Presidents Feel Pressure in Trump’s Second Term

A small number of presidents split with their peers on the above questions, with 8 percent finding that Trump has had a positive impact on the regulatory environment, 4 percent arguing that the current administration has improved the financial outlook for the sector and 7 percent indicating that the financial outlook at their institution has improved thanks to Trump 2.0.

James Herbert, president of the University of New England, told Inside Higher Ed that while many institutional leaders bristle at the federal government’s tactics, he believes that “there is a debate to be had about whether some of the goals of the administration are worthy or not.”

While a majority of respondents (62 percent) do not believe that the current federal policy environment is forcing change that will benefit the sector in the long run, some do. Just over a fifth of respondents, or 21 percent, agreed such changes may benefit higher education.

Some college leaders also co-signed Trump’s goals in the comments portion of the survey.

“We support the President’s policies,” wrote the leader of a private college in the Midwest.

Another president at a private Midwestern institution wrote that their university “has always been aligned with conservative priorities” and is “now finding greater public acceptance of such.”

Some 78 percent of presidents said that the Trump administration has negatively impacted the climate for free inquiry and civil dialogue across the sector. However, another 10 percent responded that it has had a positive impact in these areas.

A vast majority—86 percent—found that the current administration has had a negative effect on diversity, equity and inclusion across higher education. At the individual campus level, 66 percent of respondents indicated the administration has had a negative effect on DEI at their institutions. Many presidents also indicated that their institutions had made program adjustments due to recent executive orders or other federal actions, with 39 percent reporting changes to terminology in department names or descriptions and 12 percent reporting curriculum changes in politically sensitive areas.

Presidents in the survey indicated that they are responding to the new regulatory environment in various ways, most commonly (56 percent) through strategic compliance, defined as making changes necessary to remain compliant while protecting institutional values. Another 40 percent of respondents have quietly tweaked policies, introducing changes with little public discussion.

Just 5 percent reported responding to the regulatory environment via public advocacy, such as statements or campaigns about federal policy impacts. Another 2 percent indicated their institutions are in “active resistance” mode, challenging federal policies in court or through advocacy efforts.

Public Trust

Survey results also show concerns about public confidence in higher education.

Just over half of presidents—53 percent—said that the sector has been at least somewhat effective (versus not at all effective) in addressing such trust issues. But despite their concerns, presidents are split on taking action. More than half (51 percent) noted such efforts were underway, while 36 percent indicated they had not launched new initiatives in the last year to restore or build public trust. However, another 9 percent of respondents indicated they were planning to do so.

Teresa Valerio Parrot, principal of TVP Communications, a sector-focused public relations firm, expressed alarm that more colleges weren’t working on efforts to rebuild trust with the public.

“All of the sector is under pressure, and only 60 percent are doing something to help the industry as a whole and their institutions specifically to improve public trust in higher education,” she said. “Trust cascades into enrollment, it cascades into politics, it cascades into so many different areas, and for only 60 percent to either be addressing it or planning to address it suggests that 40 percent are missing an opportunity to help everybody, as well as their own campus.”

While student debt and related concerns about return on investment loom large for the public, most presidents believe their institutions are doing a good job explaining total cost of attendance and communicating their financial aid policies. Among respondents, 84 percent rated their institution’s transparency and clarity in communicating total costs as good or excellent, and another 70 percent indicated they had taken steps in the last year to improve transparency.

But college costs and the complexity of financial aid packages continue to bedevil consumers: Herbert, of the University of New England, said that while colleges make information about costs and financial aid available, that doesn’t always mean such details make sense to students and families.

“I think what the survey results reflect is the college presidents are saying, ‘We’re not hiding anything, we’re publishing it, we have a website that lays this out.’ But what’s being missed is that the public isn’t getting the message. So we have to take more responsibility for communicating that message in other ways that are accessible,” he said.

Compact Responses

Last year the Trump administration proposed its “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” to a small group of institutions, an agreement that would have required significant changes to various practices in exchange for preferential treatment on federal funding.

While no institution ultimately announced an agreement with the White House, the proposal was closely watched and hotly debated, with its critics arguing that signing the compact yielded too much power to the federal government. The Trump administration asked potential signatories to revise admissions and hiring practices, commit to a policy of institutional neutrality, freeze tuition for five years, restrict international student enrollment, suppress criticism of conservatives, and more.

More than three-quarters of respondents—79 percent—said they opposed the deal. But when Inside Higher Ed asked about specifics, some aspects of the compact were more palatable. For example, a slim majority (53 percent) agreed that employees should not express political views on behalf of the institution and approaching half (42 percent) want to clamp down on grade inflation.

But presidents sharply disagreed with the proposal in other areas. Respondents were most opposed to a proposal to freeze tuition for five years, with 82 percent expressing disapproval. Another 72 percent rejected calls to cap international student enrollment.