Even before the Supreme Court ruled on transgender student participation in athletics, colleges and universities got a clear message from Washington: Inclusive policies can come at a cost.
Recent actions—particularly from the White House and the Education Department’s Office of Human Rights—show that institutions could face investigations, funding threats or both, depending on how they interpret Title IX, which prohibits gender-based discrimination in educational institutions. Title IX was enacted to increase access to education. Over time, courts and government agencies have increasingly recognized that discrimination “on the basis of sex” cannot be separated from gender identity.
Yet this administration has taken a different, more restrictive approach to Title IX. In his first weeks back in office, President Trump issued executive orders targeting transgender student athletic participation and threatened to withhold federal funding from institutions. Last summer, administrators followed the University of Pennsylvania with the participation of Lia Thomas, who competed on the women’s swimming team from 2021 to 2022. In return for $175 million in suspended federal research funding, the university agreed to bar transgender women from competing in women’s sports and stripped Thomas of her swimming record.
Recently, San José State University sued the Trump administration, which has threatened the school’s Title IV funding over the participation of a transgender athlete on its women’s volleyball team from 2022 to 2024.
The warning is unmistakable: Installation may be financially risky.
For college presidents, this is not a mystery. Government funding supports student aid, research and institutional stability. The pressure is real and, in some cases, there.
But that’s why this time is important.
Expanding access to education is more than what happens in the classroom. Athletics are an important part of the academic experience of students. They build confidence, discipline and belonging. For many students, groups are where they find community—and themselves.
Excluding girls and transgender women from athletics does not simply resolve the policy question. It removes students from the constructive part of educational life.
Colleges have the power to shape their campuses but may find it difficult to advance protections for transgender students in such a policy environment. Even sports governing bodies like the National Collegiate Athletic Association have revised their standards to prevent transgender women, and women receiving hormone therapy, from competing on women’s sports teams.
Although these rules limit competition, they allow student-athletes to practice with teams that match their gender identity. They do not need to be completely excluded from the athletic life. So, even under these constraints, colleges are powerless. We can make decisions that protect student identity.
We can allow what is still allowed by the current rules, including training and the benefits that come with it: training, medical support and a team community. And we can make sure that students aren’t completely left out of athletics just because they’re barred from competing.
We can strengthen the chances beyond the NCAA championship game. Club sports, intramural sports and recreational athletics remain firmly within institutional control. These spaces can and should be created to ensure that all students have meaningful opportunities to participate, compete and belong.
We can invest in the welfare of students. Mental health support, counseling and ensuring sports facilities are not automatic; they are central to student success. Institutions can train coaches and staff to lead with respect, protect student privacy and avoid harassment or humiliation in sports settings.
We can ensure dignity through details: how students are treated, how groups interact, how trips and facilities are organized. These everyday decisions shape whether students experience athletics as a place of growth or exclusion.
None of these measures are completely risk-free in the current political climate. But they made one thing clear—colleges still have discretion, and how they exercise it will determine whether students are supported or quietly sidelined.
Colleges and universities now face a critical decision. We can treat this period as a compliance action by adjusting policies to reduce exposure. Even if we lead, we are guided by the values we teach: evidence-based reasoning, fairness and respect for human dignity, especially when those values are very difficult to maintain.
Leadership does not mean ignoring the law or financial realities. It means engaging them sincerely. Universities tend to navigate complex regulatory environments and make difficult decisions under pressure. This time is no different.
An upcoming Supreme Court decision will correct the legal situation. But it won’t answer a deeper question facing higher education: whether institutions will hold up equally if doing so is risky.
Higher education has faced such times before. Its credibility often depends not only on compliance, but on its willingness to stand for principles that override immediate political pressure.
We, as leaders of colleges and universities, have an opportunity and a duty to speak together. We can ensure that transgender students are part of the academic community and deserve the means to participate fully in campus life, including athletics.
We as college leaders often say that we are preparing students to become citizens. This is one of those times when we have to show it.
If participation in athletics can be reduced to the point where some students are effectively pushed to the margins, we must be clear: The issue is no longer just about competition.
It’s about belonging.
