Last week, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the closure of the Department of Education. The EO states that “Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them.” It should be noted that it is because of the DOE that we know how education is performing.

In a recent appearance on CNN’s State of the Union, newly appointed Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon said, “The Department of Education does not educate one child; it does not establish any curriculum in any states. It doesn’t hire teachers; it doesn’t establish programs.”[1]

Secretary McMahon is correct, those responsibilities rest with states, school districts, or individual schools and teachers depending upon the nature of the system in which a student is educated.

Much of the recent rhetoric around the Department of Education from many sectors reveals how little most of us know of its history and functions. The DOE is often cited as having been founded in 1979 at the end of the Carter presidency. That was when the current structure was established, but a number of its functions predate that legislation by many years.

A recent story in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the elimination of over 90% of the employees of the Institute of Education Sciences referred to its history of education data collecting back to the time of Lincoln.

The initial Department of Education was established by Congress in 1867. It was renamed the Office of Education the following year. The purpose of this new entity was to collect data about education across the nation and regularly report those findings to Congress. Additionally, the Commissioner of Education was charged with evaluating how the fledgling Land Grants, which had been established under President Lincoln in 1862, were functioning.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was established as part of the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953, which was signed into law in 1949 by President Eisenhower. During the Carter administration that Department was cleaved into the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education.

As established, to paraphrase their website, the DOE has four activities:

1. Establish policies relating to federal financial aid for education, distribute those funds, and monitor their use;
2. Collect data and oversee research on America’s school and to disseminate that information to Congress, educators, and the general public;
3. Identify major issues and problems in education and focus national attention on them;
4. Enforce federal statues prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funds and ensure equal access to education for every individual.

The role of the department of education is not to educate a child, establish a curriculum, or hire a teacher. It is to give states and school systems the data they need to understand what is working and what isn’t, to conduct research to establish best practices for those entities to consider for their use, to protect the rights of all students, and to oversee federal financial aid programs.

These should all be seen as contributing to the common good. Federal student aid has historically been immensely popular on both sides of the aisle, and it has been one of our nation’s most successful investments in the future of its citizens.

The recent FAFSA debacle was a shameful black eye for the department, but in its defense, they were given neither the time nor the funds they said were necessary to overhaul the system. They were destined to fail. To me, their real error was not declaring that failure sooner. They have since made the improvements needed for the system to support students again. Now, the problem is there is almost no one in the DOE to assist students and their families when they need help.

If the goal of the Executive Order is “to enable parents, teachers, and communities to best ensure student success,” how will we know this has been achieved without the data collection and research required to measure those outcomes? How will we identify the critical issues affecting teaching and learning nationwide? Who will protect all students to be sure they have equal access and protections within our education systems?

We do need to improve the educational standards of our nation. Taking away the tools needed to do that work is a step in the wrong direction.

---

[1] Peter Aiken: “Student Loans: Education Secretary McMahon Discusses Trump Admin Moves” in Newsweek (23 March 2025).

The first few weeks of the new administration in the White House have generated a flurry of executive orders many of which have a direct impact on higher education, affect members of our community, and/or challenge our institutional mission and values. Some of these documents have been riddled with internal contradictions making those determinations more complicated.

It is important to help our campus community understand what these directives mean, what authority they may or may not have, how they may affect each of us, and what the University is doing to navigate these new challenges.

I assured our campus that, in compliance with all federal and state laws and regulations, our priorities are to:

• Support our students, faculty and staff
• Align actions and decisions with our mission and values
• Remain focused and take deliberate, strategic action
• Advocate with government officials

The early spate of executive orders included threats to and prohibitions of DEI efforts and proposed erasures of LGBTQ+ rights and identities. These actions are directly at odds with the University’s mission and values, and they are in opposition to the foundational values of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which is our chartering denomination.

Subsequent orders have threatened to defund programs, institutions, and research that are critical to student success, access, and scientific and educational progress.

On Valentine’s Day, the Department of Education released a “Dear Colleague” letter that articulated the DOE’s new interpretation of the recent Supreme Court decision on Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard University. The court’s decision eliminated race as a consideration in building a class, ending affirmative action in the admission process.

The “Dear Colleague” letter says that now these prohibitions apply to programming aimed at any racial, gender, or ethnic group, by suggesting they are inherently discriminatory and therefore in violation of Title VI. The inference of the letter is that programs and campus groups that lift up a group of students are excluding individuals who do not belong to that group, and it threatened that if institutions failed to eliminate these practices by 28 February, they could lose their access to federal funds.

If most institutions were to lose Title IV eligibility, which allows them to distribute federal financial aid, significant numbers of students would be harmed. At Susquehanna University nearly a third of our students would lose critical financial aid, which would pose an existential crisis for them and the institution.

The one thing that thrills student leaders of affinity groups more than welcoming new members, is welcoming new members who are joining as allies who want to learn more about the experiences of students whose heritage differs from their own and want to support and encourage their friends. That is exactly what we should want students to do. In my lifetime in higher education, every student affinity group I encountered welcomed everyone.

The “Dear Colleague” letter notes that it is guidance, not law, but the threats it contains have moved many institutions to eliminate programs and offices that support DEI work as a preëmptive response. What we all need to remember is that current civil-rights laws remain in effect, and they remain the rules we are beholden to uphold.

There have been over seventy law suits filed in response to these orders. Some have already been delayed or rescinded. The volume and range of orders makes it difficult to stay on top of what we must do, what we should do, and what we should not do. A number of our national and state organizations have been providing helpful legal summaries and guidance.

We have established a Task Force on our campus to review each applicable order from the perspective of our campus in consultation with our general counsel to be sure we continue to lean into our mission and adhere to the law.

This week, we sent out the first installment of a newsletter to our campus community to be sure we all have a shared understanding of how these highly publicized executive actions affect us collectively.

Here it is:

Dear Friends:

In light of the rapidly changing governmental landscape and its potential impacts on higher education, we will provide biweekly updates through the semester. These will include a repository of resources to help the community understand these complex issues. An initial set is posted below.

Susquehanna University remains committed to uplifting and living the University’s mission and values, which we will do in accordance with the law.

The Task Force will continue to review our documents and practices to assure they align with legal guidance and to improve clarity for our community.

At present, that group is working with legal counsel to focus on communication, policies and procedures, programming, and federal funding. As I wrote last week, our policies, practices, and programs are consistent with existing law.

Campus Chatter

Conversations happen everywhere — hallways, classrooms, and beyond. In these updates, we’ll clarify, confirm, or add context to recent discussions. Because chatter matters, we want to keep you in the know.

Financial Aid and Changing Circumstances

Life is unpredictable — a parent’s job loss, medical emergencies, or other unforeseen challenges can impact financial situations. If a student or their family experiences a significant change, they should reach out Student Financial Services as soon as possible.

Are Affinity Groups Continuing?

Yes, affinity groups remain a vital part of our university community, offering spaces for connection, discussion, and support around shared interests or experiences. Open to all faculty, staff and students, these groups foster learning and engagement. To get involved, contact the Access, Equity and Belonging Division.

I hope you all have a safe and restful break.

Yours ever,

Jonathan D. Green

President

Subscriptions

• ACE Higher Education & National Affairs Newsletter

Updates on Government Actions Affecting Higher Education

• Action Alerts by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU).
• Summary of 10 executive orders through Jan. 31 prepared by Segal HR consultants.
• Summary and analysis of executive actions by Education Counsel.
• Coverage of 14 significant executive actions by Higher Ed Dive.

Summaries of the Feb. 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague” Letter

• Analysis of the “Dear Colleague” letter in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
• A legal review of the “Dear Colleague” letter from Saul Ewing law firm.

The annual meeting of the American Talent Initiative (ATI) will take place next week. It is a gathering of member college presidents with leaders from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Aspen Institute College Excellence Program, and Ithaka S+R. Their collective goal is to enroll and graduate more low- and middle-income students from the nation’s best colleges and universities.

It is one of the few initiatives whose members comprise large, small, public, and independent institutions. To qualify for membership, a school must have a graduation rate of at least 70%. Of the 355 colleges and universities who meet that threshold, about 135 are currently members. These institutions have committed to a set of enrollment and graduation goals, and they have agreed to share data with each other with the hope of improving the outcomes of all members.

A number of presidents of 55 independent liberal arts colleges in ATI, especially those without need-blind admissions, have indicated that admitting additional low-income students will require significant fundraising to offset the lost revenue associated with “displacing” students who are high-net-revenue.

Fundraising to support these talented and deserving students should be a priority for all of our institutions, but progress toward enrolling more low-income can be made more immediately at any institution that has some unfilled capacity and applicants who would be academically successful, but didn’t make the financial cut to form the budgeted class.

Once an institution has successfully built its incoming class, it could choose to supplement that group with an additional cohort of Pell-eligible students. The enrollment team would restrict those additional slots to low-income students as an add-on.

With an add-on group of 15 students, the incremental increase in the campus population will have a minimal impact on fixed costs (facilities and general operations), and the Pell funding of each year’s cohort would be approximately $110,000, which can appreciably offset some of the incremental costs associated with the increase in enrollment.

Some students could also be eligible for state-funded, need-based aid and possible external private scholarships that would further supplement increased costs. Each institution can determine if a sustainable amount of loans would be part of the calculus for their campus program.

At institutions where a portion of institutional aid is unfunded, this would be an expansion of that practice to an additional group of students. For institutions where all institutional aid has been funded in the past, this initiative would be an “above the line” program.

An institution of 2,000 students that admits an additional 15 Pell-eligible students each year, will increase the portion of its students who are low-income by 3% over four years, which would be meaningful progress while the aforementioned fundraising is underway.

Qualifying institutions who are not members of ATI should consider joining. For all high-performing institutions, adding 15 more low-income students each year is a good start toward a noble goal.