In an era of unprecedented political turbulence, America’s colleges and universities find themselves at a crossroads. To help us navigate this complex landscape, we are joined by Camille Faivre, a leading expert in education management who specializes in helping institutions adapt to the post-pandemic and politically charged environment. Drawing on recent findings from the American Council on Education, Faivre unpacks the deep-seated anxieties gripping campus leaders, from threats to academic freedom to the erosion of public trust, and explores the strategies they are deploying to safeguard the future of higher education.
With nearly all college leaders reporting uncertainty from federal policymaking, how does this widespread unease concretely impact long-term strategic planning? Could you share a specific example of an initiative that has been stalled or altered due to this environment?
This level of uncertainty, felt by a staggering 98% of senior leaders, creates a chilling effect on innovation and long-term investment. Strategic planning, which relies on a degree of predictability, becomes an exercise in crisis management. For instance, I’m aware of a multi-million dollar plan for a new interdisciplinary research center focused on climate science that has been put on indefinite hold. The administration feared that the center would become a political target, jeopardizing not just its own federal research grants but also the institution’s broader funding. When you can’t be sure if your core funding streams will exist next year, you simply cannot commit to ambitious, forward-looking projects. This isn’t just caution; it’s a fundamental disruption of how universities plan for the future.
Concerns about institutional autonomy are at a generational high, with many leaders worried about both state and federal interference. What are the most common forms this pressure takes, and what practical steps are university boards taking to safeguard academic freedom?
The pressure is coming from two directions, creating a pincer movement against institutional independence. At the federal level, we’re seeing politically motivated civil rights investigations and threats to cut research funding to force policy changes. At the state level, it’s even more direct; last year PEN America tracked 21 new laws across 15 states that actively censor course content and dismantle diversity initiatives. In response, boards are moving from a defensive crouch to a more proactive stance. They are shoring up their internal governance policies to create firewalls around academic decisions, building coalitions with other institutions to present a united front, and, crucially, investing in public awareness campaigns to explain why academic freedom is not an abstract ideal but a cornerstone of a functioning democracy and economy.
Following the termination of the Grad PLUS loan program and new caps on federal student loans, what shifts are you observing in graduate enrollment patterns? Please describe the strategies your institution is developing to help prospective students bridge these new financial gaps.
The elimination of the 20-year-old Grad PLUS program was a body blow, particularly for access to graduate and professional degrees. We are already seeing a worrying dip in applications, especially from students from middle- and lower-income backgrounds who don’t have the family resources to cover the new financing gap. This will inevitably narrow the pipeline of talent in critical fields. In response, institutions are scrambling. We are aggressively expanding our internal scholarship funds through emergency fundraising campaigns and reallocating operational budgets. We are also building new partnerships with private lenders to offer alternative loan options and enhancing our financial aid counseling to help students navigate this much more complex and expensive landscape.
Sixty percent of leaders are concerned about immigration restrictions and visa revocations, which have contributed to dips in international student enrollment. Beyond recruitment, what steps is your institution taking to support current international students who may feel particularly vulnerable?
The anxiety among our international student population is palpable. Beyond the enrollment numbers, there’s a human cost to this policy environment. These students are far from home, and the threat of a sudden visa revocation creates immense stress that affects their well-being and academic performance. To counter this, we’ve significantly expanded the resources in our international student services office. This includes providing free legal clinics to help them understand their rights, increasing access to mental health counseling specifically tailored to their unique pressures, and creating community-building events to ensure they feel welcomed and supported, not isolated. We are actively working to show them that while the federal government’s welcome may be conditional, our institution’s is not.
Over three-quarters of college leaders are concerned about how the public and policymakers perceive the value of higher education. What are the top two or three misconceptions you are working to correct, and what is your communication strategy for rebuilding public trust?
The fact that over 75% of leaders are deeply concerned about public perception shows how far the narrative has slipped. The first misconception we are fighting is that a college degree is a poor financial investment; we consistently share data on lifetime earnings and career stability to prove its enduring value. The second is the idea that campuses are simply echo chambers for a single political ideology, rather than places of robust debate. Our strategy is to stop talking to ourselves and start engaging directly with our communities. We are bringing local business leaders and policymakers to campus, showcasing our research that solves real-world problems in their backyards, and empowering our alumni to be vocal ambassadors about how their education transformed their lives. It’s about demonstrating our value, not just declaring it.
What is your forecast for the financial viability of private and public institutions over the next five years if current policy trends continue?
If these trends persist, my forecast is frankly quite grim, particularly for smaller, less-endowed private institutions and underfunded public regionals. We’re already seeing 44% of leaders expressing extreme or moderate concern about their long-term financial viability, and that number will only grow. The combined pressures of declining international and graduate enrollment, unstable federal research funding, and rising security and legal costs from political pressure create a perfect storm. I predict we will see an accelerated pace of mergers and, unfortunately, closures. The wealthiest, most elite institutions will likely weather the storm, but the institutions that serve the vast majority of students will face an existential threat, potentially leading to the creation of higher education “deserts” in parts of the country.
