Outcomes of ballot measures affecting higher education

Alabama

  • Amendment 1 passed with 76 percent of the vote. In an attempt to increase diversity on Auburn University’s Board of Trustees, this amendment adds two additional members. Currently, there are 14 members, 12 of whom are men and 13 of whom are white. The new seats have no race or gender requirements. The amendment also ensures that no more than three members of the board have terms that expire in the same year.

Alaska

  • Ballot Measure No. 2, which would have amended the state constitution to let Alaska issue bonds for postsecondary student loans, was rejected by 56 percent of voters. The law continues to allow state debt only for capital projects, housing loans for veterans and military defense.

Arkansas

  • Issue 6 passed with 56 percent of the vote, legalizing medical marijuana. Tax revenue from marijuana sales will be allocated to technical institutes, vocational schools and work force training.

California

  • Proposition 51 was approved by 54 percent of voters, creating a School Facilities Fund — funded by the sale of bonds — that will give $2 billion to the California community college system to construct and renovate facilities (along with another $7 billion for K-12 schools).
  • Proposition 55 passed with 62 percent of the vote, extending personal income taxes for community colleges (and health care and public K-12) after funding was lost in the recession. The tax applies to single tax filers who make at least $263,000 in taxable income and joint filers who make at least $526,000 in taxable income. It’s predicted that the tax will generate between $4 billion and $9 billion in revenue each year. 
  • Proposition 56 passed with 63 percent of the vote, increasing tobacco taxes an additional $2 per pack; $40 million from the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 Fund will go to the University of California to fund medical education. The ultimate goal is to increase the number of primary care and emergency physicians trained in California.
  • Proposition 64 passed with 56 percent of the vote, legalizing marijuana. The state will use part of the money it earns from marijuana taxes ($10 million per year) to fund to research about the “implementation and effect of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.”

Colorado

  • Amendment 72 was rejected by 54 percent of voters. The measure would have increase the tobacco tax from 84 cents to $1.75 per pack. The tax was intended for a fund for student loan debt repayment and professional training tracks targeted at medical professionals. 

Louisiana

  • Amendment 2, which would have allowed boards of the public higher education systems to determine tuition and fees without permission from the state Legislature, was defeated, earning only 43 percent of the vote.

Missouri

  • Constitutional Amendment 3, which would have raised tobacco taxes and dedicated the money to early-childhood education, smoking-cessation programs, and hospitals and health clinics, failed, with 59 percent voting against the proposal. Among the amendment’s opponents was Washington University in St. Louis, which would have benefited from the money the tax generated going to hospitals and clinics affiliated with the university’s medical school. But the law also would have banned any funding being used for abortion services or “human cloning or research, clinical trials, or therapies or cures using human embryonic stem cells.”

New Mexico 

  • Bond Question C passed with 63 percent of the vote. It concerns the 2016 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act, which will issue $142 million in spending on higher education, special schools and tribal schools.

Oklahoma

  • State question 779, the One Percent Sales Tax, was rejected by 59 percent of voters. It would have created a limited-purpose fund for public education by increasing the state sales tax from 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent. It was estimated that this tax would have generated $615 million per year in revenue.

Oregon

  • Measure 95, to allow investments in equities by public universities, which is currently prohibited, passed with 70 percent of the vote.

  • Measure 96 was approved by 83 percent of voters. It will dedicate 1.5 percent, or a predicted $9.3 million annually, of the state’s lottery earnings to veteran support services — part of that fund will support veterans’ education.

  • Measure 99, to use state lottery money to create the School Outdoor Education Fund, passed with 66 percent of the vote. Much of the money will go to fifth and sixth grades, but some will go to Oregon State University “to administer and fund outdoor school programs statewide consistent with current law’s grant program criteria.”

Rhode Island 

  • Question 4, which was approved by 59 percent of voters, will issue $45.5 million in general obligation bonds for the University of Rhode Island. When broken down, $25.5 million will go to building renovations and $20 million to funding business collaborations between an innovation campus and the university. 

South Dakota

  • Amendment R narrowly passed with 50.6 percent of the vote. Previously, all postsecondary schools funded by the state were governed by the Board of Regents. After the passage of this measure, postsecondary technical institutions will no longer be governed by the board, but in a manner to be determined by the Legislature. The institutions affected are Lake Area Technical Institute, Mitchell Technical Institute, Southeast Technical Institute and Western Dakota Technical Institute.

Local Measures

Among county races, bond measures were the primary issue affecting higher education. Here are a few of them:

In California, 64 percent of voters in Butte County decided to issue $190 million in bonds for facilities maintenance at Butte-Glenn Community College. Ballot counting continues in Butte and Yuba Counties, which voted on whether to issue $34 million in bonds for facilities maintenance at Yuba Community College.

Voters in San Diego County rejected Measure X, which sought to issue $348 million in bonds for repairs to classrooms and facilities, constructing a Workforce Training Center, and providing educational support to veterans. The measure needed a 55 percent supermajority but got only 52 percent of the vote. The county passed, with 62 percent of the vote, Measure MM, regarding $455 million in bonds for upgrading facilities and providing joint training support to veterans at MiraCosta Community College. And with 69 percent of the vote, Measure Z passed, issuing $400 million in bonds for upgrading community college campuses and providing job support for students and veterans.

San Francisco County voters approved with 80 percent of the vote Proposition B, which renews a parcel tax of $99 per year for 15 years; revenue will benefit City College of San Francisco.

In Maryland, Baltimore County residents passed with 68 percent of the vote an ordinance that will allow the county to borrow $15 million for community college projects, including construction and renovation of campus buildings.

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Wikimedia Commons
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Alabama

  • Amendment 1 passed with 76 percent of the vote. In an attempt to increase diversity on Auburn University’s Board of Trustees, this amendment adds two additional members. Currently, there are 14 members, 12 of whom are men and 13 of whom are white. The new seats have no race or gender requirements. The amendment also ensures that no more than three members of the board have terms that expire in the same year.

Alaska

  • Ballot Measure No. 2, which would have amended the state constitution to let Alaska issue bonds for postsecondary student loans, was rejected by 56 percent of voters. The law continues to allow state debt only for capital projects, housing loans for veterans and military defense.

Arkansas

  • Issue 6 passed with 56 percent of the vote, legalizing medical marijuana. Tax revenue from marijuana sales will be allocated to technical institutes, vocational schools and work force training.

California

  • Proposition 51 was approved by 54 percent of voters, creating a School Facilities Fund -- funded by the sale of bonds -- that will give $2 billion to the California community college system to construct and renovate facilities (along with another $7 billion for K-12 schools).
  • Proposition 55 passed with 62 percent of the vote, extending personal income taxes for community colleges (and health care and public K-12) after funding was lost in the recession. The tax applies to single tax filers who make at least $263,000 in taxable income and joint filers who make at least $526,000 in taxable income. It's predicted that the tax will generate between $4 billion and $9 billion in revenue each year. 
  • Proposition 56 passed with 63 percent of the vote, increasing tobacco taxes an additional $2 per pack; $40 million from the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 Fund will go to the University of California to fund medical education. The ultimate goal is to increase the number of primary care and emergency physicians trained in California.
  • Proposition 64 passed with 56 percent of the vote, legalizing marijuana. The state will use part of the money it earns from marijuana taxes ($10 million per year) to fund to research about the “implementation and effect of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.”

Colorado

  • Amendment 72 was rejected by 54 percent of voters. The measure would have increase the tobacco tax from 84 cents to $1.75 per pack. The tax was intended for a fund for student loan debt repayment and professional training tracks targeted at medical professionals. 

Louisiana

  • Amendment 2, which would have allowed boards of the public higher education systems to determine tuition and fees without permission from the state Legislature, was defeated, earning only 43 percent of the vote.

Missouri

  • Constitutional Amendment 3, which would have raised tobacco taxes and dedicated the money to early-childhood education, smoking-cessation programs, and hospitals and health clinics, failed, with 59 percent voting against the proposal. Among the amendment's opponents was Washington University in St. Louis, which would have benefited from the money the tax generated going to hospitals and clinics affiliated with the university's medical school. But the law also would have banned any funding being used for abortion services or “human cloning or research, clinical trials, or therapies or cures using human embryonic stem cells.”

New Mexico 

  • Bond Question C passed with 63 percent of the vote. It concerns the 2016 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act, which will issue $142 million in spending on higher education, special schools and tribal schools.

Oklahoma

  • State question 779, the One Percent Sales Tax, was rejected by 59 percent of voters. It would have created a limited-purpose fund for public education by increasing the state sales tax from 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent. It was estimated that this tax would have generated $615 million per year in revenue.

Oregon

  • Measure 95, to allow investments in equities by public universities, which is currently prohibited, passed with 70 percent of the vote.

  • Measure 96 was approved by 83 percent of voters. It will dedicate 1.5 percent, or a predicted $9.3 million annually, of the state's lottery earnings to veteran support services -- part of that fund will support veterans' education.

  • Measure 99, to use state lottery money to create the School Outdoor Education Fund, passed with 66 percent of the vote. Much of the money will go to fifth and sixth grades, but some will go to Oregon State University "to administer and fund outdoor school programs statewide consistent with current law’s grant program criteria."

Rhode Island 

  • Question 4, which was approved by 59 percent of voters, will issue $45.5 million in general obligation bonds for the University of Rhode Island. When broken down, $25.5 million will go to building renovations and $20 million to funding business collaborations between an innovation campus and the university. 

South Dakota

  • Amendment R narrowly passed with 50.6 percent of the vote. Previously, all postsecondary schools funded by the state were governed by the Board of Regents. After the passage of this measure, postsecondary technical institutions will no longer be governed by the board, but in a manner to be determined by the Legislature. The institutions affected are Lake Area Technical Institute, Mitchell Technical Institute, Southeast Technical Institute and Western Dakota Technical Institute.

Local Measures

Among county races, bond measures were the primary issue affecting higher education. Here are a few of them:

In California, 64 percent of voters in Butte County decided to issue $190 million in bonds for facilities maintenance at Butte-Glenn Community College. Ballot counting continues in Butte and Yuba Counties, which voted on whether to issue $34 million in bonds for facilities maintenance at Yuba Community College.

Voters in San Diego County rejected Measure X, which sought to issue $348 million in bonds for repairs to classrooms and facilities, constructing a Workforce Training Center, and providing educational support to veterans. The measure needed a 55 percent supermajority but got only 52 percent of the vote. The county passed, with 62 percent of the vote, Measure MM, regarding $455 million in bonds for upgrading facilities and providing joint training support to veterans at MiraCosta Community College. And with 69 percent of the vote, Measure Z passed, issuing $400 million in bonds for upgrading community college campuses and providing job support for students and veterans.

San Francisco County voters approved with 80 percent of the vote Proposition B, which renews a parcel tax of $99 per year for 15 years; revenue will benefit City College of San Francisco.

In Maryland, Baltimore County residents passed with 68 percent of the vote an ordinance that will allow the county to borrow $15 million for community college projects, including construction and renovation of campus buildings.

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Wikimedia Commons
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Trump and GOP likely to try to scale back Title IX enforcement on sexual assault

With Donald Trump winning the presidential election on Tuesday — and with Republicans maintaining control of both the Senate and House of Representatives — victims’ advocates worry that the White House’s five-year push to combat campus sexual assault may end with President Obama’s tenure.

Through detailed guidance documents and investigations at more than 200 institutions, the Obama administration made preventing campus sexual assault a signature issue of its Education Department. The administration’s updated interpretation of the federal gender discrimination law Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 allowed the White House to sharply increase the enforcement efforts of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The intensified focus on campus sexual assault and Title IX prompted an outpouring of complaints and lawsuits against colleges and universities over allegations they mishandled reports of sexual violence.

Trump, who has faced allegations of sexual assault and criticism over his treatment of women, has said little about how he would approach sexual violence on college campuses. While his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, reached out to several victims’ organizations during the election, Trump contacted none. His lack of a plan has worried many victims’ advocates, and comments made during the campaign by some of Trump’s surrogates suggesting that, if elected, Trump would scale back Title IX, or even eliminate the Department of Education or the Office of Civil Rights, caused more concern.

At the same time, advocates for students accused of sexual assault are hopeful the new status quo could bolster their attempts to require more due process protections for those students.

At a meeting with urban school superintendents last month, Trump’s New York state co-chairman, Carl Paladino, characterized the Office for Civil Rights as unnecessary, calling it “self-perpetuating, absolute nonsense,” and saying all campus discrimination cases should be handled by U.S. attorneys.

“That would be disastrous for survivors and devastating for anyone who cares about their children being able to go to school without fear of violence or harassment or intimidation,” said Dana Bolger, co-founder of Know Your Title IX, a victims’ advocacy group. “The opportunity to learn is a fundamental American value, central to the American dream. We’ve got to keep supporting OCR if we want that dream to survive for the next generation.”

Eliminating the Office for Civil Rights would not be easy, as it was formed through the Department of Education Organization Act in 1979, the same federal law that created the Education Department. While OCR’s handling of Title IX has its share of critics in the House of Representatives and Senate, there has been little indication of either chamber broadly supporting the complete abolition of OCR, even with a Republican majority and president.

But if the office remains intact, there’s little chance its level of funding will remain or increase. Many experts on Title IX have predicted that a Trump administration would cut OCR’s budget, effectively limiting the number of investigations it could conduct at a time when the office already struggles to keep pace with the number of cases it has opened. As of last year, it took OCR, on average, 940 days to complete a sexual assault investigation.

Currently, the Office for Civil Rights still has 216 open investigations.

Ann Franke, a higher education consultant and former campus Title IX official, said she doubts a Trump Education Department would maintain the public list, started by the Obama administration in 2014, of colleges that are under investigation. The investigations that remain open when Trump becomes president will also likely be judged by a different set of standards and rules than cases that were settled during the Obama administration, she said.

“I would expect between now and Jan. 20, [the Obama administration’s] OCR is going to be working to reach a lot of resolution agreements with a lot of institutions under investigation,” Franke said. “And I suspect institutions will have new leverage in negotiating resolutions over the next couple of months.”

In 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague letter that urged institutions to better investigate and adjudicate cases of campus sexual assault. The letter clarified how the department interprets Title IX, and for the past five years it has been the guiding document for colleges hoping to avoid a federal civil rights investigation into how they handle complaints of sexual violence.

Republican lawmakers have argued that the guidance goes farther than just clarifying Title IX. They say the department has illegally expanded the gender discrimination law’s scope — increasing the liability for institutions dealing with bullying, harassment and sexual violence and relaxing the burden of proof institutions are required to use when adjudicating cases of sexual assault — without going through proper notice-and-comment procedures.

The department maintains the guidance did not create any new laws or policies, however, and serves only to fill in some of the vaguer parts of Title IX in order to help colleges not run afoul of the law. The debate has split college leaders, lawmakers, advocates and legal experts — and led to three lawsuits against the Education Department.

“With these lawsuits against the Department of Education, all the new administration has to do is just not defend the case,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus security consultant and former director of the 32 National Campus Safety Initiative. “That would roll back many of the provisions of the Dear Colleague letter, including the requirements about what burden of proof colleges must use.”

While Trump has not said whether he plans on changing any guidance or funding related to Title IX, the Republican Party did include campus sexual assault and Title IX as part of the platform it released at the GOP convention in July. Scott Schneider, a lawyer and adjunct professor of higher education law at Tulane University, wrote on Twitter that the platform points to a “significant regulatory shift” under a Trump administration.

Calling sexual assault a “terrible crime,” the Republican platform stated that reports of sexual assault should be “investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge.” It criticized the Obama administration’s policies, saying the White House’s “distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted.”

Trump could issue new Title IX guidance, based on the GOP’s platform, that would replace the 2011 Dear Colleague letter. Any new guidance would likely focus more on the due process rights of accused students and instruct colleges to use a higher burden of proof, such as the “clear and convincing” or “beyond reasonable doubt” standards of evidence.

Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who has been among OCR’s most vociferous critics, said the election has given him and others who have decried the department’s “egregious examples of executive overreach and intimidation” some new allies.

“[The Department of Education has] used Dear Colleague letters and guidance documents to mandate policies for schools without adhering to legally required regulatory processes,” Lankford said. “It is extreme overreach at agencies like the Department of Education that the American people repudiated in this election. I will push our new Republican-led Washington to put a stop to this abuse and restore proper regulatory and guidance processes to the federal government.”

It wouldn’t be the first time a president rolled back Title IX guidance created during an earlier administration. In 2010, the Obama administration revoked a controversial 2005 Title IX clarification issued under President George W. Bush that only allowed institutions to use internet or email surveys when determining female students’ interest in athletic participation. The 2005 guidance had similarly wiped out a 1996 clarification issued under President Bill Clinton.

Similarly, Clinton’s Education Department issued a new set of sexual harassment guidelines under Title IX on his last day in office in 2001. On Bush’s first full day as president, his administration “archived” the document, removing any references to the guidance from the department’s main webpages.

Lisa Maatz, vice president of government relations at the American Association of University Women, said it’s too early to predict exactly what a Trump presidency will mean for the future of campus sexual assault because Trump has offered so few specifics.

Maatz said she is hopeful, however, that Trump’s decisions will, in part, be influenced by a need to improve his public image. Several women have accused Trump of sexually assaulting them, and one of the most damaging moments of his campaign stemmed from a leaked recording of him boasting about how he has groped and kissed women without their consent.

“Speculation is difficult, but I don’t need to remind the president-elect that on this particular issue, he has a bit of a credibility gap because of his reputation,” Maatz said. “Whatever he wants to do, the changes he proposes will surely be viewed with some healthy skepticism, and we hope he will be sensitive to that.”

Maatz also said she believed the grassroots movement started by college women, which prompted Obama’s actions in the first place, will continue, no matter who is president. Bolger, of Know Your Title IX, offered a similar assessment.

“We’re going to carry this country forward, not backward, no matter the barriers our political leaders put in our way,” Bolger said.

Student Victims of Violence
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

With Donald Trump winning the presidential election on Tuesday -- and with Republicans maintaining control of both the Senate and House of Representatives -- victims’ advocates worry that the White House’s five-year push to combat campus sexual assault may end with President Obama’s tenure.

Through detailed guidance documents and investigations at more than 200 institutions, the Obama administration made preventing campus sexual assault a signature issue of its Education Department. The administration's updated interpretation of the federal gender discrimination law Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 allowed the White House to sharply increase the enforcement efforts of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The intensified focus on campus sexual assault and Title IX prompted an outpouring of complaints and lawsuits against colleges and universities over allegations they mishandled reports of sexual violence.

Trump, who has faced allegations of sexual assault and criticism over his treatment of women, has said little about how he would approach sexual violence on college campuses. While his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, reached out to several victims' organizations during the election, Trump contacted none. His lack of a plan has worried many victims’ advocates, and comments made during the campaign by some of Trump’s surrogates suggesting that, if elected, Trump would scale back Title IX, or even eliminate the Department of Education or the Office of Civil Rights, caused more concern.

At the same time, advocates for students accused of sexual assault are hopeful the new status quo could bolster their attempts to require more due process protections for those students.

At a meeting with urban school superintendents last month, Trump’s New York state co-chairman, Carl Paladino, characterized the Office for Civil Rights as unnecessary, calling it “self-perpetuating, absolute nonsense,” and saying all campus discrimination cases should be handled by U.S. attorneys.

“That would be disastrous for survivors and devastating for anyone who cares about their children being able to go to school without fear of violence or harassment or intimidation,” said Dana Bolger, co-founder of Know Your Title IX, a victims’ advocacy group. “The opportunity to learn is a fundamental American value, central to the American dream. We've got to keep supporting OCR if we want that dream to survive for the next generation.”

Eliminating the Office for Civil Rights would not be easy, as it was formed through the Department of Education Organization Act in 1979, the same federal law that created the Education Department. While OCR’s handling of Title IX has its share of critics in the House of Representatives and Senate, there has been little indication of either chamber broadly supporting the complete abolition of OCR, even with a Republican majority and president.

But if the office remains intact, there’s little chance its level of funding will remain or increase. Many experts on Title IX have predicted that a Trump administration would cut OCR’s budget, effectively limiting the number of investigations it could conduct at a time when the office already struggles to keep pace with the number of cases it has opened. As of last year, it took OCR, on average, 940 days to complete a sexual assault investigation.

Currently, the Office for Civil Rights still has 216 open investigations.

Ann Franke, a higher education consultant and former campus Title IX official, said she doubts a Trump Education Department would maintain the public list, started by the Obama administration in 2014, of colleges that are under investigation. The investigations that remain open when Trump becomes president will also likely be judged by a different set of standards and rules than cases that were settled during the Obama administration, she said.

“I would expect between now and Jan. 20, [the Obama administration's] OCR is going to be working to reach a lot of resolution agreements with a lot of institutions under investigation,” Franke said. “And I suspect institutions will have new leverage in negotiating resolutions over the next couple of months.”

In 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague letter that urged institutions to better investigate and adjudicate cases of campus sexual assault. The letter clarified how the department interprets Title IX, and for the past five years it has been the guiding document for colleges hoping to avoid a federal civil rights investigation into how they handle complaints of sexual violence.

Republican lawmakers have argued that the guidance goes farther than just clarifying Title IX. They say the department has illegally expanded the gender discrimination law’s scope -- increasing the liability for institutions dealing with bullying, harassment and sexual violence and relaxing the burden of proof institutions are required to use when adjudicating cases of sexual assault -- without going through proper notice-and-comment procedures.

The department maintains the guidance did not create any new laws or policies, however, and serves only to fill in some of the vaguer parts of Title IX in order to help colleges not run afoul of the law. The debate has split college leaders, lawmakers, advocates and legal experts -- and led to three lawsuits against the Education Department.

“With these lawsuits against the Department of Education, all the new administration has to do is just not defend the case,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus security consultant and former director of the 32 National Campus Safety Initiative. “That would roll back many of the provisions of the Dear Colleague letter, including the requirements about what burden of proof colleges must use.”

While Trump has not said whether he plans on changing any guidance or funding related to Title IX, the Republican Party did include campus sexual assault and Title IX as part of the platform it released at the GOP convention in July. Scott Schneider, a lawyer and adjunct professor of higher education law at Tulane University, wrote on Twitter that the platform points to a "significant regulatory shift" under a Trump administration.

Calling sexual assault a “terrible crime,” the Republican platform stated that reports of sexual assault should be “investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge.” It criticized the Obama administration’s policies, saying the White House’s “distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted.”

Trump could issue new Title IX guidance, based on the GOP’s platform, that would replace the 2011 Dear Colleague letter. Any new guidance would likely focus more on the due process rights of accused students and instruct colleges to use a higher burden of proof, such as the “clear and convincing” or “beyond reasonable doubt” standards of evidence.

Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who has been among OCR’s most vociferous critics, said the election has given him and others who have decried the department’s “egregious examples of executive overreach and intimidation” some new allies.

“[The Department of Education has] used Dear Colleague letters and guidance documents to mandate policies for schools without adhering to legally required regulatory processes,” Lankford said. “It is extreme overreach at agencies like the Department of Education that the American people repudiated in this election. I will push our new Republican-led Washington to put a stop to this abuse and restore proper regulatory and guidance processes to the federal government.”

It wouldn’t be the first time a president rolled back Title IX guidance created during an earlier administration. In 2010, the Obama administration revoked a controversial 2005 Title IX clarification issued under President George W. Bush that only allowed institutions to use internet or email surveys when determining female students’ interest in athletic participation. The 2005 guidance had similarly wiped out a 1996 clarification issued under President Bill Clinton.

Similarly, Clinton’s Education Department issued a new set of sexual harassment guidelines under Title IX on his last day in office in 2001. On Bush’s first full day as president, his administration “archived” the document, removing any references to the guidance from the department’s main webpages.

Lisa Maatz, vice president of government relations at the American Association of University Women, said it’s too early to predict exactly what a Trump presidency will mean for the future of campus sexual assault because Trump has offered so few specifics.

Maatz said she is hopeful, however, that Trump’s decisions will, in part, be influenced by a need to improve his public image. Several women have accused Trump of sexually assaulting them, and one of the most damaging moments of his campaign stemmed from a leaked recording of him boasting about how he has groped and kissed women without their consent.

“Speculation is difficult, but I don’t need to remind the president-elect that on this particular issue, he has a bit of a credibility gap because of his reputation,” Maatz said. “Whatever he wants to do, the changes he proposes will surely be viewed with some healthy skepticism, and we hope he will be sensitive to that.”

Maatz also said she believed the grassroots movement started by college women, which prompted Obama’s actions in the first place, will continue, no matter who is president. Bolger, of Know Your Title IX, offered a similar assessment.

“We're going to carry this country forward, not backward, no matter the barriers our political leaders put in our way,” Bolger said.

Student Victims of Violence
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Implications of Trump’s presidential victory for international and undocumented students

On Election Night a correspondent from The Wall Street Journal shared on Twitter an image of a young man in a kaffiyeh watching presidential election results. The man in the image is standing up, one hand on the handle of a suitcase as though he could leave at any moment. “Saudi students in the U.S. right now,” the tweet said.

Saudi students in the U.S. right now pic.twitter.com/Bnw7XeDHGl

— Ahmed Al Omran (@ahmed) November 9, 2016

The election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency left some in higher education worried that international students could be deterred or restricted from studying in the U.S. It also fueled concerns that students who came to the U.S. illegally as children and received temporary relief from deportation as well as work authorization under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program could be newly vulnerable.

Trump made a number of immigration-related policy proposals or statements throughout his 17-month campaign that have possible implications for international students on F-1 visas and those enrolled in the DACA program.

These include proposals related to visa policies. Trump at one point called for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. He subsequently laid out general plans for ideological screening and what he called “extreme vetting” of all visa applicants coming from regions identified by the Departments of Homeland Security and State as having “a history of exporting terrorism.” In an August speech outlining those plans, Trump cited a need to control the numbers of permanent immigrants and temporary visitors from the Middle East, a region that sends more than 100,000 students to U.S. universities.

Further, in October Trump said he would “begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.” He did not name particular countries, but The New York Times noted that one country that would be affected under such a policy would be China, which sends more students to the U.S. — more than 300,000 in the 2014-15 academic year — than any other country.

“One of the core values of international education is about celebrating diversity and learning from differences,” said Rahul Choudaha, the co-founder of interEDGE.org, an international student services company. “Trump’s viewpoints are insular and not in line with the values of international education. It is likely that the future policies will start looking inward and slow down international education exchanges and student mobility.”

“Career advancement is one of the prime motivations for international students to study in the U.S.,” Choudaha added. “Trump’s anti-immigrant stance may create stricter visa and immigration policies that may make it even more difficult for students to come to the U.S. and find internship and job opportunities.”

Ahmed Ezzeldin Mohamed, an Egyptian second-year political science Ph.D. student at Columbia University, said that Middle Eastern students coming to the U.S. already face high rates of visa denials and long delays in processing. “I know personal cases where people had to postpone their school one year because of the processing,” he said. Further screening, he said, could make it “infeasible” for Middle Eastern students to come to the U.S.

“Even if they get into the best school, they still can’t get into the country,” he said.

At one point early in the campaign, in a policy paper published in summer 2015, Trump called for the elimination of the J-1 exchange visa program through which foreign youth work in the U.S. It was unclear if the proposal referred to the J-1 program as a whole — parts of which colleges use to bring in visiting foreign scholars and, in some cases, students (though most students are on F-1 visas) — or just to jobs-related J-1 exchanges. The proposal regarding the J-1 program is no longer mentioned on the Trump campaign website.

Mark Overmann, the vice president of external affairs for InterExchange, which administers various J-1 exchange programs including for au pairs, camp counselors and intern trainees, said in a statement on InterExchange’s website that while the organization takes “this potential threat to exchange programs seriously,” it is also optimistic about the support enjoyed by J-1 programs in Congress.

“The Exchange Visitor Program has many strong supporters throughout the country and government, including from bipartisan groups of members of both the Senate and the House,” Overmann wrote. “We will work with these senators and representatives, and all of our partners — exchange visitors, hosts, international cooperators, the State Department, foreign governments and our colleague exchange organizations — to advocate for the continued growth of the Exchange Visitor Program and other exchanges.”

Another area that has concerned many in higher education has to do with Trump’s stated opposition to the DACA program. NBC News noted that “Trump’s win leaves hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, with an uncertain future.”

“For these students themselves and potentially family members, there’s the real concern about being deported or losing their current status,” said David Oxtoby, the president of Pomona College, where, he said, about 3 percent of students are undocumented. “Currently they’re allowed to hold jobs and have somewhat normal types of student lives.”

“There are 800,000 of these students out there who in good faith put themselves forward and have been contributing members of society,” said Michael A. Olivas, the interim president of the University of Houston Downtown, where about 45 percent of students are Latino. Olivas, a scholar of immigration and higher education law, is on leave from UH’s Law Center.

“Should they decide to do away with [DACA], I doubt they’ll try to remove and deport students who are currently in that program, but if they choose not to add more, what do we do with these kids that we made a bargain with — if you come forward and give us all your information and behave and go through criminal checks and so forth, we’ll suspend the deportation clock, we’ll consider you to be lawfully present with our permission, to give you a Social Security number, employment authorization? What’s going to happen to all of them? Rolling this back would be so detrimental.”

Olivas also emphasized the challenges higher education institutions will face when it comes to recruiting international students under a Trump presidency. “The confusion that’s occurred in the Brexit situation is going to be equivalent here, even more so, because there’s so much uncertainty, and I can’t imagine students from Latin America and South America who’ve found themselves characterized as rapists and criminals are going to want to come here.”

Olivas was referring to the speech with which Trump kicked off his campaign, in which he described plans to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and labeled some Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. Surveys of international students conducted during the presidential campaign suggested that many would be less interested in coming to the U.S. if Trump were to become president. For example, a survey of 40,000 students from 118 countries conducted by the international student recruiting companies FPP EDU Media and Intead found that 60 percent said they’d be less inclined to come to the U.S. if Trump were to win, compared to just 3.8 percent who said they’d be less inclined if his opponent Hillary Clinton won.

Among respondents from Mexico, the proportion who said they would be less inclined to study in the U.S. if Trump were to win the presidency was, at 79.8 percent, even higher.

The Seattle-based marketing company Study in the USA also surveyed 1,000 prospective international students on the election. Of 975 responses, 639 said they’d be more likely to study in the U.S. if Clinton were to win, while just 91 said they’d be more likely to come if Trump were elected. “Due to Donald Trump’s very explicit racist remarks, I would not feel very comfortable studying in the USA,” one respondent said.

One student from Hong Kong enrolled at Bunker Hill Community College, in Boston, shared a video on Facebook that called Trump a racist, sexist and narcissist. “Oh my goodness, such a nightmare. Can I still survive in the U.S. … As an Asian international student,” Kalok Kwok posted.

“I feel like I am losing a chance to immigrate to the USA,” Kwok said in an interview. “I think Trump will deny people who are interested to immigrate in the U.S. to protect U.S. citizens …. It might work in the short run, but in the long run U.S. citizens might lose competitiveness.”

Still, others offered a more optimistic message. It’s worth noting that Trump himself once posted on Twitter about the benefit of retaining international students in the U.S., writing in an August 2015 tweet, “When foreigners attend our great colleges and want to stay in the U.S., they should not be thrown out of our country.”

“I think America is going to continue to welcome international students, international students are going to continue to want to come here, we will continue to want to send American students abroad as students and cultural ambassadors. I think that international educational exchange is part of the fabric of many societies, including ours,” said Allan E. Goodman, the president and CEO of the Institute for International Education.

“In terms of how this will impact mobility of students, how this will impact the work of international education in the short and long run, it’s too early to tell because it is my hope that between the campaign rhetoric and what it actually takes to govern, that between those two we will get to what I would call a more reasonable place. It is my deep hope,” said Fanta Aw, the president of NAFSA: Association of International Educators and assistant vice president of campus life at American University.

Aw continued, “At the end of the day, there will have to be a way to figure out how does this country come together and how does it choose to engage the world and be part of the world, and I would go so far as to say there’s some practical reasons for why this is essential. Because our economy is tied to the world economy. We don’t live on an island unto ourselves.”

At the same time, Aw said, she understood why some international students were feeling nervous on Wednesday.

“For the world to see with this election that issues of race were very much on the table, that issues of gender were very much on the table, that issues of class were very much on the table, that issues of citizenship were on the table, and who people choose to worship, that is a lot to digest,” she said.

“For our students, depending on what part of the country they’re in, I can understand that there’s some real fear and trepidation because they’re trying to make meaning of what does the vote stand for?” Aw said. “It is understandable that for those students and for their families they would have a lot of questions this morning, and in the days and months ahead we will be unpacking what did happen.”

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
iStock
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

On Election Night a correspondent from The Wall Street Journal shared on Twitter an image of a young man in a kaffiyeh watching presidential election results. The man in the image is standing up, one hand on the handle of a suitcase as though he could leave at any moment. “Saudi students in the U.S. right now,” the tweet said.

The election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency left some in higher education worried that international students could be deterred or restricted from studying in the U.S. It also fueled concerns that students who came to the U.S. illegally as children and received temporary relief from deportation as well as work authorization under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program could be newly vulnerable.

Trump made a number of immigration-related policy proposals or statements throughout his 17-month campaign that have possible implications for international students on F-1 visas and those enrolled in the DACA program.

These include proposals related to visa policies. Trump at one point called for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. He subsequently laid out general plans for ideological screening and what he called “extreme vetting” of all visa applicants coming from regions identified by the Departments of Homeland Security and State as having “a history of exporting terrorism.” In an August speech outlining those plans, Trump cited a need to control the numbers of permanent immigrants and temporary visitors from the Middle East, a region that sends more than 100,000 students to U.S. universities.

Further, in October Trump said he would "begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back." He did not name particular countries, but The New York Times noted that one country that would be affected under such a policy would be China, which sends more students to the U.S. -- more than 300,000 in the 2014-15 academic year -- than any other country.

“One of the core values of international education is about celebrating diversity and learning from differences,” said Rahul Choudaha, the co-founder of interEDGE.org, an international student services company. “Trump’s viewpoints are insular and not in line with the values of international education. It is likely that the future policies will start looking inward and slow down international education exchanges and student mobility.”

"Career advancement is one of the prime motivations for international students to study in the U.S.," Choudaha added. "Trump’s anti-immigrant stance may create stricter visa and immigration policies that may make it even more difficult for students to come to the U.S. and find internship and job opportunities."

Ahmed Ezzeldin Mohamed, an Egyptian second-year political science Ph.D. student at Columbia University, said that Middle Eastern students coming to the U.S. already face high rates of visa denials and long delays in processing. "I know personal cases where people had to postpone their school one year because of the processing," he said. Further screening, he said, could make it "infeasible" for Middle Eastern students to come to the U.S.

"Even if they get into the best school, they still can’t get into the country," he said.

At one point early in the campaign, in a policy paper published in summer 2015, Trump called for the elimination of the J-1 exchange visa program through which foreign youth work in the U.S. It was unclear if the proposal referred to the J-1 program as a whole -- parts of which colleges use to bring in visiting foreign scholars and, in some cases, students (though most students are on F-1 visas) -- or just to jobs-related J-1 exchanges. The proposal regarding the J-1 program is no longer mentioned on the Trump campaign website.

Mark Overmann, the vice president of external affairs for InterExchange, which administers various J-1 exchange programs including for au pairs, camp counselors and intern trainees, said in a statement on InterExchange's website that while the organization takes "this potential threat to exchange programs seriously," it is also optimistic about the support enjoyed by J-1 programs in Congress.

"The Exchange Visitor Program has many strong supporters throughout the country and government, including from bipartisan groups of members of both the Senate and the House," Overmann wrote. "We will work with these senators and representatives, and all of our partners -- exchange visitors, hosts, international cooperators, the State Department, foreign governments and our colleague exchange organizations -- to advocate for the continued growth of the Exchange Visitor Program and other exchanges."

Another area that has concerned many in higher education has to do with Trump's stated opposition to the DACA program. NBC News noted that "Trump's win leaves hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, with an uncertain future."

"For these students themselves and potentially family members, there's the real concern about being deported or losing their current status," said David Oxtoby, the president of Pomona College, where, he said, about 3 percent of students are undocumented. "Currently they’re allowed to hold jobs and have somewhat normal types of student lives."

“There are 800,000 of these students out there who in good faith put themselves forward and have been contributing members of society," said Michael A. Olivas, the interim president of the University of Houston Downtown, where about 45 percent of students are Latino. Olivas, a scholar of immigration and higher education law, is on leave from UH's Law Center.

“Should they decide to do away with [DACA], I doubt they’ll try to remove and deport students who are currently in that program, but if they choose not to add more, what do we do with these kids that we made a bargain with -- if you come forward and give us all your information and behave and go through criminal checks and so forth, we’ll suspend the deportation clock, we’ll consider you to be lawfully present with our permission, to give you a Social Security number, employment authorization? What’s going to happen to all of them? Rolling this back would be so detrimental.”

Olivas also emphasized the challenges higher education institutions will face when it comes to recruiting international students under a Trump presidency. “The confusion that’s occurred in the Brexit situation is going to be equivalent here, even more so, because there’s so much uncertainty, and I can’t imagine students from Latin America and South America who’ve found themselves characterized as rapists and criminals are going to want to come here.”

Olivas was referring to the speech with which Trump kicked off his campaign, in which he described plans to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and labeled some Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. Surveys of international students conducted during the presidential campaign suggested that many would be less interested in coming to the U.S. if Trump were to become president. For example, a survey of 40,000 students from 118 countries conducted by the international student recruiting companies FPP EDU Media and Intead found that 60 percent said they'd be less inclined to come to the U.S. if Trump were to win, compared to just 3.8 percent who said they'd be less inclined if his opponent Hillary Clinton won.

Among respondents from Mexico, the proportion who said they would be less inclined to study in the U.S. if Trump were to win the presidency was, at 79.8 percent, even higher.

The Seattle-based marketing company Study in the USA also surveyed 1,000 prospective international students on the election. Of 975 responses, 639 said they'd be more likely to study in the U.S. if Clinton were to win, while just 91 said they'd be more likely to come if Trump were elected. “Due to Donald Trump's very explicit racist remarks, I would not feel very comfortable studying in the USA,” one respondent said.

One student from Hong Kong enrolled at Bunker Hill Community College, in Boston, shared a video on Facebook that called Trump a racist, sexist and narcissist. "Oh my goodness, such a nightmare. Can I still survive in the U.S. … As an Asian international student," Kalok Kwok posted.

"I feel like I am losing a chance to immigrate to the USA," Kwok said in an interview. "I think Trump will deny people who are interested to immigrate in the U.S. to protect U.S. citizens …. It might work in the short run, but in the long run U.S. citizens might lose competitiveness."

Still, others offered a more optimistic message. It's worth noting that Trump himself once posted on Twitter about the benefit of retaining international students in the U.S., writing in an August 2015 tweet, "When foreigners attend our great colleges and want to stay in the U.S., they should not be thrown out of our country."

“I think America is going to continue to welcome international students, international students are going to continue to want to come here, we will continue to want to send American students abroad as students and cultural ambassadors. I think that international educational exchange is part of the fabric of many societies, including ours," said Allan E. Goodman, the president and CEO of the Institute for International Education.

“In terms of how this will impact mobility of students, how this will impact the work of international education in the short and long run, it’s too early to tell because it is my hope that between the campaign rhetoric and what it actually takes to govern, that between those two we will get to what I would call a more reasonable place. It is my deep hope," said Fanta Aw, the president of NAFSA: Association of International Educators and assistant vice president of campus life at American University.

Aw continued, "At the end of the day, there will have to be a way to figure out how does this country come together and how does it choose to engage the world and be part of the world, and I would go so far as to say there’s some practical reasons for why this is essential. Because our economy is tied to the world economy. We don’t live on an island unto ourselves."

At the same time, Aw said, she understood why some international students were feeling nervous on Wednesday.

"For the world to see with this election that issues of race were very much on the table, that issues of gender were very much on the table, that issues of class were very much on the table, that issues of citizenship were on the table, and who people choose to worship, that is a lot to digest," she said.

"For our students, depending on what part of the country they’re in, I can understand that there’s some real fear and trepidation because they’re trying to make meaning of what does the vote stand for?" Aw said. "It is understandable that for those students and for their families they would have a lot of questions this morning, and in the days and months ahead we will be unpacking what did happen."

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
iStock
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Numerous campuses see protests as students react with shock to Trump victory

Many students who stayed up late on Election Day — as well as those who didn’t get the results until Wednesday morning — were dejected and angry about the election of Donald Trump as the next president. Trump had plenty of campus supporters, who organized events on his behalf during the campaign. But even those supporters never claimed to be the majority of students.

Among the most angry on Wednesday were minority students, immigrant students, gay students, feminist students — and on many campuses they organized quick protests, in some cases marching off campus as well. Plenty of white men protested as well. Many students had for months been angry at Trump’s campaign statements about issues they care about, as well as videos showing him boasting of assaulting women. Judging from comments on social media, many of those protesting were stunned by the election outcome (just as many nonstudents were as well, of course). In several cities, high school students held protests as well.

Some students, particularly those on the West Coast, started marches Tuesday night. That’s the case with the video that follows, from the University of California, Los Angeles.

At the University of Texas at Austin, students marched through the city after starting on campus. Students also organized protests at the Universities of Connecticut, Oregon and Pittsburgh, and Western Washington University.

At many campuses, students carried signs that said “Not My President,” “Love Trumps Hate” or various four-letter words to express feelings about Trump. At some events, students were crying as they discussed their fears about the future in a Trump administration.

Many signs at events termed Trump a fascist.

Some protest tactics of earlier generations resurfaced on Wednesday. At American University, students burned a flag.

At the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, a U.S. flag on Wednesday morning was defaced with “Fuck you” written on it, The Knoxville News Sentinel reported.

On Wednesday afternoon, Chancellor Jimmy Cheek sent a campuswide email urging civility. “As is the case across the country, members of our campus community represent a variety of viewpoints and opinions,” he wrote. “Whatever opinions we hold, we are all Volunteers.”

At some campuses, students reported that pro-Trump messages were left in various places, mixing in statements many found offensive. At the University of Louisville, for example, The Courier-Journal reported that the phrase “Trump Build the Wall” was spray-painted on a statue.

Here are a few social media posts about other protests Wednesday.

Protest is starting now! Umich students against trump come to the diag pic.twitter.com/mHx9iuCR2d

— santa’s slutty elf (@ohgoshwhatsup) November 9, 2016

Local students protest Trump https://t.co/gizgDCYClH

— CO Springs Indy (@csindependent) November 9, 2016

UC San Diego students protest Trump presidency for second day: For the second day Wednesday, UC San Diego students… https://t.co/cakpUA7sUK pic.twitter.com/aR9rKJnwP6

— Union-Trib headlines (@UnionTrib) November 9, 2016

Kevin Kruger, president of NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, said via email that the protests generally are to be expected — and that the right of students to protest should be supported.

“We should not be surprised by the vocal reaction from college students across the country,” he said. “There is a general sense of anger, fear and despair about the outcome of the election. In particular, African-American, Latino/a and LGBT students have felt that some of the political rhetoric has had a direct impact on them from a very personal standpoint. These protests are a healthy and productive way for student to express themselves.”

Kruger added that his members have reported that visits to counseling centers were up Wednesday and that many students have been reporting greater levels of anxiety than is the norm.

A key challenge for campus leaders, he said, is providing places for a range of expressions about the election. While most of the protests “have been from those opposed to the election of Donald Trump, it is also important to provide spaces on campus for all viewpoints — both those who are concerned about the outcome and those who are excited about the outcome,” he said. “Creating spaces for those divergent views will be one of the most challenging in the near term.”

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Eva Ruth Moravec
Image Caption: 
U of Texas students march through Austin
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Many students who stayed up late on Election Day -- as well as those who didn't get the results until Wednesday morning -- were dejected and angry about the election of Donald Trump as the next president. Trump had plenty of campus supporters, who organized events on his behalf during the campaign. But even those supporters never claimed to be the majority of students.

Among the most angry on Wednesday were minority students, immigrant students, gay students, feminist students -- and on many campuses they organized quick protests, in some cases marching off campus as well. Plenty of white men protested as well. Many students had for months been angry at Trump's campaign statements about issues they care about, as well as videos showing him boasting of assaulting women. Judging from comments on social media, many of those protesting were stunned by the election outcome (just as many nonstudents were as well, of course). In several cities, high school students held protests as well.

Some students, particularly those on the West Coast, started marches Tuesday night. That's the case with the video that follows, from the University of California, Los Angeles.

At the University of Texas at Austin, students marched through the city after starting on campus. Students also organized protests at the Universities of Connecticut, Oregon and Pittsburgh, and Western Washington University.

At many campuses, students carried signs that said "Not My President," "Love Trumps Hate" or various four-letter words to express feelings about Trump. At some events, students were crying as they discussed their fears about the future in a Trump administration.

Many signs at events termed Trump a fascist.

Some protest tactics of earlier generations resurfaced on Wednesday. At American University, students burned a flag.

At the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, a U.S. flag on Wednesday morning was defaced with "Fuck you" written on it, The Knoxville News Sentinel reported.

On Wednesday afternoon, Chancellor Jimmy Cheek sent a campuswide email urging civility. "As is the case across the country, members of our campus community represent a variety of viewpoints and opinions," he wrote. "Whatever opinions we hold, we are all Volunteers."

At some campuses, students reported that pro-Trump messages were left in various places, mixing in statements many found offensive. At the University of Louisville, for example, The Courier-Journal reported that the phrase "Trump Build the Wall" was spray-painted on a statue.

Here are a few social media posts about other protests Wednesday.

Kevin Kruger, president of NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, said via email that the protests generally are to be expected -- and that the right of students to protest should be supported.

"We should not be surprised by the vocal reaction from college students across the country," he said. "There is a general sense of anger, fear and despair about the outcome of the election. In particular, African-American, Latino/a and LGBT students have felt that some of the political rhetoric has had a direct impact on them from a very personal standpoint. These protests are a healthy and productive way for student to express themselves."

Kruger added that his members have reported that visits to counseling centers were up Wednesday and that many students have been reporting greater levels of anxiety than is the norm.

A key challenge for campus leaders, he said, is providing places for a range of expressions about the election. While most of the protests "have been from those opposed to the election of Donald Trump, it is also important to provide spaces on campus for all viewpoints -- both those who are concerned about the outcome and those who are excited about the outcome," he said. "Creating spaces for those divergent views will be one of the most challenging in the near term."

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Eva Ruth Moravec
Image Caption: 
U of Texas students march through Austin
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Trump’s higher ed priorities? Undoing many of President Obama’s

To anticipate the higher ed priorities of a Trump administration, look to policies already proposed by Republicans in Congress. That’s the consensus of many observers of federal higher education policy when asked to gauge what kinds of policies President-elect Donald J. Trump is likely to pursue early in his administration.

During much of the presidential campaign, Trump’s higher ed positions remained a mystery, except for comments from a surrogate unearthed by Inside Higher Ed. While Democrat Hillary Clinton made higher ed policy a core element of her campaign with a proposal to make public higher education debt-free, and then tuition-free for most students, the Republican candidate was largely silent until an Oct. 13 speech in Cincinnati, when he made remarks criticizing unaffordable student loan debt, “tremendous bloat” in campus administrations and large university endowments. But his plans remained vague.

After a surprising election night win, it’s no more clear what exactly his higher education agenda will consist of.

But policy analysts say Trump is likely to act in at least a handful of areas over which Democrats and Republicans have sparred — and particularly areas in which the change in administration provides opportunities for agencies under new leadership to roll back initiatives started by their predecessors. And in many cases, they say, Trump will be likely to support priorities of the reinforced Republican Congress that also emerged from Tuesday’s election.

These include the Obama administration’s aggressive enforcement of for-profit colleges, its intensified focus on sexual assault on college campuses (see related article) and its efforts to strengthen labor unions and other worker benefits.

For-Profit Higher Education

President Obama and his aides in the Education Department spent several years toughening rules weakened during the preceding administration of President George W. Bush and creating even tougher new ones.

It is expected that the ambitious set of regulations rolled out as part of a crackdown on the for-profit college sector could wither away under a Republican-led Department of Education. Gainful employment rules sought to hold vocational programs accountable when graduates did not make enough in salary to pay back their student loans and primarily applied to for-profit institutions. Borrower defense rules, finalized this fall, established a federal standard for student borrowers to seek discharge of their loans if they were defrauded by their institution. A Trump Education Department could choose not to devote resources to enforcing the rules. Or the Republican-controlled Congress could eliminate them through the Congressional Review Act.

Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities, said before the election that the industry might not survive a Hillary Clinton administration. On Wednesday, he said the election results meant that the for-profit sector would be able to reintroduce itself “in a positive and constructive way.”

“Providing career education is essential to the economic growth that President-elect Trump is talking about,” Gunderson said. “The big difference is that we will be able to actually have conversations with the administration and department and try to resolve problems in a mutual way.”

Two major for-profit college chains — Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institute — failed in the last two years. Many former Corinthian students have claimed they were defrauded by the institution and have gone on a debt strike, refusing to pay back federal student loans they received to attend their institutions.

The borrower defense rules were drafted in response to those failures in the sector.

Alexander Holt, a policy analyst in the Education Policy Program at New America, said a pause on implementation of those rules would probably happen under a Trump Department of Education.

“There’s a high likelihood that that one is not long for this world,” he said.

Congressional Republicans could try to renegotiate those rules or wipe them out entirely, he said.

Other Financial Aid Policies

Trump has also expressed an interest in basing student loans on graduates’ incomes — an existing part of federal policy that he endorsed in that Ohio speech — and refinancing student loan debt, an idea criticized by policy experts but supported by lawmakers from both parties. He has also said he supports risk-sharing proposals, which would hold colleges accountable for student outcomes. Risk sharing would put colleges on the hook financially when their graduates are unable to pay back their student loans. Such proposals have begun to gain bipartisan momentum in Congress.

“If you want to have the best guess of what Republicans are going to do on higher education, you need to look at what Republicans in Congress have proposed on higher education. That’s where the best answers lie,” Holt said. “The expertise now is in Congress. That’s not unusual in a Republican administration, but I think it’s especially true of Trump.”

While the administration’s regulatory accomplishments are in danger, the 2010 switch from federally backed student loans to federal direct lending — another position staked out by the Trump campaign in public comments on higher ed policy — may be harder to reverse.

The administration made the switch through the legislative process, creating $6 billion in annual savings that went toward increasing the Pell Grant and other purposes. Mark Huelsman, a policy analyst at the progressive think tank Demos, said returning to federally backed loans would be a costly giveaway to banks with no impact on college access or affordability.

He said returning to private guaranteed loans was a priority of the Mitt Romney campaign in 2012 and was part of the Republican platform this year.

“There’s definitely some enthusiasm among congressional Republicans for bringing back banks as the middlemen for federal lending,” Huelsman said.

But Vic Klatt, a principal at the Penn Hill Group and a former House GOP education staffer, said reverting to the old system would be a tall order in a divided Congress because of the costs involved.

Klatt said that while Clinton’s free college plan obviously won’t be happening, he doesn’t expect the president-elect to push for cuts to funding of higher education, either. He added that Trump would quickly learn that the way to get things done in Congress is to make deals with members of both parties.

Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate education committee, is expected to play a key role in shaping the next administration’s approach to higher education. His Democratic counterpart on the committee, Washington Senator Patty Murray, also returns to the Senate after winning re-election Tuesday.

“The rules of the Senate did not change in this election — there’s still the 60-vote threshold,” Klatt said. “There’s still the need to be bipartisan. That hasn’t changed at all.”

Labor Relations

Another way in which the Obama and Trump administrations are likely to diverge significantly is in their views of labor and management.

The National Labor Relations Board is one of the federal entities that is shaped over time by whichever party holds the White House, and as a result, the board — which is responsible for adjudicating the federal law that guides employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively — frequently bounces back and forth on key issues.

The Obama administration got off to a slow start on fulfilling the hopes of the labor unions that helped elect him in 2008, because his efforts to remake the NLRB were delayed by intense partisan battles and blocked nominees.

But in a series of rulings in recent years, the board has strengthened the hand of unions representing graduate student workers and faculty members at private colleges, to the delight of those groups and the dismay of many college and university leaders. A December 2014 NLRB ruling rejected the claims of Pacific Lutheran University that its full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members are managerial employees and thus are not entitled to collective bargaining, partially challenging the board’s 1980 ruling known as the Yeshiva decision.

And in August, the board overturned a 2004 ruling — made by a George W. Bush-crafted NLRB — that denied collective bargaining rights to graduate teaching and research assistants.

President-elect Trump would be able to start remaking the NLRB in his own image immediately, as two of its five slots are vacant. Another member’s five-year term will expire next December, which could give him a majority by then. Cases would have to be brought before the board for it to take them up, so the process of potentially overturning those rulings would take some time. But opponents of unionization are likely to pursue it.

The new administration could act more swiftly to change some other labor-related actions of the current one. Colleges and other employers are preparing for the Dec. 1 implementation of new federal rules promulgated by the Department of Labor that dramatically increase the number of workers eligible for overtime. The regulations exempt several groups of higher education employees, notably those who are primarily teachers, but are likely to result in increased wages for many workers (and, by extension, higher costs for many institutions).

Those rules will take effect before Trump takes office unless pending a legal challenge blocks them. But that legal challenge is one of several ways in which a Trump administration could seek to stymie or overturn the new rules, says William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at the City University of New York’s Hunter College. A Trump-led Labor Department, for instance, could decline to defend itself against the challenge, forcing the agency to reconsider the rules, Herbert said.

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Getty Images
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

To anticipate the higher ed priorities of a Trump administration, look to policies already proposed by Republicans in Congress. That's the consensus of many observers of federal higher education policy when asked to gauge what kinds of policies President-elect Donald J. Trump is likely to pursue early in his administration.

During much of the presidential campaign, Trump's higher ed positions remained a mystery, except for comments from a surrogate unearthed by Inside Higher Ed. While Democrat Hillary Clinton made higher ed policy a core element of her campaign with a proposal to make public higher education debt-free, and then tuition-free for most students, the Republican candidate was largely silent until an Oct. 13 speech in Cincinnati, when he made remarks criticizing unaffordable student loan debt, “tremendous bloat” in campus administrations and large university endowments. But his plans remained vague.

After a surprising election night win, it’s no more clear what exactly his higher education agenda will consist of.

But policy analysts say Trump is likely to act in at least a handful of areas over which Democrats and Republicans have sparred -- and particularly areas in which the change in administration provides opportunities for agencies under new leadership to roll back initiatives started by their predecessors. And in many cases, they say, Trump will be likely to support priorities of the reinforced Republican Congress that also emerged from Tuesday's election.

These include the Obama administration's aggressive enforcement of for-profit colleges, its intensified focus on sexual assault on college campuses (see related article) and its efforts to strengthen labor unions and other worker benefits.

For-Profit Higher Education

President Obama and his aides in the Education Department spent several years toughening rules weakened during the preceding administration of President George W. Bush and creating even tougher new ones.

It is expected that the ambitious set of regulations rolled out as part of a crackdown on the for-profit college sector could wither away under a Republican-led Department of Education. Gainful employment rules sought to hold vocational programs accountable when graduates did not make enough in salary to pay back their student loans and primarily applied to for-profit institutions. Borrower defense rules, finalized this fall, established a federal standard for student borrowers to seek discharge of their loans if they were defrauded by their institution. A Trump Education Department could choose not to devote resources to enforcing the rules. Or the Republican-controlled Congress could eliminate them through the Congressional Review Act.

Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities, said before the election that the industry might not survive a Hillary Clinton administration. On Wednesday, he said the election results meant that the for-profit sector would be able to reintroduce itself “in a positive and constructive way.”

“Providing career education is essential to the economic growth that President-elect Trump is talking about,” Gunderson said. “The big difference is that we will be able to actually have conversations with the administration and department and try to resolve problems in a mutual way.”

Two major for-profit college chains -- Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institute -- failed in the last two years. Many former Corinthian students have claimed they were defrauded by the institution and have gone on a debt strike, refusing to pay back federal student loans they received to attend their institutions.

The borrower defense rules were drafted in response to those failures in the sector.

Alexander Holt, a policy analyst in the Education Policy Program at New America, said a pause on implementation of those rules would probably happen under a Trump Department of Education.

“There’s a high likelihood that that one is not long for this world,” he said.

Congressional Republicans could try to renegotiate those rules or wipe them out entirely, he said.

Other Financial Aid Policies

Trump has also expressed an interest in basing student loans on graduates’ incomes -- an existing part of federal policy that he endorsed in that Ohio speech -- and refinancing student loan debt, an idea criticized by policy experts but supported by lawmakers from both parties. He has also said he supports risk-sharing proposals, which would hold colleges accountable for student outcomes. Risk sharing would put colleges on the hook financially when their graduates are unable to pay back their student loans. Such proposals have begun to gain bipartisan momentum in Congress.

“If you want to have the best guess of what Republicans are going to do on higher education, you need to look at what Republicans in Congress have proposed on higher education. That’s where the best answers lie,” Holt said. “The expertise now is in Congress. That’s not unusual in a Republican administration, but I think it's especially true of Trump.”

While the administration’s regulatory accomplishments are in danger, the 2010 switch from federally backed student loans to federal direct lending -- another position staked out by the Trump campaign in public comments on higher ed policy -- may be harder to reverse.

The administration made the switch through the legislative process, creating $6 billion in annual savings that went toward increasing the Pell Grant and other purposes. Mark Huelsman, a policy analyst at the progressive think tank Demos, said returning to federally backed loans would be a costly giveaway to banks with no impact on college access or affordability.

He said returning to private guaranteed loans was a priority of the Mitt Romney campaign in 2012 and was part of the Republican platform this year.

“There’s definitely some enthusiasm among congressional Republicans for bringing back banks as the middlemen for federal lending,” Huelsman said.

But Vic Klatt, a principal at the Penn Hill Group and a former House GOP education staffer, said reverting to the old system would be a tall order in a divided Congress because of the costs involved.

Klatt said that while Clinton's free college plan obviously won’t be happening, he doesn’t expect the president-elect to push for cuts to funding of higher education, either. He added that Trump would quickly learn that the way to get things done in Congress is to make deals with members of both parties.

Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate education committee, is expected to play a key role in shaping the next administration’s approach to higher education. His Democratic counterpart on the committee, Washington Senator Patty Murray, also returns to the Senate after winning re-election Tuesday.

"The rules of the Senate did not change in this election -- there’s still the 60-vote threshold,” Klatt said. “There’s still the need to be bipartisan. That hasn’t changed at all.”

Labor Relations

Another way in which the Obama and Trump administrations are likely to diverge significantly is in their views of labor and management.

The National Labor Relations Board is one of the federal entities that is shaped over time by whichever party holds the White House, and as a result, the board -- which is responsible for adjudicating the federal law that guides employees' rights to organize and bargain collectively -- frequently bounces back and forth on key issues.

The Obama administration got off to a slow start on fulfilling the hopes of the labor unions that helped elect him in 2008, because his efforts to remake the NLRB were delayed by intense partisan battles and blocked nominees.

But in a series of rulings in recent years, the board has strengthened the hand of unions representing graduate student workers and faculty members at private colleges, to the delight of those groups and the dismay of many college and university leaders. A December 2014 NLRB ruling rejected the claims of Pacific Lutheran University that its full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members are managerial employees and thus are not entitled to collective bargaining, partially challenging the board's 1980 ruling known as the Yeshiva decision.

And in August, the board overturned a 2004 ruling -- made by a George W. Bush-crafted NLRB -- that denied collective bargaining rights to graduate teaching and research assistants.

President-elect Trump would be able to start remaking the NLRB in his own image immediately, as two of its five slots are vacant. Another member's five-year term will expire next December, which could give him a majority by then. Cases would have to be brought before the board for it to take them up, so the process of potentially overturning those rulings would take some time. But opponents of unionization are likely to pursue it.

The new administration could act more swiftly to change some other labor-related actions of the current one. Colleges and other employers are preparing for the Dec. 1 implementation of new federal rules promulgated by the Department of Labor that dramatically increase the number of workers eligible for overtime. The regulations exempt several groups of higher education employees, notably those who are primarily teachers, but are likely to result in increased wages for many workers (and, by extension, higher costs for many institutions).

Those rules will take effect before Trump takes office unless pending a legal challenge blocks them. But that legal challenge is one of several ways in which a Trump administration could seek to stymie or overturn the new rules, says William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at the City University of New York's Hunter College. A Trump-led Labor Department, for instance, could decline to defend itself against the challenge, forcing the agency to reconsider the rules, Herbert said.

2016 Election
Image Source: 
Getty Images
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

In Trump’s win, professors see threats to science and academic freedom — but also an opportunity to connect with students

One of the major follow-up stories to President-elect Donald Trump’s stunning victory this week is — rightly — how the media didn’t see it coming. But the outcome sneaked up on other groups, as well — perhaps academics most of all. While some professors supported Trump leading up to the election, academe swung overwhelmingly toward Hillary Clinton and, it seems, expected her to win.

Professors are as a group famously liberal; a recent study of voter registration data, for example, found that professors who are registered Democrats outnumber those who are registered Republicans 11.5 to one. But Clinton’s campaign — even to reluctant followers — also came to embody some of the values that academics traditionally cherish, along with values that have become central to recent campus discussions about diversity: expertise, evidence-based reasoning, thoughtfulness, inclusion, religious tolerance and gender equity.

While Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks about racial minorities, women and Muslims may have resonated with some academics who have criticized campus culture as becoming too “politically correct” or policing of speech, they also fly in the face of civility — another burgeoning campus value. And Trump is at least outwardly anti-science, having called climate change, about which there is a near-total expert consensus, a “hoax” of Chinese invention.

His campaign focused little on education, and he actively pursued the votes of Americans without college degrees. (Though, of course, higher education is not a prerequisite to intellectualism.)

Unsurprisingly, a scan of Twitter on Wednesday tells of disbelief and disappointment from scores of professors — some of whom said they were canceling classes or otherwise taking time to recover from the upset. Others rethought their approach to the election and their engagement with the broader public.

Cancelled #SyrRelPol for Thursday. I just can’t insist that we all go right back to work. We’ve earned a break.https://t.co/9EoS8yRHTE

— Megan Goodwin (@mpgPhD) November 9, 2016

@NatureNews this is terrifying for science, research, education, and the future of our planet. I guess it’s time for me to go back to Europe

— María E. Escribano (@MariaEscEsc) November 9, 2016

Remembering all those emails where Bernie told me he was the only candidate who could beat Donald Trump.

— Christopher Newfield (@cnewf) November 9, 2016

ACADEMICS TOO MANY OF US ARE SO BUSY TALKING INWARD, PREENING TO EACH OTHER- WE ABANDONED OUR ROLES IN OUR BROADER COMMUNITIES!

— Katie Hinde (@Mammals_Suck) November 9, 2016

We should have been speaking to peoples’ hearts and not trying to shame and boss grown folks around #Election2016

— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) November 9, 2016

Nyasha Junior, an assistant professor of religion at Temple University, said she’d noticed colleagues on social media not wanting to get out of bed or dreading going to work. Junior said she didn’t feel like going about “business as usual,” either, just yet. “I don’t feel I can have or lead a civil discussion about the election. … I decided not to lecture or follow my original plans for today’s classes.” She decided to have students in one class watch the film A Lesson Before Dying, a story of death row in the Jim Crow era, instead of reading the novel, for example.

Talking Trumpism With Students

Joshua A. Drew, a lecturer and director of the conservation biology program at Columbia University, said in an open letter to his coastal and estuarine ecology students that they were excused from class Wednesday — but that class would still take place.

“Why are we having class today? Because the administration that was just elected is demonstrably anti-science, anti-climate and by extension anti-ocean,” Drew wrote. “As students who are majoring in ecology and evolutionary biology, you are facing a unique suite of challenges. To the seniors in the class, you are going to graduate within Trump’s first 100 days, to a time where the Republicans hold the [House of Representatives], the Senate and most likely the Supreme Court. To the juniors, you are going to graduate within his first two years, and before any potentially ameliorating midterm elections. Thus, you are going to be graduating into a challenging time. A time when your science needs to be better, your arguments more convincing and your commitment to protecting our natural environment fiercer.”

Drew added, “We are holding class today because what I teach you is now even more important. You are going to have to up your game to operate in a culture that does not value the beliefs you hold dear. I am honored to teach you, to give you the tools and skills you will need to be a bulkhead against ignorance, and to help you find ways to intelligently speak from a position of authority.”

Benjamin Stevens, a visiting assistant professor of classics at Trinity University in San Antonio, also held classes and encouraged students to connect their studies of ancient Greece and Rome to the day’s news. He invited other students to participate, as well, even covering for a colleague who chose not to come to campus, and established ground rules that everyone express only personal views and not talk over others. The results were “affirming and inspiring,” he said.

Although the general tenor of conversations was fear and apprehension, the “very fact of being encouraged to engage in discussion — not in lieu of our work in the humanities, but as an extension of it — seemed to reassure many students and to encourage truly open dialogue,” Stevens said. He was most affected by students’ agreement that the moment was an opportunity to understand how liberal arts campuses “could have missed the fact that such large segments of the population are disconnected from this activity and feel disenfranchised.”

Drawing on historical parallels as well as their own personal reactions, Stevens added, “students generally wanted to understand what they acknowledge must be the very wide range of reasons for which voters elected Trump,” reasons that can’t all be malicious.

Stevens noted a “close link between Trump and what seems to be an anti-intellectualism,” or what “really seems to be an active disinterest in thoughtfulness, learning, and conventionally educated use of language.” In that context, he said, many American academics feel “real shock” from being confronted with the fact “that fully half of the electorate evidently feels disconnected from the institutions and maybe the values of higher education — or even actively disenfranchised by them.”
 
Saying he didn’t wish to describe himself and his fellow academics as “out of touch,” Stevens said  the election nevertheless emphasized that “regardless of field, our professional work as teachers and researchers largely means interacting with segments of the population that are historically, economically and culturally pre-selected for participation in higher education. Naturally that leaves whole segments out.”
 
What Academics Missed
 
Is academe out of the touch with the electorate? James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, rejected the question as too reductionist. But while historians are probably no more or less surprised than the multitudes of Americans who watched the numbers roll in, he said, there seems to be some sense of surprise and alarm. Surprise “because we made the same miscalculations that other observers made,” he said, and alarm “because much of Trump’s rhetoric invokes a past that never existed.”

The slogan Make American Great Again is a historical statement, and clearly refers to the 1950s, Grossman said, a decade that precedes “vast changes in the American demographic, cultural, economic and social landscape.” But historians who have studied the decline of American industry don’t generally agree with the Trump’s version of events, and are “apt to be skeptical of his proposed pathways to their resuscitation.” Historians also have documented the era’s inequalities that made it “less than great for large portions of our population,” Grossman added.

Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland at College Park, who studies families and social inequality, said he surveyed his students in one course this semester and just one of 38 planned to vote for Trump. The sample was obviously biased, but he also used polling data on Election Day to explain how polling works and told students with some confidence that Clinton would likely win.

“Of course, we missed it,” he said. “But the way our electoral system works, a pretty small error in the prediction — a couple of percentage points — can mean missing the biggest political event in modern U.S. history. That’s the way social science goes, and we learn from our mistakes.”

That doesn’t change Cohen’s personal reaction to the win — something he called “shocking and upsetting.” Cohen was harassed on Twitter by Trump followers posting anti-Semitic memes during a conversation that started over a post about police cameras, which he said exposed him to “a level of hated and vitriol that I have never before encountered in my work.”

Beyond that, “as a sociologist, I am well aware of some of the factors that went into the movement for Trump,” such as racism, sexism, xenophobia, the widening class divide and “social dislocation that we have witnessed as a result of deindustrialization and policies that exacerbated inequality and economic insecurity,” Cohen said. This year’s election brought those simmering issues to the surface, as “Trump tapped a deep vein of anger and resentment among whites, with consequences that we already knew were nasty.”

The Cost of College

Cohen said he worried that the implications of a Trump victory for students and campus life are “potentially extreme,” in that the president-elect would be the likely target of disciplinary sanctions for his words and actions on many campuses these days. “His words are the stuff of trigger warnings and hostile educational environments,” Cohen said. “This puts us in something of a bind.”

Safety was something of a concern for Devorah Lieberman, president of the University of La Verne, a federally designated Hispanic-serving institution near Los Angeles. She started the day Wednesday with a note to students, faculty and staff, saying that the “election process has been divisive and, many times, in contradiction to the core values of the University of La Verne.” Yet as an institution of higher education, she said, “it is important that we see this as a call to action, to remember our values of lifelong learning, ethical reasoning, civic and community engagement, and diversity and inclusivity. … Let us not lose sight of these virtues as we lead by example.”

Lieberman invited members of the campus to a community gathering that evening to reflect on the election. In an interview, she said that it’s important for leaders on her campus and others to communicate to students that “we’re committed to your success and safety and access.”

Asked whether references to student safety played into concerns held by some — including some Trump supporters — that campus culture is too committed to students’ emotional comfort, Lieberman said that “everyone deserves an education where they can learn, graduate and be successful citizens, and it’s our responsibility to provide that education.”

Beyond campaign rhetoric, Lieberman said a “big concern is that we really do not know much about what the president-elect’s education policies will be. It’s hard to say what impact this election will have on important issues such as student loans and college affordability, for example.” Of course, she added, “we’d like to have a president who’s an advocate for the humanities and the sciences, and a believer in education.”

Cohen said that as academics, teachers and researchers, he and his colleagues “have to be distressed at the anti-intellectual wave that Trump rode, the proud flaunting of facts and big-lie political tactics. These are threats not just to our intellectual climate, but to our political system, as well.”

He tries to teach his students to gather data, think critically, evaluate evidence and use the result of studies to reflect on values and political views, and while the process is “messy and imperfect,” he said, it must be “anchored in a commitment to honest discourse and open-minded consideration of the facts.”

While Trump appealed to non-college-educated voters, early exit poll data suggest that the education divide isn’t as stark as predicted. CBS News reported that Trump won among white, noncollege women 62 to 34 percent and white college-educated men, 54 to 39 percent. Among white voters, Clinton only won among women with a college degree by a 51 to 45 percent margin. There’s no evidence to suggest that among white voters income affected support for Trump, either.

Yet some academics still think education was a major factor in the outcome. Sara Goldrick-Rab, a professor of higher education at Temple and a proponent of former Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders’s plan to eliminate tuition at public colleges and universities, said Wednesday that when college prices are out of reach, “individuals blame not only the financial aid system, but also colleges and universities — and the government.” High college prices are not the main reason for Trump’s win, she added, but “they don’t help. They make hardworking people feel stupid, and that makes them angry.”

Goldrick-Rab said that her recent book on the issue, Paying the Price, is really a “story of betrayal and anger, and I warn of a backlash. Well, here it is.” But being right doesn’t feel good, she added, since it’s unlikely that Trump will address the economic challenges that have sparked such anger — complicated issues that require deep study.

“I have respect for people who haven’t pursued college and those who have tried and not succeeded to complete degrees, because I know that noncompletion doesn’t mean a lack of intellect or hard work anymore,” just a lack a money, Goldrick-Rab said. “If I were in the classroom today, I’d be talking with students about how policies can lead people to feel disenfranchised and angry, and ask them to think about the best ways to address that anger.”

Academic Freedom Under Threat

Rudy Fichtenbaum, a professor of economics at Wright State University in Ohio and president of the American Association of University Professors, said he agreed there was widespread shock among academics about Trump’s win. But echoing Goldrick-Rab’s comments, Fichtenbaum said the electorate clearly wanted decisive change and — in the absence of a transformational progressive figure — it chose Trump.

Still, Fichtenbaum said a Trump presidency worried him greatly. He said he feared academic freedom, especially at public institutions, would be increasingly under threat, given Trump’s attacks on the First Amendment with respect to freedom of religion (he’s also expressed interest in limiting freedom of the press). Trump’s eventual Supreme Court nominees would likely vote to limit union rights, he added.

Fichtenbaum also rejected the notion that academe was too out of touch with other Americans to have foreseen Trumpism, because more than half of all professors are now off the tenure track. So many deal with bread-and-butter issues that are of concern to other voters, he said.

The AAUP released a statement Wednesday saying that Trump represents the biggest threat to academic freedom since the McCarthy era, and urging him and his supporters in Congress “to listen to the voices of all faculty members and other educational leaders and endorse policies aimed at restoring our great higher education system as a common good for all Americans, while protecting the academic freedom and shared governance that made our colleges and universities the envy of the world.”

Karen Kelsky, a former tenured professor and current academic career consultant who runs the blog The Professor Is In, wore a pantsuit on Election Day, in a sign of solidarity with Clinton and her signature look. On Wednesday she also expressed concern about academic freedom with Trump in the White House, saying that “with guns on campus, the threats to political debate and climate for free speech will wither further.” She said adjunctification of higher education was likely to increase through more defunding, and any economic uncertainties that arise.

“This election is catastrophic,” she said. “Its impact cannot be overstated. In hindsight, nobody grasped the level of rage among the least-educated white population. But all white people are complicit in this. Many highly educated, wealthy white people also voted for him.”

Still, not all academics are concerned by Trump. Mitchell Langbert, a Libertarian associate professor of business at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, said that while Trump has “pandered to the worst elements in American history, nativism and racism” and is of poor “character,” Clinton and President Obama “are more authoritarian than Trump is.” Democrats have applied Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits gender-based discrimination in education, “to micromanage students’ speech and to discriminate against male athletes,” he said, and “universities’ authoritarian political correctness is directly linked to the financial support they receive from Democrats at the state and federal levels.”

With the financial support of Democratic “regimes,” Langbert said, “universities’ social science departments have drummed out Republicans and all others who do not agree with left or social democratic social theories.”

Thomas Jefferson suggested that a revolution every 20 years is needed, Langbert said. “Trump may be the best we can do to clear the air of Democratic authoritarianism.”

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Getty Images
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

One of the major follow-up stories to President-elect Donald Trump’s stunning victory this week is -- rightly -- how the media didn’t see it coming. But the outcome sneaked up on other groups, as well -- perhaps academics most of all. While some professors supported Trump leading up to the election, academe swung overwhelmingly toward Hillary Clinton and, it seems, expected her to win.

Professors are as a group famously liberal; a recent study of voter registration data, for example, found that professors who are registered Democrats outnumber those who are registered Republicans 11.5 to one. But Clinton’s campaign -- even to reluctant followers -- also came to embody some of the values that academics traditionally cherish, along with values that have become central to recent campus discussions about diversity: expertise, evidence-based reasoning, thoughtfulness, inclusion, religious tolerance and gender equity.

While Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks about racial minorities, women and Muslims may have resonated with some academics who have criticized campus culture as becoming too “politically correct” or policing of speech, they also fly in the face of civility -- another burgeoning campus value. And Trump is at least outwardly anti-science, having called climate change, about which there is a near-total expert consensus, a “hoax” of Chinese invention.

His campaign focused little on education, and he actively pursued the votes of Americans without college degrees. (Though, of course, higher education is not a prerequisite to intellectualism.)

Unsurprisingly, a scan of Twitter on Wednesday tells of disbelief and disappointment from scores of professors -- some of whom said they were canceling classes or otherwise taking time to recover from the upset. Others rethought their approach to the election and their engagement with the broader public.

Nyasha Junior, an assistant professor of religion at Temple University, said she’d noticed colleagues on social media not wanting to get out of bed or dreading going to work. Junior said she didn’t feel like going about “business as usual,” either, just yet. “I don’t feel I can have or lead a civil discussion about the election. … I decided not to lecture or follow my original plans for today's classes." She decided to have students in one class watch the film A Lesson Before Dying, a story of death row in the Jim Crow era, instead of reading the novel, for example.

Talking Trumpism With Students

Joshua A. Drew, a lecturer and director of the conservation biology program at Columbia University, said in an open letter to his coastal and estuarine ecology students that they were excused from class Wednesday -- but that class would still take place.

“Why are we having class today? Because the administration that was just elected is demonstrably anti-science, anti-climate and by extension anti-ocean,” Drew wrote. “As students who are majoring in ecology and evolutionary biology, you are facing a unique suite of challenges. To the seniors in the class, you are going to graduate within Trump’s first 100 days, to a time where the Republicans hold the [House of Representatives], the Senate and most likely the Supreme Court. To the juniors, you are going to graduate within his first two years, and before any potentially ameliorating midterm elections. Thus, you are going to be graduating into a challenging time. A time when your science needs to be better, your arguments more convincing and your commitment to protecting our natural environment fiercer.”

Drew added, “We are holding class today because what I teach you is now even more important. You are going to have to up your game to operate in a culture that does not value the beliefs you hold dear. I am honored to teach you, to give you the tools and skills you will need to be a bulkhead against ignorance, and to help you find ways to intelligently speak from a position of authority.”

Benjamin Stevens, a visiting assistant professor of classics at Trinity University in San Antonio, also held classes and encouraged students to connect their studies of ancient Greece and Rome to the day’s news. He invited other students to participate, as well, even covering for a colleague who chose not to come to campus, and established ground rules that everyone express only personal views and not talk over others. The results were “affirming and inspiring,” he said.

Although the general tenor of conversations was fear and apprehension, the “very fact of being encouraged to engage in discussion -- not in lieu of our work in the humanities, but as an extension of it -- seemed to reassure many students and to encourage truly open dialogue,” Stevens said. He was most affected by students’ agreement that the moment was an opportunity to understand how liberal arts campuses “could have missed the fact that such large segments of the population are disconnected from this activity and feel disenfranchised.”

Drawing on historical parallels as well as their own personal reactions, Stevens added, “students generally wanted to understand what they acknowledge must be the very wide range of reasons for which voters elected Trump,” reasons that can’t all be malicious.

Stevens noted a "close link between Trump and what seems to be an anti-intellectualism," or what "really seems to be an active disinterest in thoughtfulness, learning, and conventionally educated use of language." In that context, he said, many American academics feel "real shock" from being confronted with the fact "that fully half of the electorate evidently feels disconnected from the institutions and maybe the values of higher education -- or even actively disenfranchised by them."
 
Saying he didn't wish to describe himself and his fellow academics as "out of touch," Stevens said  the election nevertheless emphasized that "regardless of field, our professional work as teachers and researchers largely means interacting with segments of the population that are historically, economically and culturally pre-selected for participation in higher education. Naturally that leaves whole segments out."
 
What Academics Missed
 
Is academe out of the touch with the electorate? James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, rejected the question as too reductionist. But while historians are probably no more or less surprised than the multitudes of Americans who watched the numbers roll in, he said, there seems to be some sense of surprise and alarm. Surprise “because we made the same miscalculations that other observers made,” he said, and alarm “because much of Trump's rhetoric invokes a past that never existed.”

The slogan Make American Great Again is a historical statement, and clearly refers to the 1950s, Grossman said, a decade that precedes “vast changes in the American demographic, cultural, economic and social landscape.” But historians who have studied the decline of American industry don’t generally agree with the Trump’s version of events, and are “apt to be skeptical of his proposed pathways to their resuscitation.” Historians also have documented the era’s inequalities that made it “less than great for large portions of our population,” Grossman added.

Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland at College Park, who studies families and social inequality, said he surveyed his students in one course this semester and just one of 38 planned to vote for Trump. The sample was obviously biased, but he also used polling data on Election Day to explain how polling works and told students with some confidence that Clinton would likely win.

“Of course, we missed it,” he said. “But the way our electoral system works, a pretty small error in the prediction -- a couple of percentage points -- can mean missing the biggest political event in modern U.S. history. That’s the way social science goes, and we learn from our mistakes.”

That doesn’t change Cohen’s personal reaction to the win -- something he called “shocking and upsetting.” Cohen was harassed on Twitter by Trump followers posting anti-Semitic memes during a conversation that started over a post about police cameras, which he said exposed him to "a level of hated and vitriol that I have never before encountered in my work.”

Beyond that, “as a sociologist, I am well aware of some of the factors that went into the movement for Trump,” such as racism, sexism, xenophobia, the widening class divide and "social dislocation that we have witnessed as a result of deindustrialization and policies that exacerbated inequality and economic insecurity," Cohen said. This year’s election brought those simmering issues to the surface, as “Trump tapped a deep vein of anger and resentment among whites, with consequences that we already knew were nasty.”

The Cost of College

Cohen said he worried that the implications of a Trump victory for students and campus life are “potentially extreme,” in that the president-elect would be the likely target of disciplinary sanctions for his words and actions on many campuses these days. “His words are the stuff of trigger warnings and hostile educational environments,” Cohen said. “This puts us in something of a bind.”

Safety was something of a concern for Devorah Lieberman, president of the University of La Verne, a federally designated Hispanic-serving institution near Los Angeles. She started the day Wednesday with a note to students, faculty and staff, saying that the “election process has been divisive and, many times, in contradiction to the core values of the University of La Verne.” Yet as an institution of higher education, she said, “it is important that we see this as a call to action, to remember our values of lifelong learning, ethical reasoning, civic and community engagement, and diversity and inclusivity. … Let us not lose sight of these virtues as we lead by example.”

Lieberman invited members of the campus to a community gathering that evening to reflect on the election. In an interview, she said that it’s important for leaders on her campus and others to communicate to students that “we’re committed to your success and safety and access.”

Asked whether references to student safety played into concerns held by some -- including some Trump supporters -- that campus culture is too committed to students’ emotional comfort, Lieberman said that “everyone deserves an education where they can learn, graduate and be successful citizens, and it’s our responsibility to provide that education.”

Beyond campaign rhetoric, Lieberman said a “big concern is that we really do not know much about what the president-elect’s education policies will be. It’s hard to say what impact this election will have on important issues such as student loans and college affordability, for example." Of course, she added, "we’d like to have a president who’s an advocate for the humanities and the sciences, and a believer in education.”

Cohen said that as academics, teachers and researchers, he and his colleagues “have to be distressed at the anti-intellectual wave that Trump rode, the proud flaunting of facts and big-lie political tactics. These are threats not just to our intellectual climate, but to our political system, as well.”

He tries to teach his students to gather data, think critically, evaluate evidence and use the result of studies to reflect on values and political views, and while the process is "messy and imperfect," he said, it must be "anchored in a commitment to honest discourse and open-minded consideration of the facts.”

While Trump appealed to non-college-educated voters, early exit poll data suggest that the education divide isn’t as stark as predicted. CBS News reported that Trump won among white, noncollege women 62 to 34 percent and white college-educated men, 54 to 39 percent. Among white voters, Clinton only won among women with a college degree by a 51 to 45 percent margin. There’s no evidence to suggest that among white voters income affected support for Trump, either.

Yet some academics still think education was a major factor in the outcome. Sara Goldrick-Rab, a professor of higher education at Temple and a proponent of former Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders’s plan to eliminate tuition at public colleges and universities, said Wednesday that when college prices are out of reach, “individuals blame not only the financial aid system, but also colleges and universities -- and the government.” High college prices are not the main reason for Trump’s win, she added, but “they don’t help. They make hardworking people feel stupid, and that makes them angry.”

Goldrick-Rab said that her recent book on the issue, Paying the Price, is really a “story of betrayal and anger, and I warn of a backlash. Well, here it is.” But being right doesn’t feel good, she added, since it’s unlikely that Trump will address the economic challenges that have sparked such anger -- complicated issues that require deep study.

“I have respect for people who haven’t pursued college and those who have tried and not succeeded to complete degrees, because I know that noncompletion doesn’t mean a lack of intellect or hard work anymore,” just a lack a money, Goldrick-Rab said. “If I were in the classroom today, I’d be talking with students about how policies can lead people to feel disenfranchised and angry, and ask them to think about the best ways to address that anger.”

Academic Freedom Under Threat

Rudy Fichtenbaum, a professor of economics at Wright State University in Ohio and president of the American Association of University Professors, said he agreed there was widespread shock among academics about Trump’s win. But echoing Goldrick-Rab’s comments, Fichtenbaum said the electorate clearly wanted decisive change and -- in the absence of a transformational progressive figure -- it chose Trump.

Still, Fichtenbaum said a Trump presidency worried him greatly. He said he feared academic freedom, especially at public institutions, would be increasingly under threat, given Trump’s attacks on the First Amendment with respect to freedom of religion (he’s also expressed interest in limiting freedom of the press). Trump’s eventual Supreme Court nominees would likely vote to limit union rights, he added.

Fichtenbaum also rejected the notion that academe was too out of touch with other Americans to have foreseen Trumpism, because more than half of all professors are now off the tenure track. So many deal with bread-and-butter issues that are of concern to other voters, he said.

The AAUP released a statement Wednesday saying that Trump represents the biggest threat to academic freedom since the McCarthy era, and urging him and his supporters in Congress “to listen to the voices of all faculty members and other educational leaders and endorse policies aimed at restoring our great higher education system as a common good for all Americans, while protecting the academic freedom and shared governance that made our colleges and universities the envy of the world.”

Karen Kelsky, a former tenured professor and current academic career consultant who runs the blog The Professor Is In, wore a pantsuit on Election Day, in a sign of solidarity with Clinton and her signature look. On Wednesday she also expressed concern about academic freedom with Trump in the White House, saying that “with guns on campus, the threats to political debate and climate for free speech will wither further.” She said adjunctification of higher education was likely to increase through more defunding, and any economic uncertainties that arise.

“This election is catastrophic,” she said. “Its impact cannot be overstated. In hindsight, nobody grasped the level of rage among the least-educated white population. But all white people are complicit in this. Many highly educated, wealthy white people also voted for him.”

Still, not all academics are concerned by Trump. Mitchell Langbert, a Libertarian associate professor of business at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, said that while Trump has “pandered to the worst elements in American history, nativism and racism” and is of poor “character,” Clinton and President Obama “are more authoritarian than Trump is.” Democrats have applied Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits gender-based discrimination in education, “to micromanage students’ speech and to discriminate against male athletes,” he said, and “universities’ authoritarian political correctness is directly linked to the financial support they receive from Democrats at the state and federal levels.”

With the financial support of Democratic “regimes,” Langbert said, “universities’ social science departments have drummed out Republicans and all others who do not agree with left or social democratic social theories.”

Thomas Jefferson suggested that a revolution every 20 years is needed, Langbert said. “Trump may be the best we can do to clear the air of Democratic authoritarianism.”

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Getty Images
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Outcomes of ballot measures affecting higher education

Alabama

  • Amendment 1 passed with 76 percent of the vote. In an attempt to increase diversity on Auburn University’s Board of Trustees, this amendment adds two additional members. Currently, there are 14 members, 12 of whom are men and 13 of whom are white. The new seats have no race or gender requirements. The amendment also ensures that no more than three members of the board have terms that expire in the same year.

Alaska

  • Ballot Measure No. 2, which would have amended the state constitution to let Alaska issue bonds for postsecondary student loans, was rejected by 56 percent of voters. The law continues to allow state debt only for capital projects, housing loans for veterans and military defense.

Arkansas

  • Issue 6 passed with 56 percent of the vote, legalizing medical marijuana. Tax revenue from marijuana sales will be allocated to technical institutes, vocational schools and work force training.

California

  • Proposition 51 was approved by 54 percent of voters, creating a School Facilities Fund — funded by the sale of bonds — that will give $2 billion to the California community college system to construct and renovate facilities (along with another $7 billion for K-12 schools).
  • Proposition 55 passed with 62 percent of the vote, extending personal income taxes for community colleges (and health care and public K-12) after funding was lost in the recession. The tax applies to single tax filers who make at least $263,000 in taxable income and joint filers who make at least $526,000 in taxable income. It’s predicted that the tax will generate between $4 billion and $9 billion in revenue each year. 
  • Proposition 56 passed with 63 percent of the vote, increasing tobacco taxes an additional $2 per pack; $40 million from the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 Fund will go to the University of California to fund medical education. The ultimate goal is to increase the number of primary care and emergency physicians trained in California.
  • Proposition 64 passed with 56 percent of the vote, legalizing marijuana. The state will use part of the money it earns from marijuana taxes ($10 million per year) to fund to research about the “implementation and effect of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.”

Colorado

  • Amendment 72 was rejected by 54 percent of voters. The measure would have increase the tobacco tax from 84 cents to $1.75 per pack. The tax was intended for a fund for student loan debt repayment and professional training tracks targeted at medical professionals. 

Louisiana

  • Amendment 2, which would have allowed boards of the public higher education systems to determine tuition and fees without permission from the state Legislature, was defeated, earning only 43 percent of the vote.

Missouri

  • Constitutional Amendment 3, which would have raised tobacco taxes and dedicated the money to early-childhood education, smoking-cessation programs, and hospitals and health clinics, failed, with 59 percent voting against the proposal. Among the amendment’s opponents was Washington University in St. Louis, which would have benefited from the money the tax generated going to hospitals and clinics affiliated with the university’s medical school. But the law also would have banned any funding being used for abortion services or “human cloning or research, clinical trials, or therapies or cures using human embryonic stem cells.”

New Mexico 

  • Bond Question C passed with 63 percent of the vote. It concerns the 2016 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act, which will issue $142 million in spending on higher education, special schools and tribal schools.

Oklahoma

  • State question 779, the One Percent Sales Tax, was rejected by 59 percent of voters. It would have created a limited-purpose fund for public education by increasing the state sales tax from 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent. It was estimated that this tax would have generated $615 million per year in revenue.

Oregon

  • Measure 95, to allow investments in equities by public universities, which is currently prohibited, passed with 70 percent of the vote.

  • Measure 96 was approved by 83 percent of voters. It will dedicate 1.5 percent, or a predicted $9.3 million annually, of the state’s lottery earnings to veteran support services — part of that fund will support veterans’ education.

  • Measure 99, to use state lottery money to create the School Outdoor Education Fund, passed with 66 percent of the vote. Much of the money will go to fifth and sixth grades, but some will go to Oregon State University “to administer and fund outdoor school programs statewide consistent with current law’s grant program criteria.”

Rhode Island 

  • Question 4, which was approved by 59 percent of voters, will issue $45.5 million in general obligation bonds for the University of Rhode Island. When broken down, $25.5 million will go to building renovations and $20 million to funding business collaborations between an innovation campus and the university. 

South Dakota

  • Amendment R narrowly passed with 50.6 percent of the vote. Previously, all postsecondary schools funded by the state were governed by the Board of Regents. After the passage of this measure, postsecondary technical institutions will no longer be governed by the board, but in a manner to be determined by the Legislature. The institutions affected are Lake Area Technical Institute, Mitchell Technical Institute, Southeast Technical Institute and Western Dakota Technical Institute.

Local Measures

Among county races, bond measures were the primary issue affecting higher education. Here are a few of them:

In California, 64 percent of voters in Butte County decided to issue $190 million in bonds for facilities maintenance at Butte-Glenn Community College. Ballot counting continues in Butte and Yuba Counties, which voted on whether to issue $34 million in bonds for facilities maintenance at Yuba Community College.

Voters in San Diego County rejected Measure X, which sought to issue $348 million in bonds for repairs to classrooms and facilities, constructing a Workforce Training Center, and providing educational support to veterans. The measure needed a 55 percent supermajority but got only 52 percent of the vote. The county passed, with 62 percent of the vote, Measure MM, regarding $455 million in bonds for upgrading facilities and providing joint training support to veterans at MiraCosta Community College. And with 69 percent of the vote, Measure Z passed, issuing $400 million in bonds for upgrading community college campuses and providing job support for students and veterans.

San Francisco County voters approved with 80 percent of the vote Proposition B, which renews a parcel tax of $99 per year for 15 years; revenue will benefit City College of San Francisco.

In Maryland, Baltimore County residents passed with 68 percent of the vote an ordinance that will allow the county to borrow $15 million for community college projects, including construction and renovation of campus buildings.

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Wikimedia Commons
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Alabama

  • Amendment 1 passed with 76 percent of the vote. In an attempt to increase diversity on Auburn University’s Board of Trustees, this amendment adds two additional members. Currently, there are 14 members, 12 of whom are men and 13 of whom are white. The new seats have no race or gender requirements. The amendment also ensures that no more than three members of the board have terms that expire in the same year.

Alaska

  • Ballot Measure No. 2, which would have amended the state constitution to let Alaska issue bonds for postsecondary student loans, was rejected by 56 percent of voters. The law continues to allow state debt only for capital projects, housing loans for veterans and military defense.

Arkansas

  • Issue 6 passed with 56 percent of the vote, legalizing medical marijuana. Tax revenue from marijuana sales will be allocated to technical institutes, vocational schools and work force training.

California

  • Proposition 51 was approved by 54 percent of voters, creating a School Facilities Fund -- funded by the sale of bonds -- that will give $2 billion to the California community college system to construct and renovate facilities (along with another $7 billion for K-12 schools).
  • Proposition 55 passed with 62 percent of the vote, extending personal income taxes for community colleges (and health care and public K-12) after funding was lost in the recession. The tax applies to single tax filers who make at least $263,000 in taxable income and joint filers who make at least $526,000 in taxable income. It's predicted that the tax will generate between $4 billion and $9 billion in revenue each year. 
  • Proposition 56 passed with 63 percent of the vote, increasing tobacco taxes an additional $2 per pack; $40 million from the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 Fund will go to the University of California to fund medical education. The ultimate goal is to increase the number of primary care and emergency physicians trained in California.
  • Proposition 64 passed with 56 percent of the vote, legalizing marijuana. The state will use part of the money it earns from marijuana taxes ($10 million per year) to fund to research about the “implementation and effect of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.”

Colorado

  • Amendment 72 was rejected by 54 percent of voters. The measure would have increase the tobacco tax from 84 cents to $1.75 per pack. The tax was intended for a fund for student loan debt repayment and professional training tracks targeted at medical professionals. 

Louisiana

  • Amendment 2, which would have allowed boards of the public higher education systems to determine tuition and fees without permission from the state Legislature, was defeated, earning only 43 percent of the vote.

Missouri

  • Constitutional Amendment 3, which would have raised tobacco taxes and dedicated the money to early-childhood education, smoking-cessation programs, and hospitals and health clinics, failed, with 59 percent voting against the proposal. Among the amendment's opponents was Washington University in St. Louis, which would have benefited from the money the tax generated going to hospitals and clinics affiliated with the university's medical school. But the law also would have banned any funding being used for abortion services or “human cloning or research, clinical trials, or therapies or cures using human embryonic stem cells.”

New Mexico 

  • Bond Question C passed with 63 percent of the vote. It concerns the 2016 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act, which will issue $142 million in spending on higher education, special schools and tribal schools.

Oklahoma

  • State question 779, the One Percent Sales Tax, was rejected by 59 percent of voters. It would have created a limited-purpose fund for public education by increasing the state sales tax from 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent. It was estimated that this tax would have generated $615 million per year in revenue.

Oregon

  • Measure 95, to allow investments in equities by public universities, which is currently prohibited, passed with 70 percent of the vote.

  • Measure 96 was approved by 83 percent of voters. It will dedicate 1.5 percent, or a predicted $9.3 million annually, of the state's lottery earnings to veteran support services -- part of that fund will support veterans' education.

  • Measure 99, to use state lottery money to create the School Outdoor Education Fund, passed with 66 percent of the vote. Much of the money will go to fifth and sixth grades, but some will go to Oregon State University "to administer and fund outdoor school programs statewide consistent with current law’s grant program criteria."

Rhode Island 

  • Question 4, which was approved by 59 percent of voters, will issue $45.5 million in general obligation bonds for the University of Rhode Island. When broken down, $25.5 million will go to building renovations and $20 million to funding business collaborations between an innovation campus and the university. 

South Dakota

  • Amendment R narrowly passed with 50.6 percent of the vote. Previously, all postsecondary schools funded by the state were governed by the Board of Regents. After the passage of this measure, postsecondary technical institutions will no longer be governed by the board, but in a manner to be determined by the Legislature. The institutions affected are Lake Area Technical Institute, Mitchell Technical Institute, Southeast Technical Institute and Western Dakota Technical Institute.

Local Measures

Among county races, bond measures were the primary issue affecting higher education. Here are a few of them:

In California, 64 percent of voters in Butte County decided to issue $190 million in bonds for facilities maintenance at Butte-Glenn Community College. Ballot counting continues in Butte and Yuba Counties, which voted on whether to issue $34 million in bonds for facilities maintenance at Yuba Community College.

Voters in San Diego County rejected Measure X, which sought to issue $348 million in bonds for repairs to classrooms and facilities, constructing a Workforce Training Center, and providing educational support to veterans. The measure needed a 55 percent supermajority but got only 52 percent of the vote. The county passed, with 62 percent of the vote, Measure MM, regarding $455 million in bonds for upgrading facilities and providing joint training support to veterans at MiraCosta Community College. And with 69 percent of the vote, Measure Z passed, issuing $400 million in bonds for upgrading community college campuses and providing job support for students and veterans.

San Francisco County voters approved with 80 percent of the vote Proposition B, which renews a parcel tax of $99 per year for 15 years; revenue will benefit City College of San Francisco.

In Maryland, Baltimore County residents passed with 68 percent of the vote an ordinance that will allow the county to borrow $15 million for community college projects, including construction and renovation of campus buildings.

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Wikimedia Commons
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Trump and GOP likely to try to scale back Title IX enforcement on sexual assault

With Donald Trump winning the presidential election on Tuesday — and with Republicans maintaining control of both the Senate and House of Representatives — victims’ advocates worry that the White House’s five-year push to combat campus sexual assault may end with President Obama’s tenure.

Through detailed guidance documents and investigations at more than 200 institutions, the Obama administration made preventing campus sexual assault a signature issue of its Education Department. The administration’s updated interpretation of the federal gender discrimination law Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 allowed the White House to sharply increase the enforcement efforts of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The intensified focus on campus sexual assault and Title IX prompted an outpouring of complaints and lawsuits against colleges and universities over allegations they mishandled reports of sexual violence.

Trump, who has faced allegations of sexual assault and criticism over his treatment of women, has said little about how he would approach sexual violence on college campuses. While his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, reached out to several victims’ organizations during the election, Trump contacted none. His lack of a plan has worried many victims’ advocates, and comments made during the campaign by some of Trump’s surrogates suggesting that, if elected, Trump would scale back Title IX, or even eliminate the Department of Education or the Office of Civil Rights, caused more concern.

At the same time, advocates for students accused of sexual assault are hopeful the new status quo could bolster their attempts to require more due process protections for those students.

At a meeting with urban school superintendents last month, Trump’s New York state co-chairman, Carl Paladino, characterized the Office for Civil Rights as unnecessary, calling it “self-perpetuating, absolute nonsense,” and saying all campus discrimination cases should be handled by U.S. attorneys.

“That would be disastrous for survivors and devastating for anyone who cares about their children being able to go to school without fear of violence or harassment or intimidation,” said Dana Bolger, co-founder of Know Your Title IX, a victims’ advocacy group. “The opportunity to learn is a fundamental American value, central to the American dream. We’ve got to keep supporting OCR if we want that dream to survive for the next generation.”

Eliminating the Office for Civil Rights would not be easy, as it was formed through the Department of Education Organization Act in 1979, the same federal law that created the Education Department. While OCR’s handling of Title IX has its share of critics in the House of Representatives and Senate, there has been little indication of either chamber broadly supporting the complete abolition of OCR, even with a Republican majority and president.

But if the office remains intact, there’s little chance its level of funding will remain or increase. Many experts on Title IX have predicted that a Trump administration would cut OCR’s budget, effectively limiting the number of investigations it could conduct at a time when the office already struggles to keep pace with the number of cases it has opened. As of last year, it took OCR, on average, 940 days to complete a sexual assault investigation.

Currently, the Office for Civil Rights still has 216 open investigations.

Ann Franke, a higher education consultant and former campus Title IX official, said she doubts a Trump Education Department would maintain the public list, started by the Obama administration in 2014, of colleges that are under investigation. The investigations that remain open when Trump becomes president will also likely be judged by a different set of standards and rules than cases that were settled during the Obama administration, she said.

“I would expect between now and Jan. 20, [the Obama administration’s] OCR is going to be working to reach a lot of resolution agreements with a lot of institutions under investigation,” Franke said. “And I suspect institutions will have new leverage in negotiating resolutions over the next couple of months.”

In 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague letter that urged institutions to better investigate and adjudicate cases of campus sexual assault. The letter clarified how the department interprets Title IX, and for the past five years it has been the guiding document for colleges hoping to avoid a federal civil rights investigation into how they handle complaints of sexual violence.

Republican lawmakers have argued that the guidance goes farther than just clarifying Title IX. They say the department has illegally expanded the gender discrimination law’s scope — increasing the liability for institutions dealing with bullying, harassment and sexual violence and relaxing the burden of proof institutions are required to use when adjudicating cases of sexual assault — without going through proper notice-and-comment procedures.

The department maintains the guidance did not create any new laws or policies, however, and serves only to fill in some of the vaguer parts of Title IX in order to help colleges not run afoul of the law. The debate has split college leaders, lawmakers, advocates and legal experts — and led to three lawsuits against the Education Department.

“With these lawsuits against the Department of Education, all the new administration has to do is just not defend the case,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus security consultant and former director of the 32 National Campus Safety Initiative. “That would roll back many of the provisions of the Dear Colleague letter, including the requirements about what burden of proof colleges must use.”

While Trump has not said whether he plans on changing any guidance or funding related to Title IX, the Republican Party did include campus sexual assault and Title IX as part of the platform it released at the GOP convention in July. Scott Schneider, a lawyer and adjunct professor of higher education law at Tulane University, wrote on Twitter that the platform points to a “significant regulatory shift” under a Trump administration.

Calling sexual assault a “terrible crime,” the Republican platform stated that reports of sexual assault should be “investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge.” It criticized the Obama administration’s policies, saying the White House’s “distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted.”

Trump could issue new Title IX guidance, based on the GOP’s platform, that would replace the 2011 Dear Colleague letter. Any new guidance would likely focus more on the due process rights of accused students and instruct colleges to use a higher burden of proof, such as the “clear and convincing” or “beyond reasonable doubt” standards of evidence.

Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who has been among OCR’s most vociferous critics, said the election has given him and others who have decried the department’s “egregious examples of executive overreach and intimidation” some new allies.

“[The Department of Education has] used Dear Colleague letters and guidance documents to mandate policies for schools without adhering to legally required regulatory processes,” Lankford said. “It is extreme overreach at agencies like the Department of Education that the American people repudiated in this election. I will push our new Republican-led Washington to put a stop to this abuse and restore proper regulatory and guidance processes to the federal government.”

It wouldn’t be the first time a president rolled back Title IX guidance created during an earlier administration. In 2010, the Obama administration revoked a controversial 2005 Title IX clarification issued under President George W. Bush that only allowed institutions to use internet or email surveys when determining female students’ interest in athletic participation. The 2005 guidance had similarly wiped out a 1996 clarification issued under President Bill Clinton.

Similarly, Clinton’s Education Department issued a new set of sexual harassment guidelines under Title IX on his last day in office in 2001. On Bush’s first full day as president, his administration “archived” the document, removing any references to the guidance from the department’s main webpages.

Lisa Maatz, vice president of government relations at the American Association of University Women, said it’s too early to predict exactly what a Trump presidency will mean for the future of campus sexual assault because Trump has offered so few specifics.

Maatz said she is hopeful, however, that Trump’s decisions will, in part, be influenced by a need to improve his public image. Several women have accused Trump of sexually assaulting them, and one of the most damaging moments of his campaign stemmed from a leaked recording of him boasting about how he has groped and kissed women without their consent.

“Speculation is difficult, but I don’t need to remind the president-elect that on this particular issue, he has a bit of a credibility gap because of his reputation,” Maatz said. “Whatever he wants to do, the changes he proposes will surely be viewed with some healthy skepticism, and we hope he will be sensitive to that.”

Maatz also said she believed the grassroots movement started by college women, which prompted Obama’s actions in the first place, will continue, no matter who is president. Bolger, of Know Your Title IX, offered a similar assessment.

“We’re going to carry this country forward, not backward, no matter the barriers our political leaders put in our way,” Bolger said.

Student Victims of Violence
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

With Donald Trump winning the presidential election on Tuesday -- and with Republicans maintaining control of both the Senate and House of Representatives -- victims’ advocates worry that the White House’s five-year push to combat campus sexual assault may end with President Obama’s tenure.

Through detailed guidance documents and investigations at more than 200 institutions, the Obama administration made preventing campus sexual assault a signature issue of its Education Department. The administration's updated interpretation of the federal gender discrimination law Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 allowed the White House to sharply increase the enforcement efforts of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The intensified focus on campus sexual assault and Title IX prompted an outpouring of complaints and lawsuits against colleges and universities over allegations they mishandled reports of sexual violence.

Trump, who has faced allegations of sexual assault and criticism over his treatment of women, has said little about how he would approach sexual violence on college campuses. While his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, reached out to several victims' organizations during the election, Trump contacted none. His lack of a plan has worried many victims’ advocates, and comments made during the campaign by some of Trump’s surrogates suggesting that, if elected, Trump would scale back Title IX, or even eliminate the Department of Education or the Office of Civil Rights, caused more concern.

At the same time, advocates for students accused of sexual assault are hopeful the new status quo could bolster their attempts to require more due process protections for those students.

At a meeting with urban school superintendents last month, Trump’s New York state co-chairman, Carl Paladino, characterized the Office for Civil Rights as unnecessary, calling it “self-perpetuating, absolute nonsense,” and saying all campus discrimination cases should be handled by U.S. attorneys.

“That would be disastrous for survivors and devastating for anyone who cares about their children being able to go to school without fear of violence or harassment or intimidation,” said Dana Bolger, co-founder of Know Your Title IX, a victims’ advocacy group. “The opportunity to learn is a fundamental American value, central to the American dream. We've got to keep supporting OCR if we want that dream to survive for the next generation.”

Eliminating the Office for Civil Rights would not be easy, as it was formed through the Department of Education Organization Act in 1979, the same federal law that created the Education Department. While OCR’s handling of Title IX has its share of critics in the House of Representatives and Senate, there has been little indication of either chamber broadly supporting the complete abolition of OCR, even with a Republican majority and president.

But if the office remains intact, there’s little chance its level of funding will remain or increase. Many experts on Title IX have predicted that a Trump administration would cut OCR’s budget, effectively limiting the number of investigations it could conduct at a time when the office already struggles to keep pace with the number of cases it has opened. As of last year, it took OCR, on average, 940 days to complete a sexual assault investigation.

Currently, the Office for Civil Rights still has 216 open investigations.

Ann Franke, a higher education consultant and former campus Title IX official, said she doubts a Trump Education Department would maintain the public list, started by the Obama administration in 2014, of colleges that are under investigation. The investigations that remain open when Trump becomes president will also likely be judged by a different set of standards and rules than cases that were settled during the Obama administration, she said.

“I would expect between now and Jan. 20, [the Obama administration's] OCR is going to be working to reach a lot of resolution agreements with a lot of institutions under investigation,” Franke said. “And I suspect institutions will have new leverage in negotiating resolutions over the next couple of months.”

In 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague letter that urged institutions to better investigate and adjudicate cases of campus sexual assault. The letter clarified how the department interprets Title IX, and for the past five years it has been the guiding document for colleges hoping to avoid a federal civil rights investigation into how they handle complaints of sexual violence.

Republican lawmakers have argued that the guidance goes farther than just clarifying Title IX. They say the department has illegally expanded the gender discrimination law’s scope -- increasing the liability for institutions dealing with bullying, harassment and sexual violence and relaxing the burden of proof institutions are required to use when adjudicating cases of sexual assault -- without going through proper notice-and-comment procedures.

The department maintains the guidance did not create any new laws or policies, however, and serves only to fill in some of the vaguer parts of Title IX in order to help colleges not run afoul of the law. The debate has split college leaders, lawmakers, advocates and legal experts -- and led to three lawsuits against the Education Department.

“With these lawsuits against the Department of Education, all the new administration has to do is just not defend the case,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus security consultant and former director of the 32 National Campus Safety Initiative. “That would roll back many of the provisions of the Dear Colleague letter, including the requirements about what burden of proof colleges must use.”

While Trump has not said whether he plans on changing any guidance or funding related to Title IX, the Republican Party did include campus sexual assault and Title IX as part of the platform it released at the GOP convention in July. Scott Schneider, a lawyer and adjunct professor of higher education law at Tulane University, wrote on Twitter that the platform points to a "significant regulatory shift" under a Trump administration.

Calling sexual assault a “terrible crime,” the Republican platform stated that reports of sexual assault should be “investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge.” It criticized the Obama administration’s policies, saying the White House’s “distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted.”

Trump could issue new Title IX guidance, based on the GOP’s platform, that would replace the 2011 Dear Colleague letter. Any new guidance would likely focus more on the due process rights of accused students and instruct colleges to use a higher burden of proof, such as the “clear and convincing” or “beyond reasonable doubt” standards of evidence.

Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who has been among OCR’s most vociferous critics, said the election has given him and others who have decried the department’s “egregious examples of executive overreach and intimidation” some new allies.

“[The Department of Education has] used Dear Colleague letters and guidance documents to mandate policies for schools without adhering to legally required regulatory processes,” Lankford said. “It is extreme overreach at agencies like the Department of Education that the American people repudiated in this election. I will push our new Republican-led Washington to put a stop to this abuse and restore proper regulatory and guidance processes to the federal government.”

It wouldn’t be the first time a president rolled back Title IX guidance created during an earlier administration. In 2010, the Obama administration revoked a controversial 2005 Title IX clarification issued under President George W. Bush that only allowed institutions to use internet or email surveys when determining female students’ interest in athletic participation. The 2005 guidance had similarly wiped out a 1996 clarification issued under President Bill Clinton.

Similarly, Clinton’s Education Department issued a new set of sexual harassment guidelines under Title IX on his last day in office in 2001. On Bush’s first full day as president, his administration “archived” the document, removing any references to the guidance from the department’s main webpages.

Lisa Maatz, vice president of government relations at the American Association of University Women, said it’s too early to predict exactly what a Trump presidency will mean for the future of campus sexual assault because Trump has offered so few specifics.

Maatz said she is hopeful, however, that Trump’s decisions will, in part, be influenced by a need to improve his public image. Several women have accused Trump of sexually assaulting them, and one of the most damaging moments of his campaign stemmed from a leaked recording of him boasting about how he has groped and kissed women without their consent.

“Speculation is difficult, but I don’t need to remind the president-elect that on this particular issue, he has a bit of a credibility gap because of his reputation,” Maatz said. “Whatever he wants to do, the changes he proposes will surely be viewed with some healthy skepticism, and we hope he will be sensitive to that.”

Maatz also said she believed the grassroots movement started by college women, which prompted Obama’s actions in the first place, will continue, no matter who is president. Bolger, of Know Your Title IX, offered a similar assessment.

“We're going to carry this country forward, not backward, no matter the barriers our political leaders put in our way,” Bolger said.

Student Victims of Violence
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Implications of Trump’s presidential victory for international and undocumented students

On Election Night a correspondent from The Wall Street Journal shared on Twitter an image of a young man in a kaffiyeh watching presidential election results. The man in the image is standing up, one hand on the handle of a suitcase as though he could leave at any moment. “Saudi students in the U.S. right now,” the tweet said.

Saudi students in the U.S. right now pic.twitter.com/Bnw7XeDHGl

— Ahmed Al Omran (@ahmed) November 9, 2016

The election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency left some in higher education worried that international students could be deterred or restricted from studying in the U.S. It also fueled concerns that students who came to the U.S. illegally as children and received temporary relief from deportation as well as work authorization under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program could be newly vulnerable.

Trump made a number of immigration-related policy proposals or statements throughout his 17-month campaign that have possible implications for international students on F-1 visas and those enrolled in the DACA program.

These include proposals related to visa policies. Trump at one point called for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. He subsequently laid out general plans for ideological screening and what he called “extreme vetting” of all visa applicants coming from regions identified by the Departments of Homeland Security and State as having “a history of exporting terrorism.” In an August speech outlining those plans, Trump cited a need to control the numbers of permanent immigrants and temporary visitors from the Middle East, a region that sends more than 100,000 students to U.S. universities.

Further, in October Trump said he would “begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.” He did not name particular countries, but The New York Times noted that one country that would be affected under such a policy would be China, which sends more students to the U.S. — more than 300,000 in the 2014-15 academic year — than any other country.

“One of the core values of international education is about celebrating diversity and learning from differences,” said Rahul Choudaha, the co-founder of interEDGE.org, an international student services company. “Trump’s viewpoints are insular and not in line with the values of international education. It is likely that the future policies will start looking inward and slow down international education exchanges and student mobility.”

“Career advancement is one of the prime motivations for international students to study in the U.S.,” Choudaha added. “Trump’s anti-immigrant stance may create stricter visa and immigration policies that may make it even more difficult for students to come to the U.S. and find internship and job opportunities.”

Ahmed Ezzeldin Mohamed, an Egyptian second-year political science Ph.D. student at Columbia University, said that Middle Eastern students coming to the U.S. already face high rates of visa denials and long delays in processing. “I know personal cases where people had to postpone their school one year because of the processing,” he said. Further screening, he said, could make it “infeasible” for Middle Eastern students to come to the U.S.

“Even if they get into the best school, they still can’t get into the country,” he said.

At one point early in the campaign, in a policy paper published in summer 2015, Trump called for the elimination of the J-1 exchange visa program through which foreign youth work in the U.S. It was unclear if the proposal referred to the J-1 program as a whole — parts of which colleges use to bring in visiting foreign scholars and, in some cases, students (though most students are on F-1 visas) — or just to jobs-related J-1 exchanges. The proposal regarding the J-1 program is no longer mentioned on the Trump campaign website.

Mark Overmann, the vice president of external affairs for InterExchange, which administers various J-1 exchange programs including for au pairs, camp counselors and intern trainees, said in a statement on InterExchange’s website that while the organization takes “this potential threat to exchange programs seriously,” it is also optimistic about the support enjoyed by J-1 programs in Congress.

“The Exchange Visitor Program has many strong supporters throughout the country and government, including from bipartisan groups of members of both the Senate and the House,” Overmann wrote. “We will work with these senators and representatives, and all of our partners — exchange visitors, hosts, international cooperators, the State Department, foreign governments and our colleague exchange organizations — to advocate for the continued growth of the Exchange Visitor Program and other exchanges.”

Another area that has concerned many in higher education has to do with Trump’s stated opposition to the DACA program. NBC News noted that “Trump’s win leaves hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, with an uncertain future.”

“For these students themselves and potentially family members, there’s the real concern about being deported or losing their current status,” said David Oxtoby, the president of Pomona College, where, he said, about 3 percent of students are undocumented. “Currently they’re allowed to hold jobs and have somewhat normal types of student lives.”

“There are 800,000 of these students out there who in good faith put themselves forward and have been contributing members of society,” said Michael A. Olivas, the interim president of the University of Houston Downtown, where about 45 percent of students are Latino. Olivas, a scholar of immigration and higher education law, is on leave from UH’s Law Center.

“Should they decide to do away with [DACA], I doubt they’ll try to remove and deport students who are currently in that program, but if they choose not to add more, what do we do with these kids that we made a bargain with — if you come forward and give us all your information and behave and go through criminal checks and so forth, we’ll suspend the deportation clock, we’ll consider you to be lawfully present with our permission, to give you a Social Security number, employment authorization? What’s going to happen to all of them? Rolling this back would be so detrimental.”

Olivas also emphasized the challenges higher education institutions will face when it comes to recruiting international students under a Trump presidency. “The confusion that’s occurred in the Brexit situation is going to be equivalent here, even more so, because there’s so much uncertainty, and I can’t imagine students from Latin America and South America who’ve found themselves characterized as rapists and criminals are going to want to come here.”

Olivas was referring to the speech with which Trump kicked off his campaign, in which he described plans to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and labeled some Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. Surveys of international students conducted during the presidential campaign suggested that many would be less interested in coming to the U.S. if Trump were to become president. For example, a survey of 40,000 students from 118 countries conducted by the international student recruiting companies FPP EDU Media and Intead found that 60 percent said they’d be less inclined to come to the U.S. if Trump were to win, compared to just 3.8 percent who said they’d be less inclined if his opponent Hillary Clinton won.

Among respondents from Mexico, the proportion who said they would be less inclined to study in the U.S. if Trump were to win the presidency was, at 79.8 percent, even higher.

The Seattle-based marketing company Study in the USA also surveyed 1,000 prospective international students on the election. Of 975 responses, 639 said they’d be more likely to study in the U.S. if Clinton were to win, while just 91 said they’d be more likely to come if Trump were elected. “Due to Donald Trump’s very explicit racist remarks, I would not feel very comfortable studying in the USA,” one respondent said.

One student from Hong Kong enrolled at Bunker Hill Community College, in Boston, shared a video on Facebook that called Trump a racist, sexist and narcissist. “Oh my goodness, such a nightmare. Can I still survive in the U.S. … As an Asian international student,” Kalok Kwok posted.

“I feel like I am losing a chance to immigrate to the USA,” Kwok said in an interview. “I think Trump will deny people who are interested to immigrate in the U.S. to protect U.S. citizens …. It might work in the short run, but in the long run U.S. citizens might lose competitiveness.”

Still, others offered a more optimistic message. It’s worth noting that Trump himself once posted on Twitter about the benefit of retaining international students in the U.S., writing in an August 2015 tweet, “When foreigners attend our great colleges and want to stay in the U.S., they should not be thrown out of our country.”

“I think America is going to continue to welcome international students, international students are going to continue to want to come here, we will continue to want to send American students abroad as students and cultural ambassadors. I think that international educational exchange is part of the fabric of many societies, including ours,” said Allan E. Goodman, the president and CEO of the Institute for International Education.

“In terms of how this will impact mobility of students, how this will impact the work of international education in the short and long run, it’s too early to tell because it is my hope that between the campaign rhetoric and what it actually takes to govern, that between those two we will get to what I would call a more reasonable place. It is my deep hope,” said Fanta Aw, the president of NAFSA: Association of International Educators and assistant vice president of campus life at American University.

Aw continued, “At the end of the day, there will have to be a way to figure out how does this country come together and how does it choose to engage the world and be part of the world, and I would go so far as to say there’s some practical reasons for why this is essential. Because our economy is tied to the world economy. We don’t live on an island unto ourselves.”

At the same time, Aw said, she understood why some international students were feeling nervous on Wednesday.

“For the world to see with this election that issues of race were very much on the table, that issues of gender were very much on the table, that issues of class were very much on the table, that issues of citizenship were on the table, and who people choose to worship, that is a lot to digest,” she said.

“For our students, depending on what part of the country they’re in, I can understand that there’s some real fear and trepidation because they’re trying to make meaning of what does the vote stand for?” Aw said. “It is understandable that for those students and for their families they would have a lot of questions this morning, and in the days and months ahead we will be unpacking what did happen.”

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
iStock
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

On Election Night a correspondent from The Wall Street Journal shared on Twitter an image of a young man in a kaffiyeh watching presidential election results. The man in the image is standing up, one hand on the handle of a suitcase as though he could leave at any moment. “Saudi students in the U.S. right now,” the tweet said.

The election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency left some in higher education worried that international students could be deterred or restricted from studying in the U.S. It also fueled concerns that students who came to the U.S. illegally as children and received temporary relief from deportation as well as work authorization under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program could be newly vulnerable.

Trump made a number of immigration-related policy proposals or statements throughout his 17-month campaign that have possible implications for international students on F-1 visas and those enrolled in the DACA program.

These include proposals related to visa policies. Trump at one point called for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. He subsequently laid out general plans for ideological screening and what he called “extreme vetting” of all visa applicants coming from regions identified by the Departments of Homeland Security and State as having “a history of exporting terrorism.” In an August speech outlining those plans, Trump cited a need to control the numbers of permanent immigrants and temporary visitors from the Middle East, a region that sends more than 100,000 students to U.S. universities.

Further, in October Trump said he would "begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back." He did not name particular countries, but The New York Times noted that one country that would be affected under such a policy would be China, which sends more students to the U.S. -- more than 300,000 in the 2014-15 academic year -- than any other country.

“One of the core values of international education is about celebrating diversity and learning from differences,” said Rahul Choudaha, the co-founder of interEDGE.org, an international student services company. “Trump’s viewpoints are insular and not in line with the values of international education. It is likely that the future policies will start looking inward and slow down international education exchanges and student mobility.”

"Career advancement is one of the prime motivations for international students to study in the U.S.," Choudaha added. "Trump’s anti-immigrant stance may create stricter visa and immigration policies that may make it even more difficult for students to come to the U.S. and find internship and job opportunities."

Ahmed Ezzeldin Mohamed, an Egyptian second-year political science Ph.D. student at Columbia University, said that Middle Eastern students coming to the U.S. already face high rates of visa denials and long delays in processing. "I know personal cases where people had to postpone their school one year because of the processing," he said. Further screening, he said, could make it "infeasible" for Middle Eastern students to come to the U.S.

"Even if they get into the best school, they still can’t get into the country," he said.

At one point early in the campaign, in a policy paper published in summer 2015, Trump called for the elimination of the J-1 exchange visa program through which foreign youth work in the U.S. It was unclear if the proposal referred to the J-1 program as a whole -- parts of which colleges use to bring in visiting foreign scholars and, in some cases, students (though most students are on F-1 visas) -- or just to jobs-related J-1 exchanges. The proposal regarding the J-1 program is no longer mentioned on the Trump campaign website.

Mark Overmann, the vice president of external affairs for InterExchange, which administers various J-1 exchange programs including for au pairs, camp counselors and intern trainees, said in a statement on InterExchange's website that while the organization takes "this potential threat to exchange programs seriously," it is also optimistic about the support enjoyed by J-1 programs in Congress.

"The Exchange Visitor Program has many strong supporters throughout the country and government, including from bipartisan groups of members of both the Senate and the House," Overmann wrote. "We will work with these senators and representatives, and all of our partners -- exchange visitors, hosts, international cooperators, the State Department, foreign governments and our colleague exchange organizations -- to advocate for the continued growth of the Exchange Visitor Program and other exchanges."

Another area that has concerned many in higher education has to do with Trump's stated opposition to the DACA program. NBC News noted that "Trump's win leaves hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, with an uncertain future."

"For these students themselves and potentially family members, there's the real concern about being deported or losing their current status," said David Oxtoby, the president of Pomona College, where, he said, about 3 percent of students are undocumented. "Currently they’re allowed to hold jobs and have somewhat normal types of student lives."

“There are 800,000 of these students out there who in good faith put themselves forward and have been contributing members of society," said Michael A. Olivas, the interim president of the University of Houston Downtown, where about 45 percent of students are Latino. Olivas, a scholar of immigration and higher education law, is on leave from UH's Law Center.

“Should they decide to do away with [DACA], I doubt they’ll try to remove and deport students who are currently in that program, but if they choose not to add more, what do we do with these kids that we made a bargain with -- if you come forward and give us all your information and behave and go through criminal checks and so forth, we’ll suspend the deportation clock, we’ll consider you to be lawfully present with our permission, to give you a Social Security number, employment authorization? What’s going to happen to all of them? Rolling this back would be so detrimental.”

Olivas also emphasized the challenges higher education institutions will face when it comes to recruiting international students under a Trump presidency. “The confusion that’s occurred in the Brexit situation is going to be equivalent here, even more so, because there’s so much uncertainty, and I can’t imagine students from Latin America and South America who’ve found themselves characterized as rapists and criminals are going to want to come here.”

Olivas was referring to the speech with which Trump kicked off his campaign, in which he described plans to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and labeled some Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. Surveys of international students conducted during the presidential campaign suggested that many would be less interested in coming to the U.S. if Trump were to become president. For example, a survey of 40,000 students from 118 countries conducted by the international student recruiting companies FPP EDU Media and Intead found that 60 percent said they'd be less inclined to come to the U.S. if Trump were to win, compared to just 3.8 percent who said they'd be less inclined if his opponent Hillary Clinton won.

Among respondents from Mexico, the proportion who said they would be less inclined to study in the U.S. if Trump were to win the presidency was, at 79.8 percent, even higher.

The Seattle-based marketing company Study in the USA also surveyed 1,000 prospective international students on the election. Of 975 responses, 639 said they'd be more likely to study in the U.S. if Clinton were to win, while just 91 said they'd be more likely to come if Trump were elected. “Due to Donald Trump's very explicit racist remarks, I would not feel very comfortable studying in the USA,” one respondent said.

One student from Hong Kong enrolled at Bunker Hill Community College, in Boston, shared a video on Facebook that called Trump a racist, sexist and narcissist. "Oh my goodness, such a nightmare. Can I still survive in the U.S. … As an Asian international student," Kalok Kwok posted.

"I feel like I am losing a chance to immigrate to the USA," Kwok said in an interview. "I think Trump will deny people who are interested to immigrate in the U.S. to protect U.S. citizens …. It might work in the short run, but in the long run U.S. citizens might lose competitiveness."

Still, others offered a more optimistic message. It's worth noting that Trump himself once posted on Twitter about the benefit of retaining international students in the U.S., writing in an August 2015 tweet, "When foreigners attend our great colleges and want to stay in the U.S., they should not be thrown out of our country."

“I think America is going to continue to welcome international students, international students are going to continue to want to come here, we will continue to want to send American students abroad as students and cultural ambassadors. I think that international educational exchange is part of the fabric of many societies, including ours," said Allan E. Goodman, the president and CEO of the Institute for International Education.

“In terms of how this will impact mobility of students, how this will impact the work of international education in the short and long run, it’s too early to tell because it is my hope that between the campaign rhetoric and what it actually takes to govern, that between those two we will get to what I would call a more reasonable place. It is my deep hope," said Fanta Aw, the president of NAFSA: Association of International Educators and assistant vice president of campus life at American University.

Aw continued, "At the end of the day, there will have to be a way to figure out how does this country come together and how does it choose to engage the world and be part of the world, and I would go so far as to say there’s some practical reasons for why this is essential. Because our economy is tied to the world economy. We don’t live on an island unto ourselves."

At the same time, Aw said, she understood why some international students were feeling nervous on Wednesday.

"For the world to see with this election that issues of race were very much on the table, that issues of gender were very much on the table, that issues of class were very much on the table, that issues of citizenship were on the table, and who people choose to worship, that is a lot to digest," she said.

"For our students, depending on what part of the country they’re in, I can understand that there’s some real fear and trepidation because they’re trying to make meaning of what does the vote stand for?" Aw said. "It is understandable that for those students and for their families they would have a lot of questions this morning, and in the days and months ahead we will be unpacking what did happen."

2016 Election
Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
iStock
Is this breaking news?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Higher Education after the 2016 Election

A growing assault on academic freedom and the professionalism of faculty members means that now is the time for us to unite, organize, and fight, not only for ourselves but for the common good, not only by ourselves but with allies both inside and outs…

A growing assault on academic freedom and the professionalism of faculty members means that now is the time for us to unite, organize, and fight, not only for ourselves but for the common good, not only by ourselves but with allies both inside and outside of academia.

If you're not already a member, please join us in this fight.