With the higher education sector navigating a turbulent sea of policy shifts and political pressures, few are better equipped to chart the course than Camille Faivre. An expert in education management, she has been at the forefront of helping institutions adapt, particularly in the post-pandemic shift toward new learning models. Today, she shares her insights on the formidable challenges facing university leaders in 2026, from escalating federal enforcement and financial instability to radical changes in student aid and international enrollment.
Our conversation will explore the strategies university leaders can employ to safeguard their institutions against weaponized federal investigations and the critical role governing boards must play in defending academic freedom. We will delve into the financial tightrope smaller colleges must walk between operational needs and long-overdue capital projects, and examine how universities can maintain access to graduate programs amidst drastic cuts to federal student loans. Finally, we’ll discuss the economic and academic fallout from declining international enrollment and the chaotic landscape of standardized testing requirements.
With federal agencies increasingly using investigations into issues like campus security and civil rights as leverage, what proactive steps can university leaders take to protect their institutions? Please share some practical advice for navigating the political and financial pressures that come with these enforcement actions.
This is perhaps the most pressing challenge for university presidents today. The tactic of using investigations to gain influence is becoming standard operating procedure, and institutions can no longer afford to be reactive. The first step is a radical commitment to internal auditing and compliance. Leaders must go beyond simply meeting the letter of the law; they need to build a fortress of documentation and best practices around everything from the Clery Act to Title VI. When the Department of Education launched its Clery Act investigation into Brown University after that horrific campus shooting, it was a clear signal that any crisis could become a pretext for federal intervention. Proactive leadership means stress-testing your emergency communication plans, reviewing all diversity initiatives with legal counsel to ensure they can withstand scrutiny, and preparing your board and senior leadership for the immense pressure that comes with having federal research funding suspended or, in the case of Harvard, having your patents threatened. This isn’t just about legal defense; it’s about operational resilience and demonstrating an unwavering commitment to your institutional mission in the face of political storms.
When college presidents face pressure to resign over institutional policies like diversity efforts, what is the proper role for their governing boards? Can you detail the steps a board should take to balance its fiduciary duty with defending academic freedom and institutional autonomy?
The situation with the University of Virginia’s president, who resigned to protect federal funding, was a watershed moment that exposed a deep vulnerability in institutional governance. The proper role for a board is to serve as a bulwark, not a weather vane. Their fiduciary duty is to the long-term health and integrity of the institution, which is inextricably linked to academic freedom and autonomy. When a president is targeted, the board’s first step should be to present a unified, public front of support. They need to release statements that reinforce the university’s mission and defend the president’s leadership. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing is a concerning trend of boards being “captured” by political appointees, as the case at George Mason University illustrates. When board members are political operatives first and trustees second, they are more likely to see their duty as ensuring compliance with the administration’s agenda. A truly effective board must conduct its own independent review, engage legal counsel separate from any political influence, and communicate clearly to faculty, students, and alumni that they will not sacrifice core principles for short-term political expediency. It’s a test of courage, and right now, many boards are failing.
Analysts predict revenue growth will continue to lag behind rising costs. For smaller liberal arts colleges with little left to cut, what innovative financial strategies can they adopt to survive? Please describe how they should prioritize spending between daily operations and long-deferred capital projects.
The financial picture is undeniably grim, especially for smaller institutions. Moody’s forecast of 3.5% revenue growth against 4.4% cost increases confirms that the old models are broken. For colleges that have already downsized for years, there’s simply “not much left to cut.” The path forward requires a shift from a scarcity mindset to one of strategic investment. This means making very difficult, data-informed decisions. The tension between daily operations and capital projects is at the heart of this. You can’t let your academic programs wither, but as one analyst noted, “At some point you have to make the dorms look nicer.” The key is to prioritize capital projects that directly impact enrollment and retention. This might mean renovating a student center instead of an administrative building or investing in a state-of-the-art lab for a high-demand program. Innovation also lies in creating new revenue streams—think targeted online certificate programs for working adults, summer conferences, or strategic partnerships with local industries. Survival is no longer about cutting deeper; it’s about spending smarter to build a sustainable future.
As new federal laws end Grad PLUS loans and cap student borrowing, how will access to graduate and professional degrees be affected? Please outline some specific strategies universities can use to help students bridge the funding gap and maintain enrollment levels in these critical fields.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBA, is a fundamental reshaping of the graduate education funding landscape. Ending Grad PLUS loans and imposing caps of $100,000 for graduate and $200,000 for professional students will undoubtedly create significant barriers to access. The immediate impact will be a chilling effect on student demand, which will strain university finances and could lead to the closure of some graduate programs. The biggest unknown is how the private lending market will respond. Universities cannot wait passively to find out. They must become proactive financial partners for their students. This means developing new, robust institutional aid programs funded through fundraising campaigns specifically for this purpose. It also involves forging formal partnerships with private lenders to secure the most favorable terms possible for their students. Furthermore, institutions should be critically re-evaluating their own programs. Can a three-year master’s program be restructured into a more intensive, less expensive two-year model? Can costs be reduced without sacrificing quality? It’s a comprehensive challenge that requires a multi-pronged approach of advocacy, financial innovation, and academic restructuring to keep these essential degree pathways open.
Colleges are reporting sharp drops in international student enrollment amid visa restrictions and a perception that the U.S. is unwelcoming. What are the long-term economic and academic consequences of this brain drain, and what can individual institutions do to counter this global trend?
The consequences are catastrophic, both for the institutions and for the country. The data is stark: a NAFSA study found colleges reporting an average 19% drop in new international master’s students and a 6% drop in bachelor’s students. This isn’t just a line item on a budget; it’s a “major loss of talent and innovation.” These students fuel our research labs, bring diverse perspectives to our classrooms, and contribute immensely to local economies. When they choose to study in Asia, Western Europe, or the Middle East instead, we lose that competitive edge. The long-term effect is a hollowing out of our talent pipeline and a diminished global standing. Individual institutions, however, are not helpless. They must launch their own “diplomatic missions.” This means aggressive, targeted international recruitment that communicates a clear message: “While national policies may be in flux, our campus is a welcoming and supportive home for you.” It requires investing more in international student services, showcasing the success stories of their foreign alumni, and creating strong support networks to combat the feeling of isolation that the current political climate fosters. They must build a compelling narrative of community that can overcome the hostile rhetoric coming from the federal level.
We’re seeing a fractured landscape with standardized testing, as some universities reinstate requirements while others extend test-optional policies. What key factors are driving these divergent decisions, and how does this inconsistency impact high school students and counselors trying to navigate the application process?
The landscape is fractured because institutions are being pulled in opposite directions by competing priorities. On one side, you have highly selective institutions like Princeton and Cornell reinstating test requirements, citing internal data showing a strong correlation between test scores and academic success on their campuses. They argue that without scores, they are missing a valuable piece of information. On the other side, many universities are extending their test-optional policies, either temporarily or permanently, to promote access and equity. Then, you have the political layer, with the Trump administration actively incentivizing a return to standardized testing. For students and counselors, the result is pure chaos. A student might be applying to ten schools with three or four different testing policies. It creates immense anxiety and forces them to make strategic decisions about whether to take the tests, whether to submit their scores if they do, and how to build an application that can succeed in either a test-required or test-optional review. It puts an enormous burden on high school counselors to track these ever-shifting policies and provide tailored advice for each student, making an already complex process even more bewildering.
What is your forecast for higher education?
My forecast is one of profound transformation born from immense pressure. The coming years will be a crucible for American higher education. We will see a widening gap between institutions that can adapt and those that cannot. The successful universities will be those that are politically astute, financially innovative, and relentlessly focused on their core educational mission and student outcomes. The intense scrutiny, from the new accountability system’s focus on graduate earnings to the political pressure on curricula, will force a level of self-examination that is long overdue. While the financial and political headwinds are severe, this period of disruption will also clear the way for new models of teaching, funding, and governance to emerge. It will be a painful, challenging period, but the institutions that navigate it successfully will be more resilient, more efficient, and more vital to society than ever before.
