Higher education sustains democracy despite the government’s attempts to restrict it

For as long as I can remember, pursuing higher education at a college or university has been the ultimate goal.

My family instilled in me the value of higher education, and I made it my mission to attend college, knowing it would provide me with invaluable knowledge, opportunities, and a broader perspective on the world.

Despite the ongoing push for students to enroll in college, in the United States, it feels as though institutions that once seemed to represent freedom of knowledge and discourse are now facing threats to their very missions.

Despite continuous threats to universities from the federal government, universities challenge those in power by publicly rejecting attempts to limit their programs and goals. Universities’ resistance against government threats represents a broader movement of democratic resilience and shows how they are necessary to sustaining the freedom of ideas and opinions.

When President Trump began his second term, he claimed that college and university campuses had been “infested with radicalism like never before.” He has then used the federal government’s power to threaten funding to schools that offer programs or initiatives that don’t align with his agenda.

While these threats were more prevalent towards the beginning of Trump’s term, universities continue to face targeted warnings from the government.

Since the start of Trump’s second administration, he has targeted the higher education system through federal funding freezes, forced settlements, crackdowns on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and restrictions on visas for international students.

In terms of funding, the federal government moved to reduce staff at the Department of Education, cut research funding, and freeze grants supporting work across areas such as health care, energy, and technology.

The Trump administration heavily targeted schools with strong DEI programs, threatening to close their DEI offices and restore merit-based admissions as opposed to considering race in the admissions process.

The federal government also targeted international students at elite universities, including Harvard, where some faced the threat of travel restrictions or the fear of having their visas revoked.

These threats and executive actions by the president not only instill fear in students, faculty, and university leaders, but plants an idea that higher education should operate under the federal government's agenda.

In response to threats from the Trump administration, colleges and universities have responded differently, with some adhering to certain requirements to retain funding, while others have denounced the administration's instructions entirely.

Despite all nine universities that rejected Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which outlined a series of demands for continued funding, several schools, including Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, and Penn, have worked to reach separate agreements with the administration to secure their research funding.

Shortly after the compact was sent to the nine universities, nearly 100 higher-education leaders endorsed the American Association of Colleges and Universities, calling the compact an “ultimatum” that ties funding to a political agenda.

Many university presidents called out the administration for sending the compact.

Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock said, “I do not believe that a compact — with any administration — is the right approach to achieve academic excellence, as it would compromise our academic freedom, our ability to govern ourselves, and the principle that federal research funds should be awarded to the best, most promising ideas,” in a letter to the community.

A consensus against the compact among university leaders indicated a broader movement across the nation in which schools would not accept government demands that restricted their academic independence.

However, while universities represent institutions where knowledge and the debate of ideas are fundamental, that does not mean they are perfect systems. Higher education in the United States has several flaws, and consideration of reform or adjustment to this system should not be discounted.

Affordability is a major issue in higher education, making it difficult for low- and middle-income students to afford rising tuition costs. In 1996, low-income families paid tuition amounts equal to 54%, and in 2020, that number rose to 66%.

Despite universities’ efforts to increase diversity on their campuses, many of the highest-ranked schools in the country continue to have higher proportions of white and upper-class students.

While universities encompass centuries of research, scholarly expertise, and distinguished professors, certain communities and histories remain left out of campus textbooks and course offerings.

These flaws, among others, make it hard to defend the argument that higher education institutions should be protected.

However, instead of receiving threats from the federal government to adhere to their agenda, universities should be receiving support to improve their systems and practices to make education more affordable, inclusive, and representative of the population that makes up the United States.

To ensure higher education continues to thrive, several steps can be taken to ensure they continue to build on existing programs without adhering to a political agenda.

Like many schools already doing so, having university leaders reject political compacts or demands will help ensure the government cannot dictate what universities teach, how they admit students, and how their funds are allocated to which programs. University leaders can also pursue legal action when the administration threatens to strip funding in response to politically driven demands.

For students and families, being actively engaged with university leaders and sharing concerns, signing petitions, or advocating for their schools to resist government overreach can form a collective action that involves both the university and its community.

Lastly, students play an essential role in being a voice for their respective schools beyond academic leaders. Student involvement, such as protests, writing to university and government leaders, and organizing to make their voices heard to administrators, can ultimately make a significant difference in how universities respond to government demands and make decisions.

Actions from university leaders, students, and community members contribute to universities' representation of democratic resilience and show how collective action can ensure that schools continue to operate without succumbing to excessive demands from the government.

For now, it is important to stay informed about any new developments between the Trump administration and universities across the country, and to continue to monitor any demands or policies they are calling on schools to follow.

Beyond this, ensuring that the public also keeps university leaders accountable is crucial to ensuring that students' voices are heard and that schools make decisions to best serve their students and their mission to improve education.

While the education system in the United States contains many flaws, such as affordability, accessibility, and inclusion, it still offers a necessary pillar of democracy for the country that must be protected.

I feel privileged to attend an institution like USC, which has provided me with opportunities to meet people from around the globe and broaden my perspective on a variety of topics.

But more than anything, it’s proven to me how essential universities are to sustaining democracy and academic independence by using knowledge, research, and a global perspective to advance a better society.

Daniela Mattson is a student at the University of Southern California and a Fulcrum Fellowship cohort member.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.