in the population at large (Charts 1 and 2).

Alongside the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics comes the underrepresentation of Whites. The group with the highest rates of college enrollment are Asians, yet they have not been a essential component of DEI efforts. Rather, it has been the stagnating middle that has been its focus.

Socioeconomic diversity is another area to which top-tier institutions have turned their attention, a development that began in earnest around the start of this century. In higher education, socioeconomic diversity is typically measured by the percent of students who receive Pell grants, the federally-funded awards that are based on a student’s family income. Complicated formulas determine who is eligible and the size of the award, but roughly, a family of three whose total income is less than $50,000 qualifies for the maximum.

Regardless of the details, the percent of a student body that receives Pell grants gives some measure of its socioeconomic diversity, that is, the degree to which an institution recruits its students from the bottom income tiers of society. In rough terms, it is a measure of an institution’s appeal to applicants from working- and lower-middle class backgrounds, groups for whom access to top-tier institutions has been extremely limited.

At HYP, nearly one in five students are drawn from these two strata. This remarkable transformation has been made possible by the extensive endowments (in the billions of dollars) at each of the institutions:

CHART 3 – SOCIOECONOMIC DIVERSITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS[5]

(in percents)	Harvard	Yale	Princeton
Socioeconomic Diversity	16	19	20

In terms of class, race, and ethnicity as a composite, these institutions have achieved a level of diversity that few other institutions of higher education in the US have been able to match. In this broad sense, the top-tier institutions are the model for DEI initiatives across higher education and also the target for criticisms of those initiatives.

It is cheaper for all students, except for the wealthiest, to attend schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton than to attend nearby publicly-funded flagship institutions. For a family with an annual income under $30,000, the out-of-pocket contribution (costs minus grants) calculates to $5,900. Were that same student to attend the flagship public university in Massachusetts, UMass-Amherst, the out-of-pocket contribution would be $10,858. Analogous calculations are possible for all income groups except for the very highest. Only top-earning families face a situation where it is cheaper to attend a public flagship than a private top-tier institution:

CHART 4 - ANNUAL NET COST OF ATTENDANCE[6]

(family income)	Harvard	UMass-Amherst
Less than $30,000	$5,900	$10,858
$30,001 - $48,000	$3,002	$11,824
$48,001 - $75,000	$4,180	$15,768
$75,001 - $110,000	$17,037	$22,651
Over $110,001	$54,634	$29,809

Similar juxtapositions are possible for Yale and the University of Connecticut-Storrs, Princeton and nearby Rutgers-New Brunswick, and all other top-tier institutions in comparison to the flagship public universities in their respective states.

Yet, as diverse as the top-tier institutions are, they still lag higher education in general, where nearly one in three (30 percent) receive an income-based federal (Pell) grant. As with elsewhere in higher education, the ability-to-pay remains a primary consideration of the admissions process.

The next developments within higher education are far from clear, if only because the global situation in which it is embedded is undergoing a rapid and thoroughgoing transformation. It is hard to imagine that colleges and universities will be able to move beyond the levels of diversity they have achieved so far. Not even the wealthiest of collegiate institutions have been able to assemble student bodies that faithfully reflect the diversity of the population.

Collegiate enrollments have stagnated for over a decade already, and all collegiate enterprises—except for the wealthy, top-tier institutions—are scrambling to shore up their financing. Government largesse, during an era in which any large increase in public spending threatens to re-inflate the economy, is not to be expected, no matter who is in control.

The liberal agenda is stalled and in any case aims to maintain the status quo of the recent past, no matter how inadequate it has been. The right-wing agenda is focused on budget cuts as a means to reduce taxes, primarily for people who already squander their money in speculative investments and junkets into outer space. Perhaps the right-wing attack on higher education is best understood in this light, not according to the facts but as an off-kilter means to cut government spending and also undermine any commitment to social goals that might get in the way. Neither liberal society nor its right-wing corollary has a vision of a better future.

[1] Jennifer Ma and Matea Pender, “Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society,” College Board, Education Pays 2023, Figures 1.1B, 1.6A; A. Gardner, A., “Persistence and Retention: Fall 2020 Beginning Postsecondary Student Cohort,” June 2022, National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, PersistenceRetention2022.pdf, Figure 2a.

[2] National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2023, Digest of Education Statistics-Most Current Digest Tables, Tables 101.20, 306.10.

[3] National Center for Education Statistics. “Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions,” August 2023, Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions.

[4] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Campus Diversity, Race/Ethnicity.

[5] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Campus Diversity, Socio-Economic Diversity.

[6] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Cost, Average Annual Cost.

Monday, December 30, 2024

2025 Will Be Wild!

2025 promises to be a disruptive year in higher education and society, not just in DC but across the US. While some now can see two demographic downturns, worsening climate conditions, and a Department of Education in transition, there are other less predictable and lesser-known trends and developments that we hope to cover at the Higher Education Inquirer.

The Trump Economy

Folks are expecting a booming economy in 2025. Crypto and AI mania, along with tax cuts and deregulation, mean that corporate profits should be enormous. The Roaring 2020s will be historic for the US, just as the 1920s were, with little time and thought spent on long-range issues such as climate change and environmental destruction, economic inequality, or the potential for an economic crash.

A Pyramid, Two Cliffs, a Wall and a Door

HEI has been reporting about enrollment declines since 2016. Smaller numbers of younger people and large numbers of elderly Baby Boomers and their health and disability concerns spell trouble ahead for states who may not consider higher education a priority. We'll have to see how Republican promises for mass deportations turn out, but just the threats to do so could be chaotic. There will also be controversies over the Trump/Musk plan to increase the number of H1B visas.

The Shakeup at ED

With Linda McMahon at the helm of the Department of Education, we should expect more deregulation, more cuts, and less student loan debt relief. Mike Rounds has introduced a Senate Bill to close ED, but the Bill does not appear likely to pass. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts may take a hit. However, online K12 education, robocolleges, and surviving online program managers could thrive in the short run.

Student Loan Debt

Student loan debt is expected to rise again in 2025. After a brief respite from 2020 to late 2024, and some receiving debt forgiveness, untold millions of borrowers will be expected to make payments that they may not be able to afford. How this problem affects an otherwise booming economy has not been receiving much media attention.

Policies Against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

This semester at highly selective institutions, Black first-year student enrollment dropped by 16.9 percent. At MIT, the percentage of Black students decreased from 15 percent to 5 percent. At Harvard Law School, the number of Black law students has been cut by more than half. Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa and Utah have banned diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices at public universities. Idaho, Indiana and Kansas have prohibited colleges from requiring diversity statements in hiring and admissions. The resistance so far has been limited.

Failing Schools and Strategic Partnerships

People should expect more colleges to fail in the coming months and years, with the possibility that the number of closures could accelerate. Small religious schools are particularly vulnerable. Colleges may further privatize their operations to save money and make money in an increasingly competitive market.

Campus Protests and Mass Surveillance

Protests may be limited out of fear of persecution, even if there are a number of legitimate issues to protest, to include human induced climate change, genocide in Palestine, mass deportations, and the resurgence of white supremacy. Things could change if conditions are so extreme that a critical mass is willing to sacrifice. Other issues, such as the growing class war, could bubble up. But mass surveillance and stricter campus policies have been emplaced at elite and name brand schools to reduce the odds of conflict and disruption.

The Legitimization of Robocollege Credentials

Online higher education has become mainstream despite questions of its efficacy. Billions of dollars will be spent on ads for robocolleges. Religious robocolleges like Liberty University and Grand Canyon University should continue to grow and more traditional religious schools continue to shrink. University of Southern Hampshire, Purdue Global and Arizona Global will continue to enroll folks with limited federal oversight. Adult students at this point are still willing to take on debt, especially if it leads to job promotions where an advanced credential is needed.

Apollo Global Management is still working to unload the University of Phoenix. The sale of the school to the Idaho Board of Education or some other state organization remains in question.

AI and Cheating

AI will continue to affect society, promising to add more jobs and threatening to take others. One less visible way AI affects society is in academic cheating. As long as there have been grades and competition, students have cheated. But now it's become an industry. Even the concept of academic dishonesty has changed over the years. One could argue that cheating has been normalized, as Derek Newton of the Cheat Sheet has chronicled. Academic research can also be mass produced with AI.

Under the Radar

A number of schools, companies, and related organizations have flown under the radar, but that could change. This includes Maximus and other Student Loan Servicers, Guild Education, EducationDynamics, South University, Ambow Education, National American University, Perdoceo, Devry University, and Adtalem.

Related links:

Survival of the Fittest

The Coming Boom

The Roaring 2020s and America's Move to the Right

Austerity and Disruption

Dozens of Religious Schools Under Department of Education Heightened Cash Monitoring

Shall we all pretend we didn't see it coming, again?: higher education, climate change, climate refugees, and climate denial by elites

The US Working-Class Depression: "Let's all pretend we couldn't see it coming."

Tracking Higher Ed’s Dismantling of DEI (Erin Gretzinger, Maggie Hicks, Christa Dutton, and Jasper Smith, Chronicle of Higher Education).

Thursday, December 5, 2024

How might we do climate action in academia under a second Trump administration? (Bryan Alexander)

With the reelection of Donald Trump, a candidate who has flaunted his desire for autocracy—aided and abetted by a Republican-controlled Congress that will not constrain him with guardrails—the United States is now poised to become an authoritarian state ruled by plutocrats and fossil fuel interests. It is now, in short, a petrostate.

–professor Michael Mann, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

How can we do climate crisis work within the higher education ecosystem under a second Trump administration?

With today’s post I’d like to explore strategic options in the present and near future. This is for everyone, but I’ll conclude with some self-reflection. My focus here will be on the United States, yet not exclusively so.

(I’ve been tracking possibilities for a Trump return for a while. Here’s the most recent post.)
Climate change under Trump: pressures on higher education

To begin with, the threat is that president Trump will undo federal support for climate action across the board (for evidence of this, see statements in Agenda 47, Project 2025, and elsewhere). Beyond the federal government, Trump can cause spillover effects at state and local levels. This should strengthen red states, counties, and cities in anti-climate policies and stances.

That governmental change will likely have direct impacts on higher education. About two thirds of American colleges and universities are public, meaning state-owned and -directed and therefore quite exposed to political pressures. Academics working in those institutions will be vulnerable to those forces, depending on their situation (institutional type, what a government actually does, the structural supports for units and individuals). How many academics – faculty, staff, students – will be less likely to undertake or support climate action? Will senior administrators be similarly disinclined to take strategic direction for climate purposes?

Beyond governments, how would the return of Trump to national power, complete with Republican control of Congress and the Supreme Court, shape private entities in their academic work? I’m thinking here of non-governmental funders, such as foundations, along with the many businesses which work with post-secondary education (publishers, ed tech companies, food service, etc.). Researchers studying global warming might have a harder time getting grants. Some funders might back off of academics doing climate work of all kinds. This can impact private as well as public academic institutions.

On the international side, Trump’s promised withdrawal from the Paris agreement and his repeated dismissal of climate change might make it harder for American academics to connect with global partners. Without simplifying too much, non-American academics might find Trump 2.0 an extra barrier to partnering with peers in the United States, especially if their national or local governments also took up anti-climate positions. International businesses developing decarbonization goods and services might step back from a newly Trumpified America (here’s one recent example).

Beyond those entities we should expect various forms of cultural resistance to climate work. Leaders from Trump and Vance on down can stir up popular attitudes and actions; the anti-immigrant focus on Springfield, Ohio gives one example. Politically-engaged individuals can challenge, threaten, or attack academics whom they see as doing harmful actions along climate lines.

On the other hand, academics might draw support from governments, businesses, nonprofits, and individuals who resist MAGA and seek to pursue climate goals. We could see governmental climate energies devolve below the federal level to states and below. Hypothetically, a professor in, say, California or Vermont might fare better than peers in Texas or South Carolina.

To be fair, political boundaries might not be cut and dried. Climate disasters might change minds. Republicans who benefit from the surviving pieces of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act might decide not to oppose academics doing climate work. The low costs of solar can trump (as it were) ideology. And insurance companies seem likely to continue their forceful actions of denying coverage and increasing fees in especially endangered areas.

I’ve been speaking of the academic population as a whole, but we should bear in mind the district experience of campus leaders (presidents, chancellors, system administrators, provosts, vice presidents, deans) in this situation. They play a decisive role in supporting climate action through setting strategic directions, developing programs, and, of course, providing funding. In my experience of researching academic climate action and thinking I’ve found this population to be, all too often, resistant to the idea for a variety of reasons: perceived lack of faculty interest; concerns about board/state government politics; anxieties about community response; fears of financial challenges. Then the Gaza protests happened and campus leaders seem to me even more nervous about taking public stances. How will they act under a new Trump administration?

Recall that politicians can bypass those leaders. The recent Texas A&M story is illustrative in this regard. A state politician decided that the university should no longer offer a LGBTQ studies minor. Campus faculty and its president refused to end the program, but the institution’s board unilaterally terminated it. It’s easy to imagine parallel cases for climate activity, from offering a sustainability degree to overhauling buildings to reduce their carbon footprint, only to be met by a politician’s enmity.
Academic options and possibilities

So what can we do now?

One option is for those doing climate work to just keep on doing it, damning the torpedoes. After all, climate action has historically elicited blowback and hostility, so Trump 2.0 is nothing new. Perhaps it’s a difference in kind, not degree. Academics who see themselves having institutional or other backing (tenure, private funding, benefactors) may just continue. Some might relish the prospect of a public fight.

The public/private divide might be a powerful one. Being employed by, or taking classes at, a state university makes climate politics potentially powerful, even dispositive. Blue states might double down on climate action, which could take the form of new regulations forcing campuses to decarbonize more rapidly or to include global warming in general education. Red states, in contrast, can disincentivize faculty, staff, and students from the full range of climate action, making teaching, research, campus operational changes more difficult, even dangerous.

In contrast, academics affiliated with private colleges and universities might enjoy greater political latitude, at least in terms of direct governmental authority. Some might find themselves constrained by their non-governmental institutional affiliations – i.e., by their churches, if they’re a religious school. Economic and cultural pressures can also hit academics in private institutions. That said, we could see private campuses take a leading role compared with their public colleagues.

What new forms might academic climate action take?

We could well see new informal support networks appear, perhaps quietly, perhaps openly. This could take place via a variety of technological frameworks, from Discord to email. People involved will need others working on the same lines. There are already some formal networks, like AASHE and Second Nature. They might serve as bulwarks against hostility. We could also see new nonprofits form to support academic climate action.

Another tactic might be to establish a for-profit company to do climate work. This might sound strange, but businesses often appeal to the famously business-friendly GOP. An LLC or S-corp doing climate work in higher education could look less Green New Deal-y.

Will we see academics become more public in their climate research, perhaps participating in government lobbying, civic demonstrations, or more? After all, four more years of Trump means we will see increased American greenhouse gas emissions. The crisis is worsening, and that fact might engage more faculty, staff, and students to resist. Perhaps campuses will become centers or hubs of all kinds of climate action.

Furthermore, we might see more direct action. American colleges and universities have seen little of this so far, as opposed to European institutions. There have been some initial, tentative signs of this outside of the academy, like Just Stop Oil spray painting an American embassy in the United Kingdom.

Might we see American students, staff, faculty letting the air out of SUVs, damaging oil infrastructure, pie-ing fossil fuel company executives, or more?

A very different tactic for academics to consider is to be stealthy in order to avoid hostile attention. Not talking about one’s new climate class on social media, not sharing global warming research on TikTok, not doing a public talk in the community might be appealing tactics. Similarly, scholars might avoid publishing in open access journals in favor of those behind high paywalls. We could organize using private messaging apps, like Signal.

We could also stop. We might judge the moment too dangerous to proceed. Think about the largest population of faculty, adjuncts, who have so little workplace protections. They might deem it safer to go dark for a few years until things are less dangerous. Consider academics in various forms of marginalization – by race, religion, gender, professional position – as well as those with non-academic pressures (financial, familial). How many of us will pause this work for the time being?

Those academics who are committed to climate work are thinking about such choices now. And some may be participating in conversations about these options.

Let me close on a moment of self-reflection.

I’ve been doing climate research for years as part of my overall work on higher education’s future. This has taken many forms, including a scholarly book, blog writing, teaching, and a lot of presentations, both in-person and virtual. I have been participating in several networks of like-minded folks. I’ve hosted and interviewed climate experts in various venues. Overall, I work climate change into nearly everything I do professionally.

Yet I am an independent, as some of you know. I do not have a tenured or full time academic position. I don’t have independent wealth backing me up. Doing climate work is increasingly risky. To the extent that people know my commitment, I might quietly lose work, allies, colleagues, supporters. I have seen some signs of this already. Similarly, the public nature of what I do opens me up to the possibility of public attacks. I have not yet experienced this.

My philosophy of work – heck, of life – is that it’s better when shared with other people, hence my longtime preference for sharing so much of what I do online. This makes my work better, I think. Yet now, with a new and energetic conservative administration in the country where I live and do most of my work, perhaps this is too risky. I’ve already received advice to run dark, to do climate and other work underground.

Or maybe this is me overthinking things, starting at shadows. These are possibilities, each contingent on many factors and developments in a sprawling and complex academic ecosystem. We could see versions of all of the above playing out at the same time. Some presidents may boldly lead their institutions into accelerated climate action, while others forbid faculty and staff from any such activity. Some professors may launch new climate-focused classes while others delay teaching theirs for years. Staff members in a blue state might set up organic farms and push for fossil fuel vehicle parking fees, while others focus on other topics and keep their heads down. Some of us will make content for public view while others head underground.

Everything I know about climate change tells me this is a vast, civilization-wide crisis which humanity is struggling to apprehend, and that academia can play a significant role in addressing it if we choose to do so. Today I do not feel comfortable advising individuals on what each person should best do in this new political era. But I want to place the options before the public for discussion, to the extent people feel they should participate.

I hope I can keep doing this work. It needs to be done.

(thanks to the Hechinger Report and many friends including Karen Costa and Joe Murphy)

Bryan Alexander is an award–winning, internationally known futurist, researcher, writer, speaker, consultant, and teacher, working in the field of higher education’s future. He is currently a senior scholar at Georgetown University. This article was originally published at BryanAlexander.org.

Search This Blog