SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
universities
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
150+ University Leaders Denounce 'Unprecedented' Overreach and Political Coercion by Trump
"The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society."
Apr 22, 2025
A public statement signed by the presidents of more than 150 colleges and universities on Tuesday condemning U.S. President Donald Trump's "political interference" on campuses was notable not only for the higher education leaders who joined the call, said advocates—but for those who didn't.
The open letter, organized by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) and titled "A Call for Constructive Engagement," was hardly promoting "a radical idea," said the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) at University of Texas at Austin—but the school's president, Jim Davis, was not on the list of signatories.
UT-Austin was one of several where police violently cracked down on student protesters last year when campus demonstrations expressing solidarity with Palestinians facing Israel's U.S.-backed bombardment spread across the country.
A year after those protests took off, starting at Columbia University, the Trump administration has in recent weeks revoked the visas of hundreds of international students for their involvement in student activism, and has claimed to be fighting antisemitism by sending immigration agents to arrest student organizers including Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, and Mohsen Mahdawi, all of whom are still in detention and are being threatened with deportation.
"As leaders of America's colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education," reads the public statement released Tuesday, which was signed by university presidents and leaders including Felix V. Matos-Rodriguez of City University of New York, Maurie McInnis of Yale, Alan M. Garber of Harvard, and Christopher L. Eisgruber of Princeton.
"Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation," the statement continues.
The open letter came a day after Harvard University filed a lawsuit against members of the Trump administration and several federal agencies over the White House's $2.2 billion funding freeze and threat to have the school's tax-exempt status revoked—actions that could threaten crucial cancer research and other biomedical and scientific work.
"Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation."
The Trump administration's threats to Harvard came in response to the elite university's announcement that it would not comply with the president's demands to "audit its academic programs for viewpoint diversity," expel students involved in an altercation that happened at a pro-Palestinian protest in 2023, and end its recognition of Palestinian solidarity campus groups.
The university leaders who signed Tuesday's statement said they "are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight."
"However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses," they said. "We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding."
The statement also followed the passage of several resolutions by faculty senates at schools in the Big Ten Academic Alliance, led by Rutgers University, which was the first to call for a "mutual defense compact" last month—urging university leaders to commit to band together against Trump's incursion on college campuses and to share resources in the event of a direct attack on students or faculty at their schools.
"I am glad this finally happened," said Rutgers professor Todd Wolfson of the statement released by AACU. "AAUP has been calling for this letter for over a month. If your college or university president did not sign, you need to demand an answer."
Among those who should demand answers from university leaders, suggested some critics on Tuesday, were students and faculty members at Columbia University, whose acting president, Claire Shipman, did not sign the initial letter. Shipman added her signature later in the day on Tuesday.
Columbia allowed police to violently crack down on pro-Palestinian student protesters last year, revoked the degrees of some student organizers, refused to provide protection to Khalil and Mahdawi before their arrests, and at least one university trustee allegedly gave Khalil's name to the Trump administration before he was detained.
Those who did sign on to the statement warned that "the price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society."
"On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions," reads the statement, "we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic."
Note: This piece has been updated to include a mention of Claire Shipman's signature , which was added to the letter later on Tuesday, April 22.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Faculty-Led Movement Opposing Trump Attack on Universities Builds Steam
Weeks after the Rutgers University Senate passed a resolution to form a "mutual defense compact" with other Big Ten schools, at least four other schools have pushed forward their own proposals.
Apr 18, 2025
Weeks after the Rutgers University Senate passed a resolution to form a "mutual defense compact"—aiming to band together with other universities to protect from the Trump administration's attacks on academic freedom and free speech—university communities' push for their schools to stand up to the White House is gaining momentum.
Labor unions, Palestinian rights groups, and other advocacy groups on Thursday held rallies and events to mark the Day of Action for Higher Education, with students and faculty at more than 150 schools demonstrating against President Donald Trump's funding cuts; attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives; targeting of academic freedom; and deportation operations in which a number of student organizers have been rounded up in recent weeks.
"[Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is abducting students," said the Debt Collective, a sponsor of the day of action. "The Trump administration is suppressing free speech. Tuition is rising and workers and staff aren't paid living wages. We need higher education to be a liberation machine, not a deportation and debt-making machine."
The signs displayed at one rally in Pittsburgh reflected the wide array of attacks Trump has launched against higher education—from billions dollars of funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health, impacting biomedical and scientific research at universities across the U.S. to the ICE arrests of international students who have spoken out against Israel's U.S.-funded assault on Gaza.
Like the mutual defense compact proposal that's now gained traction at several schools, the day of action is partially a response to Trump's demand that universities collaborate with the administration to punish students who took part in nationwide Palestinian solidarity protests last year.
Columbia University has drawn ire for reportedly giving the names of students, including organizer Mahmoud Khalil, to the Trump administration before he was detained by ICE; refusing to provide protection to Khalil and his fellow organizer, Mohsen Mahdawi, who was also arrested this week; and revoking degrees from some pro-Palestinian protesters.
In contrast, faculty senates at Big Ten schools including the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Indiana University at Bloomington, Michigan State University, and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst have joined Rutgers in passing resolutions calling for the creation of mutual defense compacts to protect against the "legal, financial, and political incursion" of the Trump administration.
On Thursday, members of the faculty senate at the University of Michigan, also part of the Big Ten Academic Alliance, advocated for passage of a resolution to defend "academic freedom, institutional integrity, and the research enterprise"—and push back against administrators' closing of the school's DEI office at the behest of Trump's White House.
"The University of Michigan abandoned DEI in-part to avoid the wrath of Trump and most schools, not just ours, have been cowed into this kind of preemptive capitulation. Most schools, not just ours, have gone silent, just when we need them to speak up," sociology and law professor Sandra Levitsky toldMichigan Advance on Thursday.
At Indiana University, Jim Sherman, a professor emeritus in psychological and brain sciences, said that while faculty members and students are calling on their institutions to form a coalition against Trump, many administrators at public universities seem to want to draw as little national attention to their schools as possible.
"I think a lot of universities are thinking, basically, 'Boy, I hope they don't come after us.' You know, 'Let them come after Columbia or Harvard or Stanford... Let them go after the big dogs,'" Sherman told Common Dreams. "Maybe if we stay quiet and don't do very much, they'll just ignore us."
But that approach will only worsen the sense of "anxiety, angst, uncertainty, [and] instability" that's spreading across college campuses today, said Sherman.
"When I was an active faculty member, the years and the job were just full of joy," he said. "My collaboration with colleagues across the U.S. and across the world were just incredible. I couldn't have wanted a happier and more fulfilling life."
"Rather than doing your teaching and research," he added, "I think the major goal right now for many of us is protection."
Sherman expressed hope that the growing support for mutual defense compacts will soon leave a critical mass of schools with no choice but to join—and ultimately place pressure on university presidents, who thus far have declined to back the movement.
"If you're in the Big Ten and suddenly five or six universities join, you don't want to be the one who's left out or not [doing] anything," said Sherman.
Outside the Big Ten, Harvard University garnered applause this week when it announced—unlike its Ivy League peer Columbia—that it will not comply with Trump's demands to expel students who took part in pro-Palestinian protest, end its recognition of Palestinian solidarity groups, or audit its programs for "viewpoint diversity." The elite university now faces a threat from Trump to have its tax-exempt status revoked.
The mutual defense compacts that have passed so far call for participating universities to "commit meaningful funding to a shared or distributed defense fund," which could potentially be used in cases like that of Indiana cybersecurity professor Xiaofeng Wang, a Chinese national whose home was raided last month by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI and who was fired by the university, or international students targeted by ICE.
"As long as different universities put their resources together, whether it's sharing information about legal issues, whether it's talking about cases that have been resolved one way or another, whether it's making funds available for the protection of faculty," Sherman said. "I think the biggest goal should simply be unification and coordination and cooperation among as many universities who want to join in as possible."
University presidents are also facing pressure from labor unions to support a mutual defense compact, with a dozen graduate students' unions affiliated with the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America releasing a statement Wednesday.
The unions—representing tens of thousands of students at University of Minnesota, Northwestern University, North Carolina State University, and others—urged schools to establish an International Worker Support Fund and to ensure they won't "comply with ICE or other federal agencies initiating unconstitutional requests, such as sharing names and documentation statuses of students and workers or allowing ICE or other federal agents to enter campuses and university buildings."
Paul Boxer, a psychology professor at Rutgers who co-authored the original resolution at the school, emphasized that while university presidents have not yet expressed support for the mutual defense compact, support for defending First Amendment rights, academic freedom, and the diversity that thrives on many college campuses is strong among those who make up university communities.
"We do believe it's extremely important," Boxer told Common Dreams, "that faculty, staff, students, alumni, anyone connected to higher education at all, whether it's public or private, understands that universities—certainly at the level of the individuals who are providing higher education services, who are doing that kind of work, who are invested in the present and future of higher education—we are all committed to this cause."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular