So what will a Trump administration do to/for/with American higher education?
It is now established that it’s difficult to predict anything around Trump. Worse for prediction, his campaign said very little about post-secondary education, so we have little to go on. And yet we need to think hard about what this new administration might mean for the next four years.
Here are some possibilities, based on some Trump signals, recent Republican practice, and trendlines. They aren’t in any meaningful order:
The American economy might decline for various reasons (stock market shock, foreign capital gets cold feet, some businesses accelerate outsourcing, etc). This could drive more students to higher ed, as with 2008.
It could also clobber endowments and already stressed state budgets.
The GOP might pressure the richest institutions to change endowment practices in favor of spending more on students.
We’ve already seen signs of that at federal and local levels.
Related: the newly empowered GOP could pressure public and private institutions to freeze tuition.
As the Trump site mentions, he’d like to
[w]ork with Congress on reforms to ensure universities are making a good faith effort to reduce the cost of college and student debt in exchange for the federal tax breaks and tax dollars.
And:
Ensure that the opportunity to attend a two or four-year college, or to pursue a trade or a skill set through vocational and technical education, will be easier to access, pay for, and finish.
There may be increased pressure on science and research in general, such as funding cuts (exacerbated if the economy turns sour) and political attacks on certain research areas (think climate change, reproductive health) . There’s also a rumor or leak about Trump picking a climate change “skeptic” for the EPA. (Ars Technica has more on this)
For-profits could experience a renaissance, after their recent catastrophe. (cf Sara Goldrick-Rab)
We could see more student protest along the lines of last year, targeting sexism, racism, transphobia, and more, but intensified. Tensions could easily be heightened by Trump supporters demonstrating, protesting, acting creatively, or otherwise staking a claim in academic spaces. There are already early signs of a rise in anti-immigrant and -minority incidents. Perhaps we should plan on many scenes of pro-Trump students clashing with anti-Trump activists. Obviously part of this will occur, and be accelerated by, social media. We’ve already seen student unrest this week. (On a personal note, my university-attending daughter has already participated in two protests.)
The Obama administration pressured campuses to intensify their efforts to punish and reduce sexual assault. I doubt the Trump administration would be willing to continue this policy.
The academy is going to work hard to study how Trump’s upset of Clinton occurred. Political science, history, American studies, sociology, media studies, and other fields will be busy. Expect seminars this spring, along with conference panels, articles, and books coming as quickly as we can produce them.
There are already conflicting schools of interpretation, such as racism and sexism versus economics as primary causal factors.
An emphasis on regrowing American manufacturing could lead to several outcomes: more support for maker spaces; a push for German/Swiss-style apprenticeship programs; pressure for K-12 to return to vocational tech; support for technical colleges.
Expanding copyright protection: a very pro-business leadership usually inclines towards strengthening intellectual property protection, from copyright to patents. Additionally, Trump is close to Hollywood, who’s long been militant in this sphere. So we might expect a return to the Bill Clinton era of pushing hard towards IP maximalization. Some researchers like this when they view it in terms of protecting their intellectual property, while others abhor it as a block to creative expression.
Related: Trump probably won’t support open education or open access for scholarly publication.
We could lose some international students, especially from Muslim-majority and Latino nations. That’s bad news for institutional diversity and economics. (Inside Higher Ed)
The Department of Education’s budget and influence might get cut back (Sara Goldrick-Rab).
What else should we consider?
(image found somewhere on Facebook; my apologies for not being able to source it; thanks to Edhead for the Trump site reminder)
There are also all the things he says he’s going to do: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/education/
Thank you for the reminder. Including it in the post now.
Not much about higher ed there, though. I’m still trying to understand rumor of Ben Carson as Secretary of Education…for as long as the Dept exists.
read that Robert. T. Goad (Indiana) is leading Trump’s education transition team ~ although that could change or be wrong
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/08/30/trump-campaign-adds-aide-education
fixing education: Trump will advance policies to support learning-and-earning opportunities at the state and local levels for approximately 70 million school-age students, 20 million post-secondary students, and 150 million working adults, To achieve this, Trump will promote high-quality early childhood, magnet, STEAM or theme-based programs; expansion of choice through charters, vouchers, and teacher-driven learning models; and relief from U.S. Department of Education regulations that inhibit innovation.
Source – https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/education.html
sounds vague — got specifics?
I’d be fascinated to see more STEAM.
Reblogged this on As the Adjunctiverse Turns and commented:
Waiting for the #highered shoe to drop. Since this particular #badmin does not seem #labor friendly, I’d hazard the guess that doing right by #adjunct and other #academiclabor may not be a high priority. Privatization, defunding, and edismantling of public education seem more likely.
What are your thoughts? Head on over Bryan’s blog and share them there.
What has the Obama admin done for adjuncts?
The only thing I can think of is not getting NCLRB people who’d oppose adjunct unionization.
not an insignificant assist considering SEIU’s Faculty Forward track record … probably adds up to more gains than from being invited to testify at committee hearings, mostly press release fodder imo. Both are more that can be expected from the upcoming administration, which is already announcing union busting and every state a right to work state (no chicken in every pot that) as goals
My admittedly compulsive collecting has been more focused on other fallout areas — especially immigration and climate. So I’ll add higher ed to my collection list. In any case, the most effective work on labor and education issues will be at the state and local levels. Besides, as edhead, suggests, no telling how long there will be a Dept of Ed
PS here’s the entertainingly bizarre source of the image http://www.secretsofthefed.com/donald-trumps-new-world-order-connections-revealed/
K-12 bloggers are asking the same question about their sector, https://emilytalmage.com/2016/11/11/trump-won-now-what/