WASHINGTON, DC—Education under secretary Nicholas Kent opened the second day of the annual meeting of the American Council on Education with a clear and unequivocal statement—American higher education is in need of “hard restructuring.” And much of that reset, he said, is already underway.
If taxpayer-funded partnerships to promote innovation and success-based social mobility, high-level planning has been corrupted by ideologically driven universities that accept billions while “defying any reasonable accountability for results,” said the undersecretary. Now, “those days are over.”
“If you want a relationship with the federal government, it has to be a real partnership, based on transparency, measurable results and a commitment to students and taxpayers alike,” explained Kent, adding that change is coming whether institutions like it or not. “I hope you are all ready, you have passed through the five stages of grief and, most importantly, you are reaching the final state of acceptance.”
He also cited numerous public opinion polls that show declining confidence in the number of college degrees.
“If we put James Kvaal … ‘This is not a PR problem; this is a real problem for you,'” said Kent, taking a different time from the previous evening that was closed to the media and was considered a non-historical event.
But many college leaders in the room seemed to disagree with Kent’s comments. Throughout the secretary’s speech, many grumbled in disagreement and sometimes laughed, mocking his words. A few left the room.
After Kent’s speech, Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of the government relations council, took the stage and offered a sort of rebuttal.
“I will point out the paradox [Kent’s] concluding that they want to work with us.” “Working often involves cooperation, not compromise.”
Kent’s keynote address Friday morning captured the tension between industry and government officials about what’s wrong with American higher education and how to fix it. Few—whether lawmakers, university presidents or accrediting agencies—disagree that rising student debt, struggling workforce needs and threats to the institution of free speech are problems. Where opinions differ is on what changes need to be made in response to these issues, by whom they should be made and how the solutions should be managed.
Actions and statements made by the administration throughout its first year suggest that in most cases, it will use executive action and legislation to force changes.
Congressional Republicans are supporting Trump’s agenda by passing a spending bill that dramatically limits access to loans and introduces a new income test that could cost hundreds of thousands of students access to federal aid. Kent boasted that his department had reached an agreement with all the provisions of the bill when he released information from the process called negotiated rule making, although some of the negotiators sitting at the table said that the agreement was unanimous.
Meanwhile, since the president’s first days in office, many top agencies have opened human rights investigations and billions in funding to curb so-called mismanagement of antitrust cases, failure to protect female athletes and illegal diversity, equality and inclusion programs.
“The question is not whether change is coming—whether you will help lead it,” Kent said during his speech.
There is no denying the speed and intensity with which the administration worked to make changes to last summer’s reconciliation bill and bring higher education institutions to heel. Industry stakeholders remain concerned about their ability to comply with the new regulations before the July 1 deadline and the consequences that may follow.
Fansmith advised college leaders to remain vigilant and informed about the remainder of the Trump administration. While the upcoming midterm elections, economic challenges and international affairs may draw the attention of Trump and his closest White House advisers away from ED, that doesn’t mean the battle is over, he said.
Instead of attacks on Public Truth from individual faculty members or wealthy universities from the president himself, the entire industry should expect a widespread, ubiquitous cover-up, warns Fansmith.
“The president will not talk as much about Harvard as he did last year, but the Ministry of Education will do more to make systemic changes,” he said. There will be “things put in place that will affect 4,000 institutions instead of 50. And we have seen that in all the proposals of the undersecretary that he has put forward.”
Nevertheless, as was the case the day before, the council urged the institutions not to agree. Instead, Fansmith encouraged them to resist “federal takeover.” Going back to the words of the undersecretary about grief and accepting change, he reminded the audience that grief is a permanent loss, and “nothing that happened in the past year is permanent.
“This administration wants us to move towards accepting all their policies… [And] Yes, we will follow the law to the best of our ability.” But “one thing I haven’t heard from any of the conversations we’ve had over the last few days is acceptance.
“We can handle change. We always do,” he added. But we don’t have to accept a perception of who we are or what we do that is misleading and misrepresenting.”
