Emergent Issues in Higher Education

Jump To:

• Reductions to USDE
• Financial Aid
• Data and Statistics
• DEI
• Immigrant-Origin Students
• Campus Safety and Non-Discrimination
• Title IX

Impact on Federal Financial Aid, Grants, and Loans

Higher education leaders have raised serious concerns regarding the impact the recent executive orders and staffing cuts could have on the office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), which manages more than $100 billion in student loans annually and oversees the distribution of Pell Grants. According to Inside Higher Ed, some of the deepest cuts have occurred within FSA, particularly in offices that work directly on policy, borrower assistance, and institutional oversight. Experts have warned that these staff layoffs could result in delayed financial aid processing, reduced enforcement of borrower protections, and increased confusion for students and institutions navigating federal aid programs.

The Trump Administration recently announced that the Small Business Administration would be taking over the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio. The federal student loan portfolio is currently overseen by FSA, and federal law requires USDE to manage student loans. Thus, some experts have asserted that the President does not have the authority to make this move.   

Although there is much uncertainty related to administrative oversight and staffing related to federal financial aid, it is expected that federal student loans, like other forms of federal financial aid, will continue to be disbursed as long as Congress keeps the programs around. Laws already passed by Congress obligate the government to continue overseeing student loans. The FAFSA is still up and running and available for student access, and New York State (NYS) continues to implement its FAFSA Completion Initiative to serve students and families seeking financial aid.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF), which promises student loan forgiveness for any borrower who works 10 years in public service, was created by an act of Congress and only an act of Congress can shut it down. The Trump administration recently issued an executive action calling for restrictions on who qualifies for PSLF. The plan is to exclude borrowers who work for organizations "that engage in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose." The Federal Student Aid website states that there are no changes to PSLF currently, and borrowers do not need to take any action.

USDE recently reopened online applications for income-driven repayment plans for student loan borrowers. The applications had been taken down in response to a February court ruling, which blocked the Saving on a Valuable Education Plan and parts of other income-driven repayment plans.

There have also been major cuts to regional offices of the School Eligibility and Oversight Service Group, including the New York/Boston School Participation Section. The group has historically managed universities’ eligibility for federal grants, provided regulatory support to individual institutions, investigated fraud, evaluated new programs and approved mergers, among other responsibilities. Many higher education experts expect the cuts to lead to confusion, disruption, and major authorization delays for colleges and universities across the country.

Federal Challenges to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

The federal government has recently issued many executive orders (EOs) that affect higher education, including several executive orders targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

Of note, USDE’s Office for Civil Rights issued a February 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) asserting that educational institutions receiving federal funds must stop using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in admissions, promotions, prizes, sanctions, or any other campus program or activity. The DCL also stated that relying on non-racial information as a proxy for race will also be prohibited. The SHEEO summary of the DCL can be found here. 

Following the DCL, USDE’s Office for Civil Rights released a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The FAQ document answers 15 questions related to racial preferences and stereotypes under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, clarifying issues and concepts raised in the DCL. USDE plans to update the FAQ as needed. Articles on the FAQ may be found at the following links: Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

As part of a broader push to eliminate programs associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion, USDE proposed cutting $600 million nationwide for teacher training. The cuts include two of the USDE’s largest discretionary programs for professional development: the $70 million-a-year Teacher Quality Partnerships (TQP) program and the $80 million-a-year Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) grants.

The TQP grants support partnerships between school districts and nonprofits or colleges and universities to expand teacher preparation and recruitment. These grants fund many of the nation’s teacher residency programs, which typically allow teacher candidates to receive hands-on classroom training for a full academic year. The SEED grants include those purposes as well as in-service professional development for teachers and principals and alternative programs for entering the profession.

Related to federal Elementary and Secondary School funding (such as Title I), on April 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education gave state education agencies 10 days to certify that their schools do not engage in any practices that the administration believes illegally promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Impact on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in NYS Higher Education

Adhering to its mission to raise the knowledge, skill, and opportunity of all the people in New York, the New York State Education Department (NYSED) and Board of Regents affirms its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion at schools and colleges across the state. NYS has a long history as one of the most proactive states in addressing access and opportunity for students and residents navigating college and career pathways. The state has numerous postsecondary opportunity programs that serve our underrepresented and under-resourced students, including STEP, CSTEP, HEOP, EOP, SEEK & Discovery, and LPP.

Recognizing its place as one of the most diverse secondary and postsecondary systems of education in the nation, there are a number of partnership programs and initiatives at our schools and college campuses serving students of historically underserved backgrounds, including first-generation, immigrant-origin, and LGBTQI students: My Brother’s Keeper, CUNY DEI, SUNY DEI, and CICU Opportunity and Equity. The state is also committed to the growing number of postsecondary students with disabilities at our college campuses, and NYSED has advocated for a significant increase in the Postsecondary Students with Disabilities grant initiative.

Home to 38 Minority Serving Institutions (MSI), including 25 Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), NYS has one of the largest, as well as most inclusive and diverse, postsecondary student body. Additionally, NYS has a sizeable international student cohort (10%) that is nearly double the country’s international college student average enrollment. NYS colleges and universities include faculty and students from nearly every corner of the globe.

While there are still important gaps to fill related to degree attainment for underrepresented groups nationally and in NYS, the Education Trust issued reports which noted that NYS ranks in the top 10 of the nation for degree attainment for Black residents and for degree attainment for Latino residents. Our opportunity programs and diversity initiatives have been instrumental in closing the opportunity gaps that exist at our schools and colleges and in the workforce, and we cannot risk losing progress on these important mechanisms that allow our colleges to be engines of economic and social mobility.

NYSED’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has been engaged in initiatives to enhance the capacity of educators and educational leaders and to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion within New York State schools and institutions of higher education (IHEs). The office has been building networks, capacity, and resources to expand upon the principles highlighted in the Culturally Responsive Sustaining Education (CRSE) Framework.

The Office of Higher Education is also helping to implement one of the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Graduation Measures: Incorporate the principles of the CRSE Framework into the teacher preparation program standards to ensure that educators are fully prepared to teach in diverse and inclusive school settings across the state.

NYSED’s Educator Diversity Report highlights the large gaps in teacher and school leader diversity and underscores the need for proactive, comprehensive initiatives that address the educator and school leader diversity gap, such as My Brother’s Keeper- Teacher Opportunity Corps II (TOC II), Teacher Diversity Pipeline programs, and Grow Your Own. 

The current NYS Statewide Plan for Higher Education initiative includes diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education as one of the five priority areas. Every eight years, the Board of Regents, in collaboration with the higher education community, develops and adopts the Statewide Plan. The Statewide Plan sets higher education system goals and objectives and addresses priority matters of statewide concern to the State’s residents, workforce, and community as well as our IHEs.

For the Statewide Plan, the Regents have identified priority topics of concern for consideration by New York’s higher education system and ask institutions to focus on them, within their individual missions, as they develop new master plans. Access and opportunity are important threads across the five priority topics: 1. Engaging in collaborative, mutually beneficial partnerships with the P-12 community to strengthen the P-20 system; 2. Ensuring equity, diversity, and inclusion in the P-20 system, including students in the educator and licensed professional career tracks; 3. Improving accessibility, student support services, and academic outcomes; 4. Preparing students for the current and future needs of communities, society, and the workforce; and 5. Transforming operations, structures, and programs in response to the evolving higher education landscape, student profiles, and demographics.

State and Agency Responses to the Federal Challenges to DEI

Many state and national organizations and agencies have asserted that neither the DCL nor the FAQ carry the weight of law but rather are the administration’s interpretation of the law.

NYSED issued a statement on the recent EOs concerning public education. In addition, the Attorneys General of New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia have issued joint guidance in response to the federal EOs and DCL.

The DCL is also currently being challenged in court. SHEEO has joined the American Council on Education (ACE) and other leading higher education associations in calling for the DCL to be rescinded. In addition, on February 24, 2025, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) provided feedback on the DCL to USDE’s Office for Civil Rights, conveying that the DCL is overly broad and expansive, which is a concern shared among legal experts. The 14-day timeline referenced in the DCL was also noted as unreasonable, especially as IHEs await additional legal guidance promised in the DCL. C-RAC represents the seven federally recognized institutional accrediting commissions responsible for accrediting almost 2,800 postsecondary, degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States.

The EOs and DCL have prompted IHEs to consider how these may affect DEI programs and initiatives on their campuses, and how they should be considered in relation to grant programs such as STEP and CSTEP. Since these orders and DCL do not currently carry the force of law, we remind our STEP and CSTEP programs and partners that current laws and regulations require that NYSED supports STEP and CSTEP and other opportunity programs. As such, NYSED will continue to implement these legislative programs in their current form until the legislature or a court directs otherwise. We expect our school districts and IHE partners to do the same. These programs have enriched the lives of a broad group of students for many decades, and their continued success is a legal and moral imperative.

A number of higher education experts have asserted that equity and inclusion remain an ‘imperative’ for recruitment, retention, and the overall viability of colleges facing the long anticipated demographic enrollment cliff. As future student bodies are projected to become more diverse, with increases in Hispanic and multiracial students, DEI efforts can play a pivotal role in attracting and retaining students. This is especially pertinent in our state, as demographic trends project a steeper-than-average decline in the high school graduate population, with one estimate noting a 27% decline over the next 15 years.

The attorneys general for New York and seven other states filed a lawsuit related to the teacher training grant cuts alleging the USDE “arbitrarily” and “improperly” terminated the grants. On March 10, Judge Myong Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered USDE to restore the grants under temporary restraining order.

NYSED responded to USDE’s Request for Certification related to federal Elementary and Secondary School funding, noting USDE lacks the authority to make this demand and that there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI. Below is an excerpt from NYSED’s response:

“The New York State Education Department (NYSED) has certified, on multiple occasions, that it does and will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations…Beyond that, NYSED is unaware of any authority that USDOE has to demand that a State Education Agency (SEA) agree to its interpretation of a judicial decision or change the terms and conditions of NYSED's award without formal administrative process. We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems "diversity, equity & inclusion" (DEI). But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI. And USDOE has yet to define what practices it believes violate Title VI; your request for certification merely adverts to "certain" and "illegal" DEI "practices." The requested certification attempts to condition NYSED's continued funding on USDOE's interpretation of the law-an interpretation that, as USDOE admits, lacks "the force and effect of law." USDOE cannot make improvisatory changes to legal assurances and impose new requirements on recipients without adhering to rulemaking procedures (see 20 USC § 1232).”

Challenges to DEI and the Impact on Accreditation

A number of higher education accreditation agencies include diversity, equity, and inclusion or related concepts in their standards. The current federal push to eliminate or curb DEI policies, programs, and initiatives have created challenges for IHEs and accreditation agencies as they consider how to navigate the various state, accreditation, and programmatic DEI standards in light of the federal orders and potential threats to funding and federal approvals. Some accreditation agencies have eliminated or suspended DEI-related standards, while others have offered clarifications or re-affirmed their commitment to equitable and inclusive education and campus initiatives.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education states: “As an institutional accreditor supporting the work of over 500 domestic and international institutions, our Commission has always offered institutions flexibility to demonstrate how they can best meet their missions through compliance with our requirements. Our Commission has long recognized that federal or state law or other government mandates may sometimes present challenges for institutions as they make efforts to comply with a variety of regulatory expectations. Put simply, our Standards for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation (Fourteenth Edition) require that institutions comply with applicable laws, regulations, and other government mandates.”

The WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) had initially proposed to remove DEI concepts but reversed course and now has re-affirmed its commitment to DEI and will keep the concepts in its standards.

The Council for Higher Education (CHEA) has also affirmed its commitment to equitable and inclusive higher education priorities and initiatives. CHEA acknowledges the complex challenges colleges face navigating the federal orders and policy shifts but asserts that preserving DEI requires a unified and proactive approach.

A number of professional licensure programmatic accreditation agencies have revised, eliminated, or suspended DEI-related standards, such as ABET for engineering and technology programs, ARC-PA for physician assistant, COA for ophthalmic dispensing,  AACSB for business and public accountancy programs, ABA for law programs, and APA for psychology programs.

The two professional education accrediting associations, the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to DEI concepts through their standards, frameworks, and goals. In January, the AAQEP Board of Directors approved the 2025 Expectations Framework, which provides substantial evidence of the accreditor's dedication to DEI principles. Similarly, the CAEP 2022 Standards (Initial and Advanced) and Goals clearly reflect the organization's ongoing commitment to DEI concepts.

Campus Safety & Order/Non-Discrimination

The federal government has recently issued executive orders intended to address campus safety and non-discrimination.

State and federal laws related to non-discrimination include the New York State Human Rights Law and Title VI of the Human Rights Act. Federal and state government officials have recently informed IHEs that their codes of conduct must be consistent with non-discrimination laws, and that they have a clearly defined and well publicized mechanism for individuals to report complaints.

Article 129 of NYS Education Law requires that IHEs have comprehensive, public-facing policies and procedures related to ensuring campus safety and order and protection of students’ free speech rights, safety, and freedom from discrimination. While this Article primarily targets policies addressing sexual assault and harassment, it does include requirements related to campus safety and order.

Consistent with its supervisory responsibilities, NYSED recently reminded every NYS institution of higher education to submit their written rules and policies for the maintenance of public order on college campuses and other college property used for educational purposes. NYSED’s Office of Higher Education has received these submissions, and they are available for public inquiries and review.

It is NYSED’s expectation that NYS IHEs will be safe spaces for all students to engage in freedom of speech and expression, have access to social-emotional supports, and foster an environment of empathy, understanding, and personal safety. IHEs are also expected to protect students, faculty, and staff from discriminatory actions and behavior, and to have codes of conduct that are consistent with non-discrimination laws, such as the New York State Human Rights Law and Title VI of the Human Rights Act.

Some relevant excerpts from Article 129-A are:

• (§ 6430) …shall adopt written rules for implementing all policies required pursuant to this article and for the maintenance of public order on college campuses and other college property used for educational purposes and provide a program for the enforcement thereof.  Such rules shall prohibit, among other things, any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers mental or physical health.
• (§ 6430) Nothing contained in this article shall:

a. be construed to limit or restrict the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly;  or

b. prevent or limit a college from setting forth additional standards of conduct for students.

• (§ 6431) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, amend, modify or affect existing standards for civil liability.
• (§ 6436) Each college shall inform incoming students about bias related crime prevention measures through programs which may include workshops, seminars, discussion groups, and film presentations, in order to disseminate information about bias related crime, promote discussion, encourage reporting of incidents of bias related crime, and facilitate prevention of such incidents. Such information shall include, but not be limited to:

1. the applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations on bias related crime, including the provisions and coverage of the hate crimes act of 2000 codified in article four hundred eighty-five of the penal law;

2. the penalties for commission of bias related crimes;

3. the procedures in effect at the college for dealing with bias related crime;

4. the availability of counseling and other support services for the victims of bias related crime;

5. the nature of and common circumstances relating to bias related crime on college campuses;  and

6. the methods the college employs to advise and to update students about security procedures.