Crystal Garcia: There are so many educators and students within college campuses who care very deeply about international students, while we’re also navigating this policy environment in which there is a clear agenda to restrict colleges and universities’ autonomy as much as possible, but also to place strict parameters around students who are not US citizens.

So, you know, kind of rewinding back to what we know, we have this new rule that limits international students’ time in the US to a cap of four years, and so that’s dependent on the program of study. So it could be less time, depending on that program. and unfortunately, this is of course following other policy and rhetoric that has been targeting international students.

So it’s really incredibly difficult to imagine that those messages don’t affect students’, sense of belonging and their feeling of safety in pursuing a degree here. I think that’s kind of the biggest red flag, right, is the uncertainty of what, what will happen if something unexpected comes up during my program?

Will I be able to continue on? Will I be able to finish the degree that I start, that I’ve already invested in?

Heather Shea: Welcome to Student Affairs NOW, the online learning community for student affairs educators. I’m your host, Heather Shea, and we are back with our current campus contact series after a summer hiatus. We’re recording this episode on Tuesday, September eighth, and as always, things might have changed by the time you listen.

There is a lot to catch up on from the summer, and we can’t unpack all of those headlines today. So we’re gonna be focusing on three developments: new restrictions affecting international students, changes to graduate borrowing, and a proposed overhaul of accreditation. Together, these three issues raise bigger questions about access, value, power, and who gets to succeed in higher education because student affairs is where policy becomes personal for our students and for us.

 we’re also excited to relaunch the series this fall with an expanded lineup of expert correspondents who will be joining us throughout the year for our monthly episodes. Today, we welcome back Dr. Crystal Garcia and Dr. Felicia Commodore, and we’re thrilled to welcome two new correspondents, Dr.

Leonard Taylor and Dr. Katherine S. Cho. Leonard and Katherine, we’re so excited to have you both aboard. welcome to the podcast. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: Thank you. 

Heather Shea: Thank you. So before I jump into the conversation, I do want to give everybody who’s listening a little bit more information about our panel so that you can know from, from what lenses they are speaking today.

So, Dr. Crystal Garcia is an associate professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, whose work focuses on campus climate, student belonging, race and racism, and the role student affairs plays in shaping student experiences. Dr. Felicia Commodore is an associate professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, whose scholarship focuses on higher education governance and leadership, particularly governing boards, HBCUs, and minority-serving institutions, organizational decision-making and equity.

Dr. Leonard Taylor is an associate professor at Indiana University Bloomington and director of the National Survey of Student Engagement, or NSSE. His work focuses on institutional transformation and data-informed change, with particular attention to student success and higher education practitioners.

And Dr. Katherine S. Cho is an associate professor in higher education and chair of the Higher Ed and International Education program at Loyola University Chicago. Her work focuses on campus activism, organizational change, and educational inequity, particularly through the lens of race, gender, and labor.

Today, together, we are gonna be exploring what is happening, who’s affected, what we’re measuring and valuing, and who has the power to decide. So let’s dive in. So at the top of the episode, I said one of the biggest developments this summer is, affecting directly international students. In July, the federal government replaced the long-standing duration of status framework for F-1 international students with fixed periods of admission, with the new regulations taking effect just next week on September fifteenth.

The changes go well beyond limiting most degree-seeking students to four years. They also create new restrictions around changing majors or transferring institutions during the first year, moving between degree levels, and require students in a number of circumstances, including extensions and some transitions, to apply directly to the USCIS for an extension of stay.

So for me at least, these decisions go well beyond what used to be the academic conversations we’d have with, do I change my major? Do I transfer? Do I need more time? Now many of these questions also carry additional immigration consequences. all of this is happening within the broader clima-climate of uncertainty around visas, immigration, international enrollment, and whether students around the world will continue to see the US as a place where they want or are able to pursue higher ed.

So let’s start with those students themselves. Crystal, we talk a lot in student affairs about creating belonging. What does it mean for us to be rhetorically, I guess, telling international students you belong here when the policy environment simultaneously communicates uncertainty about how long they will actually 

Crystal Garcia: Ugh. Thank you, Heather. That is an incredibly difficult line to toe. Of course, as there are so many educators and students within college campuses who care very deeply about international students, while we’re also navigating this policy environment in which there is a clear agenda to restrict colleges and universities’ autonomy as much as possible, but also to place strict parameters around students who are not US citizens.

So you know, kind of rewinding back to what we know, we have this new rule that limits international students’ time in the US to a cap of four years, and so that’s dependent on the program of study, so it could be less time depending on that program. and unfortunately, this is of course following other policy and rhetoric that has been targeting international students.

So it’s really incredibly difficult to imagine that those messages don’t affect students’, sense of belonging and their feeling of safety in pursuing a degree here. I think that’s kind of the biggest red flag, right? Is the uncertainty of what, what will happen if something unexpected comes up during my program?

Will I be able to continue on? Will I be able to finish the degree that I start, that I’ve already invested in? there was a, a report or an article on Inside Higher Ed on, August twenty-fourth. In it, they reported some really important findings around some colleges and universities who already indicated damage that they were experiencing from drops in international student enrollment.

I really encourage you, if you haven’t already checked out that article, to do so and to see these numbers that these institutions are reporting. but as you mentioned, Heather, students can apply to extend their time beyond those four years for very particular reasons, including compelling academic reasons, but there’s not clarity around what that means, and there’s also worry that there’s already a backlog around visa processing and things like that.

So if we’re gonna also be processing way more extension requests, then do they even have the capacity to handle that? And do campuses have the capacity to support students as they navigate that? So for example, from that article, Cornell reported that they would have three thousand five hundred students on extensions of status every year So every year, they would be supporting these students to submit those extensions of status.

And some people might think, like, “Why would a student need to do that? You know, four years seems plenty of time to be able to complete their degree.” they forget about the humanity of these students. These are humans, not robots, not academic robots, right? So like you said, students might switch major, majors.

They may have to retake courses, whether they actually fail those courses or maybe just didn’t meet the grade requirements for their particular major. They may have medical conditions that impede their apil- their ability to progress on time. They may experience loss, death of loved ones, other life circumstances.

They might be parents or caregivers or become parents in the academic journey, and may not be able to keep on pace as they maybe previously had planned, or on pace with other students. they may be in programs that are designed to be more than four years. This is a huge red flag for all of us who teach in PhD programs, for example.

But there’s also other programs. So for example, that article that I mentioned earlier, they mentioned Boston University, who offers a five-year dual degree, program in which students get a medical degree and a Master of Business Administration degree. You know, would those types of programs be able to persist, to enroll international students within them?

And so all of these things we have major questions about, right? In terms of students’ ability to carry on. And so it’s, yeah, I, I mean, it’s very understandable that students would have concerns coming into the United States and, yeah, to, to see this as a bigger reflection of whether or not they really belong.

Heather Shea: Yeah. Katherine, I’d love, for you to help us kind of put this in some historical context. is this a fundamentally different, stance from previous periods when groups of students experienced uncertainty about their place, or are there parallels that might help us understand this current, topic and issue?

Katherine Cho: Yeah. this is a really great question, and, it, it’s one of those things that I think a lot about in terms of how we’ve, we’ve been here before. The question about who has access to higher education has always been contentious, right? Even as we think about what is US higher education, right? That it’s built on stolen indigenous lands, right?

The way that we think about the history of how college and universities were built on enslaved laborers, right? That who could even attend college in the eighteen hundreds or even who college was for has always been a historical project, right? And so, it, it… the short answer is like, yes, there’s so much history that’s always gonna be something that we should be turning back to.

But I wanted to name and couch some of this in a couple of different particular legislative acts, right? Because I think one thing that feels both similar but also alarmingly different right now is the sheer pace in which the onslaught of federal- 

Heather Shea: Yes. –

Katherine Cho: is coming. 

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm.

Katherine Cho: Right? And so it feels like it’s a never-ending, you know.

It might have felt like a steady drip before, but now it feels like a category five hurricane, right? and I think that that’s part of why I think, historical, I guess, like pivot or maybe, amplification that I wanna name. So, you know, in reading about the changes in these immigration, policies, right, and, and the ways that Crystal is not only describing the impact for students’ sense of belonging but also the chilling effect, right, and how universities are also anticipating, some of these concerns.

It reminds me a lot of the twenty seventeen Muslim ban, right? That was in the previous administration, right? So Trump’s previous first term, and the way that those bans, had existed to bar, I think it was six, six Muslim countries, right? Which felt very similar then while not an outright ban, but an increased surveillance right after nine eleven- Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. -against Muslim. 

Heather Shea: Yes. I remember. 

Katherine Cho: Right? Mm-hmm. But then that can also then be traced back to how we think about the nineteen sixties, right, and nineteen fifties and the segregation and all of the different policies of like, well, we don’t want certain students on college campuses. Mm-hmm. Specifically tied to immigration, but it still gets back to that question of who should be allowed to experience US higher education.

That then I would trace actually back to, the nineteen seventeen, immigration policy where they labeled people as undesirables, right? That certain people were undesirables, and as a result, we did not want them in the US. And that very much flows into now even our current understanding of what is the good immigrant.

And tied to that then is what are good immigrants or international students. International students should only be allowed here in the US if they have the acceptable major, if they’re only, you know, offering or allowing or contributing to our economy, right? That there’s lots of those types of parallels from history that have framed that.

And then, of course, the classics, of, you know, the Chinese Exclusion Act in, in the eighteen hundreds as well as the PAYGO Act prior to, are all things that are immigration acts that then sort of get int-get back into this narrative of, you know, you have to be good enough- 

Felecia Commodore: Mm-hmm … 

Katherine Cho: whether that’s to the local economy, whether that is, you know, that you are skilled enough or special enough, or you have to prove yourself sort of constantly in order to then be allowed into whether the US broadly or specifically in US higher education.

And that’s probably one of my big concerns is that how, this, this sort of historical context and framing even now shapes then the pressures that I think international students will also feel in terms of changing their majors, choosing their majors, and then making the most of their experience in ways that actually could be very detrimental.

And again, back to what Crystal was saying, right? Like really, is erasing the type of sense of belonging that they feel as well as that like… I think part of higher education is that we allow for students to have that type of discovery without having to prove themselves, and all of our immigration policies are sort of suggesting everything but that.

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm. Wow. I, I want, I wanna kind of dovetail both of those things and also expand because I think, Felicia and Leonard, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how this impacts the institutions. I know on my campus, enrollment and finances are tied to persistence and student success and certainly international student tuition.

 what should institutional leaders be paying attention to that might just– might not immediately show up in enrollment numbers but will have some downstream effects? 

Felecia Commodore: I’ll, I’ll jump in first, ’cause I just have a, a couple of quick things. I’ll try to be quick. I’m a yapper. But, I think, for institutions that have a critical mass of international students- Mm.

-I think you’re absolutely gonna see an impact quickly. and I… But I think it’s gonna be you’re gonna see certain populations, right? Because what we’re, what we’re kinda talking about is, especially with the new, with the, the new changes, is w- the students who will probably still persist are ones who were well-prepared.

Heather Shea: Mm. 

Felecia Commodore: Right? Like they’ve, they’ve thought kind of very intentionally about what they’re gonna do, how they’re gonna do it. And even though we know when they get here, things may change, so to Crystal’s point. but I think some of our international students who may be coming from, first-generation backgrounds or may not have the same level of preparation or even, supports may, may make a decision to, to wait or to not come in, in instances where they would have enrolled before.

So I think you’ll see that. But I also think, you know, enrollment, we often think about enrollment on the front end, and we don’t think about enrollment management- 

Katherine Cho: Mm. –

Felecia Commodore: as kind of the, the totality. one of the things that I think we’re already starting to see, particularly in grad programs- Sure … is how will recruitment change.

Mm-hmm. Who– what international students we market to, we go after, how that will shift and the, how, how that formula changes and, the amount of international students we are going to recruit at our institutions and our programs. And so that gets, I think, connects to Katherine’s point of now how, how are we saying policy and practice-wise, who belongs in our institutions or who doesn’t belong in our institutions, or who should have access to higher education and who should not.

And I, so I think that’s something to watch. And then I, I… One more thing. Excuse me. And I’m glad Katherine brought up, what we saw at, post nine eleven. 

Katherine Cho: Mm-hmm. 

Felecia Commodore: I’m telling my age, but I was a freshman who started right after, like a couple of weeks after nine eleven, and I can remember a significant amount of students who were supposed to be on my floor freshman year not being there because they were international students.

They were concerned with coming to the States. But we also look at what happened during that time was the Enron scandal, and we saw a lot of fiscal issue, people having financial issues. So we also saw a drop-off In students not coming to school ’cause their families couldn’t afford it. I want us to think about that in, in our current context because these changes are happening for international students at the same time we’re having economic issues within the States.

And so, we’re restricting one group, and we’re gonna probably see it impact in another group that we would im– that we would, stereotypically or hypothetically think would s- would supplement the loss- 

Katherine Cho: Yeah … 

Felecia Commodore: that isn’t going to be there. And so when we think about that and those two enrollment management conundrums coming together and how that will impact financials, fiscal policies, and institutions’ budgets, I think, we’re gonna see it, impact.

If it’s not immediate, it will be… it will trickle out when we start to see the enrollment management pipeline. 

Crystal Garcia: Yeah, I would just, 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: add a, add a couple, a couple things to the great, thoughts that have been shared. I think there’s some… You know, when I’m thinking about institutional leaders, you know, I’m gonna say the, I think what perhaps is even the most obvious thing, is money.

Katherine Cho: Mm-hmm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: particu- you know, we Like to gloss over often the ways that international students, are of value to institutions and which institutions- Yeah … have high populations of international students is often predicated on the institutional profile and institutional resources, right? So just to offer some nuance, we’re not talking about a uniform hit across the post-secondary landscape.

There were some institutions who, you know, were destinations for students, you know, coming from different countries. There were also some institutions who were intentional about seeking, enrollment for international students because they tend to pay a higher price, and can supplement, you know, other financial short, you know, shortfalls that might come from changes in, you know, state and federal aid.

Excuse me, state and federal funding. and, and so there’s a direct budgetary impact that, you know, this is going, going to have, you know, or has had, at many institutions. And there have been many, you know, many articles and op-eds that have, that have spoken to that. But I think it’s important to note too, that what’s happening at Harvard is not what’s happening at Tuskegee.

Felecia Commodore: Mm-hmm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: you know, and not to say that they don’t have, you know, negative consequences, but I think we, you know, sometimes homogenize higher education when we think about these broader issues and recognizing that international students who are navigating different campuses are also gonna have very different experiences depending on how, sophisticated the, the kind of immigration policy is- Right

you know, and the folks that are working on those, those campuses, and also the extent to which those campuses have the ability to lobby in ways that benefit them and their, their interests. So that, that’s one thing. the student success conversation is interesting because I don’t know that there’s a real mechanism for accountability i– when it comes to student success and the shift.

You know, so you have to think, you know, campuses, you know, performance-based funding, you know, budgets, all of those things are tied to a particular student being counted. And they– You know, and so it raises the question, are international students being counted in the same ways that will actually impact funding, right?

And I think that’s gonna vary state to state, institution to institution, you know. And so there might be… And, and this is not to suggest that, oh, well, campuses are gonna be fine. It’s just to say that I don’t think that we will actually know fully, you know, kind of what the impact of this will be on some of the, more granular aspects o-of students’ experiences, depending on, you know, un-unless campuses have very, intentional and explicit ways to capture and make visible international students in their data.

 which, you know, which brings,  another question around like, you know, accountability and, and what is their space for accountability or improved practice if we don’t have data systems that, you know, meaningfully attend to the experiences of, international students. and I’ll also just, add a little bit more to what Felicia brought up as far as graduate students.

You know, we also– I, I think that there are gonna be lots of institutions, particularly, you know, research i-institutions with high research profiles or investments, that are going to be navigating, both intellectual and labor shortages. because they are fun staffing– you know, researchers are staffing their labs, you know, often with, you know, a kind of a, a mixture of students, but many of which who, you know, are international students who are coming to work with that faculty member or are really interested in that institution.

And that’s gonna change the intel– the capacity that institutions have for knowledge production, the capacity that they have for advancing, you know, science, and the capacity that they have for delivering on existing agreements- Yes … and existing commitments, that have been made that, you know, graduate students, that are international, you know, their labor, their thoughts, their contributions have been, helping to advance.

So those are some other things that I think, you know, especially from a senior leader perspective, you know, are worth considering is, you know, one, what are the financial implications right away, right? Tuition enrollment. and then also what are the long-term implications for the research enterprise, for research inters- institutions es-especially, because much of that has been, you know, kind of meaningfully contributed to through recruitment efforts for, international students.

It doesn’t mean that every… that’s every research university, and it doesn’t mean that every academic program is gonna be struggling to find labor to support, you know, kind of the research projects that faculty have, but I think that’s gonna be, that’s gonna be a challenge as well. And then one, one more quick thing.

I think we also underestimate the extent to which intern folks, from folks who are, how these immigration issues will also affect faculty and staff- 

Katherine Cho: Yeah … 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: you know, who, who come from inter– you know, who come from, different countries or hold citizenship in other countries. I know that’s a conversation for another time.

Mm-hmm. But, you know, that, that’s an-another implication, right? Yes. Especially, in field, in career fields or at institutions that heavily rely on, faculty who, you know, come from overseas, to teach and train, you know, our graduate students. So I’ll, I’ll stop there. 

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm. So as I’m listening, to all of you, I’m also thinking about from the lens of the student affairs educator who, you know, is a second year or third year out of grad school, you know, has been supporting international students.

Like, what– any-anybody wanna kind of jump in on what would you say to them about how they can best support the students that they engage with every day right now, as the semester’s getting going and all of these changes are coming into effect?

Leonard Taylor, Jr: For, for me, I’d- I think one… 

Felecia Commodore: Go ahead … 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: I’d say communication. 

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm.

Leonard Taylor, Jr: You know, I currently, have several graduate students who are on visas, and some who were admitted, who have not been able to start, because of, you know, immigration challenges. And one of the things that has seemed at least to be reassuring is just having some open and regular access to communication to share updates back and forth around what’s happening and to help people Who are, who, you know, who are international students recognize that you are tuned into the conversation.

‘Cause they’re– sometimes it feels like there’s not much that anybody can do because there is not much that, that, you know, can be done, at our levels about the policy shifts. But there’s a lot of, interpersonal work and community building that can help to support students as they navigate these very challenging, and often or unforeseen, complications.

Heather Shea: For sure. 

Felecia Commodore: Yeah. I just wanted to add, and this connects to Leonard’s point about communication, just two things. I think one, it’s gonna sound kinda cliché, but like ask your students what they’re experiencing, what– be supportive. ‘Cause a situation like this that’s gonna look different from student to student based on, their different identities, their different backgrounds and things.

And I think sometimes, particularly with international students, we kinda do this broad stroke- 

Katherine Cho: Mm-hmm … 

Felecia Commodore: kind of approach, and this is a good time to kinda learn what their different situations are and how they can be supported. But the second goes to communication, particularly for folks who are in decentralized institutions.

 this is a good time for– to build some systems of communication that bring people together, across different, units, as opposed to these international students having to get messages from four or five different people, and who, who aren’t talking to each other. es-especially as these policies keep changing and moving, I think of myself as faculty, I, I am often waiting to get- 

Heather Shea: Mm.

Felecia Commodore: Information. I think this might be a time for, especially if you know you work with international students, to be proactive in figuring out who are the different units on campus I need to be tapped into, and us having conversations with each other before we start to– before I’m talking to the student, so that they don’t have to get– they, they run a lesser risk of getting a bunch of mixed messages or different messages.

 and I think on our campuses that have become more decentralized, we’ve become very comfortable with, “Well, this is what I know. You need to go to this person and talk to that person. You need to go to this person.” And they’re already dealing with a lot. so any, any way that we can on our end, as staff, as faculty, as administrators, kind of work more together, I think that would be helpful.

Heather Shea: That’s great. Thank you all so much. I’m gonna shift us to our second topic because it’s definitely related in, in lots of ways, and this one has to do with new federal borrowing limits for graduate and professional students and parents. So, there’s also been the elimination of the Grad Plus loan for newer borrowers.

 so as I was unpacking this topic, I really think that this is a, a signal in a larger shift in, our understanding of institution and higher ed value. and I think we’re often, we’re, we’re… You know, I was just in a meeting earlier today where we were talking about ROI, return on investment, and that we’re evaluating our institutions through earnings, employment, and other types of outcomes.

 I’m showing– It clearly tends to showing up in loan policy, accountability, and we’ll discuss this in a moment, accreditation. so Leonard, I wanna toss this to you first. So when you put this in context along performance funding, earnings measures, and this larger conversation about value, are we seeing a change in how policymakers are defining student success?

And what happens when the outcomes we can most easily measure become the outcomes we value most? 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: my first, my first thought is I hope so. because I think when we get to these moments that feel like certain challenges or restrictions or some language that people use as, like, a tax on higher education, we often, you know, hold tightly onto the things that we know, afraid of the things that we don’t know.

But before this moment, many people, you know, rallied against the econometric ways that higher education and performance-based funding policies have been mobilized. 

Katherine Cho: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: and so some could say if they do change, if they change in a, a, a particular, you know, way or val– you know, a-a-along different lines, that could be of benefit.

You know, or others, you know, if you put on your, like, you know, kinda old school policy hat, you know, it’s like, oh, this is a policy window, right? Like, there’s an opportunity for different players to enter the conversation and advocate for d-different types of change. I won’t go down that rabbit hole, but I think change itself is not the problem, from my view.

Felecia Commodore: Mm-hmm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: the other thing that I would say is similar to Katherine’s point earlier around just kind of like some historical trends, this is not new. Yeah. Higher education as a social institution and colleges, universities have, to an extent, always been instruments of the state. you know, they serve the public good, whatever that means, to whichever publics count, right?

 you know, but, you know, at various points throughout the history of higher education, you know, investments from, governments have always come with expectations. and so I don’t think, I don’t– So I don’t think that this is, as salacious, on the surface at least- 

Felecia Commodore: Mm-hmm …

Leonard Taylor, Jr: as it has been made to seem, when it comes to value.

I’ll say one more thing that might be a little bit inflammatory, and then I’ll try to offer something that is more, you know, on the nose. Um- The other thing is that, you know, a lot of the critics that are proponents of these restrictions are using higher education costs as- Mm-hmm …you know, a key part of their argument, which I agree with.

Higher education institutions are v-very expensive. And we can talk about- In the US. In the US. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. 

Crystal Garcia: Yeah.

Leonard Taylor, Jr: And, and we can talk about the conditions- 

Crystal Garcia: Mm-hmm …

Leonard Taylor, Jr: that institutions, leaders, and governance, gov– you know, and their governing kind of folks have had to navigate and perhaps why. you know, so this, to me, this is a broader reflection on the financial mechanism That makes higher education operate and the ways that when pushed toward and, you know, it pushed in one direction, you know, w- based on how it’s set up, it can be pushed, you know, in this, this kind of direction.

You know, so some people will say, “Yes, these programs need to be cheaper. You know, why did this program increase fifteen percent but, you know, its output or, you know,  budget did not increase fifteen percent? Where is that money going?” Right? There’s a lot of those types of things that I think regardless of political affiliation are important questions that the public wants to know about how higher education institutions are absorbing resources and using resources, and if the students who are attending those institutions or the communities that are surrounding those institutions actually benefit from, you know, kind of the revenue.

I will say that brings me to the broader point around value. what this reveals to me in some of the work that I’m doing is that how we think about value is flawed. 

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm.

Leonard Taylor, Jr: Right? It’s not which value we’re thinking about, because I think the broader challenge is like, “Oh, okay, well, we need to focus on the things that are less,” you know, the hard– I think, Rachel, or excuse me, Heather, you mentioned the hard to measure things.

Felecia Commodore: Yeah. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: and, and, you know, the default into the things that are easy to measure. One of the things with technology right now, with large language learning models, with AI, measurement does not mean the same thing now that it did ten years ago. and so there are lots of relatively easy or technol- technologically enabled ways to take unstructured data and translate it into insight, you know, that are, that make measure…

You know. So, so for me, it’s less about the specific measure and more about what is the mixture of measures that are most important to demonstrate, um- If higher education is valuable and to whom? Some, some ideas or examples related to that. You know, we like to rally, rally, and I’ve also been one of those people to rally against, you know, employment and earnings.

But the reality is there are people who are coming to college to get jobs and earn money. So that can never not be important, right? Now, the challenge is, at what level or what unit do we analyze that impact? Are we looking at the financial implications for one person? You know, in their choice, are we looking at the financial contributions of an institution to a local economy?

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Those are different ways to think about financial impact, and those are ways that we might consider how to be mindful about what it means to take financial, considerations into account. But the other things are, you know, colleges and universities are often the bigger em- biggest employers- 

Katherine Cho: Yeah

Leonard Taylor, Jr: in certain locales, right? And so when we think about value, it’s not just the students that are attending higher education institutions that get that value, it’s the people who are employed and the, the families who get health insurance, you know, vis-à-vis that employment. 

Heather Shea: Mm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: you know, and so, so anyway, I say all that to say I hope that the conversation around value is shifting.

I fear that it’s not shifting in the ways that would make valuations of higher education more democratic and transparent. 

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm.

Leonard Taylor, Jr: And, and that’s what I would, I guess, argue for, right? Like it’s how do we, take the value conversation and make it not just the one about how we transform students’ potential earnings and wellbeing over time, but how we think about these institutions as complex contributors to the health and wellbeing of society in a variety of ways, and how do we bring more people into the conversation and make their opinions matter in that conversation around whether or not colleges and universities are valuable.

Heather Shea: Yeah. I– This is a– The– I think this is a fascinating conversation. I’m gonna dial it into a very specific lane because I think, I think about graduate education, I think about the work that, you know, you all do in preparing future educators in student affairs. Katherine, can you talk a little bit about what does this mean for student affairs professionals or future faculty, who gets to enter these professions if financing increasingly determines access?

 and I, I know that depends a lot on the institution and how they structure their admissions and, and, graduate packages, but I think that this has some implications for our work as well. 

Katherine Cho: Yeah. This is, and it actually, it’s– it flows so well with what, Leonard was, was sharing, right? Because at the end of the day, you know, as much as I know I and probably so many of us in the field like to argue that education is more than a business, it is– we are, are still living in racial capitalism, right?

Like we are still existing in capitalism, and people have bills to pay, and people need to eat, and we buy food through money most of the times, right? un-unless you’re going to be farming or like, you know, there’s like other forms of eco-sustainability that’s not this podcast, but could be one in the future, right?

But, you know, something that I think about often as like A tension that I want to challenge higher education institutions to think about, right, is with the increased cost of higher education, and Heather, you’re absolutely right. It, packages especially for individuals who are going into higher education student affairs, it, it will vary institution by institution, but generally across the board, and this is one of the projects, myself and two of my students are working on, we have been tracking how the graduate assistantship policies have changed- Yeah.

-over the past five years. Yeah. And that has been a massive shift, right? and so what we’re seeing now is that there are more and more self-funded programs, right? As well as with the onset of COVID, more online programs. But all of those programs require more and more money then and less financial assistance.

So if we’re seeing that across the board, then colleges and universities for graduate school is becoming more and more expensive. And yet when you think about the entry level position that higher education institutions offer and what that pay is, it almost always will not match up to the loans that students are accruing, right?

Always. Yeah. And so some institutions might say like, well, you have tuition benefits and our employees can get a master’s degree for free as part of the tuition benefit. But then the other part of graduate student education that we don’t think about, right, is that graduate students are, yes, they’re students, but also they have aging elders and they have maybe children in their community.

They have full lives that they have for which loans are also help, helping to able subsidize, especially if they have requirements like internships, work study, or things that are tied to, the time that is both within and outside of the curricular requirements of their programs that are then part of the additional loans.

And so then what we’re seeing and what I imagine is that the students who are able to attend higher education or even like go into, let’s say like HESA specific programs for graduate school, are gonna be individuals who can afford it. And they’ll either afford it by taking predatory loans, which is deeply concerning, right?

 they will, um… I also expect that perhaps the average age of attendees is going to shift up because they might work to save more to then be able to subsidize their cost, right? because, um- Or, or we’ll see people do sort of second career pivots. Mm. so those are predictions I see of, which again, are part of people will enter or reenter higher education in a graduate school perspective, slightly older because they will have tried to accumulate more of those savings to offset the costs, none of which still combats the larger issue, which for me is the entry pay for entry or even just like the j- the pay f- and the salary, if you can even get a salary, right?

‘Cause more and more jobs are also turning to hourly and, and, hourly positions- Mm … is not enough to offset any of the loans that students are accruing. So then if we s-specifically think about future student affairs professionals, we are asking them to care about students at the cost of their financial freedom.

 and that’s, and, and that is, you know, I, I attended a conference this past weekend where they sort of… Well, they did talk about how the, the world of care and care work becomes a trap then. Mm. And we use this language that we care so much about students, and that’s why I wanna go into the field, knowing that going into the field means that you will have two decades of student loan debt.

And now with the loan forgiveness programs changing, right- Yep … what are we actually enabling or allowing for our students to do? And, and, and to be clear, right, like I think n- you know, the, the idea of like nobody goes into this field to make money is a very common sort of adage. And I also ask why are we allowing for that to be an adage, right?

Why are we allowing and saying that it’s okay for us to underpay students, or underpay, you know, first-time professionals? and I think that those are all things that, again, to Leonard’s point, right, are good things for us to be wrestling with and that we need to wrestle with. I wish the timing wasn’t right now, right?

But I do think that actually maybe it is good that the timing is now. Yeah. Right? But I think that those are, massive cliffs that we were– we needed to address anyway, and if this is the time to do it, then this is the time to do it. 

Heather Shea: Wow. my, my, br- my brain is kind of swimming right now- … with all of this because I think that, this has such huge implications for the field as well.

 and I’m, I’m also thinking about this kind of idea around what degrees are valuable, what degrees matter, which, who gets to decide. so Crystal and Felicia, I’d love to hear you kind of weigh in. where, when we think about the student, the institutional level, like who is most likely to experience consequences of these changes?

 I think we kind of are hearing that. and then what choices might institutions have to make if students can no longer, self-fund, right? Or finance the programs through loans in the same way. Krystal, do you want to kick us off? Yeah 

Crystal Garcia: Yeah, I’ll just hop in and, just say that that’s actually one of the things that, kind of worries me the most about all of this- Mm-hmm

is that I see a vision in which students who are coming from low-income families or who may not have the ability to fund their education outside of loans might be tracked into a, “You have to do this particular program or this particular type of work, otherwise you have no options,” essentially. you know, whenever I think about- we’ve talked about this in past episodes too- Yep

about those loan caps around particularly, like, law school, medical school. Like, we are essentially telling folks either, A, you don’t have that as an option for you for your future or, B, you’re gonna have to take on these predatory loans and make it happen some other way- Yeah … both of which are horrible outcomes.

 and so for me, I always think about historically when we look back at the history of higher education and the ways that access has always been limited, and to what end is always the question. Right. So for me, whenever I see, you know, loan changes, I would like to believe that those things are intended to protect the student solely with that in mind of, you know, making sure that these individuals have positive outlooks and outcomes, you know, post-graduation.

But I worry that the intentions are perhaps mixed, and have- will have that negative effect ultimately in framing who can do what and where and perhaps, really bolstering more of a working class and making sure that there are clear delineations between who is able to have these higher-paying jobs ultimately and who is not.

Felecia Commodore: Yeah. So I’ll jump in, and, I’ll preface with, I believe I’m the resident cynic of the Student Affairs NOW podcast. and- I’m coming 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: for your spot, Felicia. 

Felecia Commodore: I, I– It’s interesting to me the way I think we discuss, like, these changes and how it’s gonna affect what majors students are change. Did we not do the same thing?

Did the government not manipulate what majors students were changing when we dumped all this money into STEM twenty years ago, and we watched a bunch of students all of a sudden wanna become engineers and physicists and, and all these architects and things because schools had tons of money from the government to give out as aid and support.

So I don’t think it’s a new thing for the government to play with aid policies or to play with policies to, to funnel people into majors, particularly those who are sensitive to institutional costs. So I just think we kinda gotta be honest about that. And I think on the other side of that, too, with institutions, when you say, like, you offered the question, Heather, about like, well, what degrees will matter.

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm.

Felecia Commodore: Resource-strapped institutions have been making that decision since the dawn of time. They have had to constantly, due to their budget, revisit, are we gonna constrict programs? Are we gonna get rid of programs? you’ve seen some liberal arts institutions, I know in the last ten years, have gotten rid of things like philosophy, religious studies, and even religious affiliate institutions were like, we– it just doesn’t make sense for us financially.

So I, I, I think, and this ties back to or calls back to something Leonard said, like, I think institutions who have been resource-strapped have been navigating this conversation around what makes sense, what programs and majors make sense for us financially and fiscally, and what doesn’t. That has been already going on.

I think what we’re seeing is institutions who didn’t have to have those conversations before have now had to come into the conversation and aren’t quite prepared for how to navigate it. And I think that’s a little different than, like something new happening. in that, to that effect, 

Katherine Cho: um- 

Felecia Commodore: For those who don’t know, I have a undergraduate business degree, with a focus on marketing.

And one of the things we learned, particularly as marketing majors, was that the– one of the goals or tricks, I won’t say tricks, one of the strategies of marketing is that you create a… You, you make the consumer believe… You, like, create a need where there wasn’t one. 

Crystal Garcia: Mm. 

Felecia Commodore: And then you provide a product to meet the need that you created, right?

And I look– I– When I look at these policy changes To me, it’s creating an opening for more privatized loan pro-products. 

Katherine Cho: Mm. 

Felecia Commodore: Right? So, so I, I don’t think it’s so mu– I mean, there is an element ’cause we live in a, you know, racial capitalism, as Katherine shared, where we are restricting access. But I think that, I think we’re missing that there’s an opportunity for, privatized, m- loan options to come back in to being the first thing you go to before the f- the, the government-sponsored loans.

So we’re creating a gap to fill the gap, right? and so what does that mean? I think, I think that’s some of the question we need to wrestle with. are students, as Katherine said, gonna now be forced to have to take that option? 

Crystal Garcia: Yeah.

Felecia Commodore: and then who, who, who’s gonna be in that option? And I think lastly, in that same vein, thinking about how institutions will respond, that gap is also gonna create, um…

or the gap that’s gonna be created is going to, I think, make conver– make departments, make units, make institutions start to have conversations about private equity and corporate funding. Not just for the institution- Mm. But for programs. I, I joke with my students, I, I would not be shocked if we looked up one day and we’re in the Louis Vuitton College of Education, right?

Like I… There is now creating an opportunity for not just entrepreneurship, but partnering with private equity and corporate money in ways to support keeping enrollment up that we’re getting pushed to keep. And then the question then becomes: what are the strings that come with that? Does that mean we’re now creating a direct pipeline of a workforce because we took this money?

 do we now have to shift, like, our mission of our institution because we took this money or our program, right? We think about higher ed programs. You know, if, you know, EAB comes in and is like, “We’ll fund your College of Ed if you create a bunch of people who do this,” right? And I think that is what, we’re not…

I, I think we need to kinda in the same kinda both and think about students and, and how we’re restricting access, but think about What, what are the gaps that are being created, and how will institutions respond to filling those gaps? Because they will respond. Yeah. It’s just what will that look like. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: And, and if I could just add a piece to this- Sure

’cause I think this is really important. You know, again, these aren’t new things, right? Like, it’s just that the, the ways in which higher education institutions have leveraged philanthropy historically is becoming, you know, it’s the aperture is opening, you know, because scarcity is being manufactured.

‘Cause we already have a Kellogg School of this and a so-and-so school of that. We have scholarships that cur- come with particular stipulations based on what you major in and what your s- you know, stat… Like, the, you know, the, you know, the, the, this, these ties aren’t new, but I think Felicia said something that I think is really important that I wanna just kinda raise up, is that the people who are experiencing these things are new.

Yeah. And the institutions that are experiencing these things are new. And so I think, you know, not to, not to say that this is not a, a challenging moment or that people and their experiences aren’t hanging in the balance, but sometimes I think we get really comfortable at settling into victimhood, when the institutions, do things that they’ve always done, but it starts to affect us.

Crystal Garcia: Yeah. Mm-hmm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: or when, you know, institutions are starting to experience things that they have never experienced, but, you know, have been the case, experienced widely. And I think about that in the US and globally. For example, it is a very American thing to have choice in higher education. 

Heather Shea: Yes. Mm-hmm. Yes.

Leonard Taylor, Jr: You know, and, and I think, and, and I celebrate that. 

Katherine Cho: Sure. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: Right? But it’s one of those things that we also have to, I think, contend with, right? It’s like, well, how much of this, is A, a, us becoming, right, like, you know, more like other higher education institutions, in other countries or other systems that have already existed.

You know, I also think about choice, you know, choices, is contextual, right? And like, so, you know, being able to choose and having the ability or, you know, excuse me, having options and being able to choose are not always the same thing. But, but the other thing I’ll say and I’ll shut up is, higher education institutions, and I’ve, I– this is a hill that I’ve been, you know, kind of, I don’t know about fighting on for a long time.

 we, we have to contend with the imperialist, ethos of US higher education. Mm-hmm. True. 

Katherine Cho: Mm-hmm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: Higher education institutions and the landscape of higher ed have been proliferating, against logic for a number of years. Mm. We talk about enrollment cliff, right? Mm-hmm. Enrollment cliff would suggest that this is some unexpected danger that is about to befall us.

Yes. Right? But what we’ve seen in other countries who’ve had fluctuations- Mm-hmm … in their birth rates or whatever twenty years ago, they started with closing colleges- Yeah. Yeah … and programs and reducing 

Felecia Commodore: seats. Evolve at a 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: high curve. Right. Where in our society, we started diversifying our audiences and going after international students and trying to, like, broaden the aperture to keep these little economic microcosms going.

That’s a thing that I think we have to contend with, right? So again- Yeah … the fallout from a people standpoint, you know, I’m, I’m not trying to make excuse for that. People’s lives are definitely going to be affected negatively by these things, but we also have to be mindful that this is a, a, these are symptoms- Yes

of a broader issue- Okay … that we’re not necessarily talking about, and our strategies are not being equipped to treat. Mm. and if we don’t address these things, then we will find ourselves back here, you know, a hundred year later. m-much, much like the institutions who were around during the Spanish flu, found themselves in the exact same situation, you know, a hu- about a hundred years later with COVID and did not know what to do, a-as if the institution had not navigated this before.

Heather Shea: Yeah. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: so

Heather Shea: Yeah, really super interesting. I mean, I think, for me at least, like this really gets to this much broader conversation about who decides what higher education should value. which really brings us to our third topic, which, is Felicia’s favorite- 

Felecia Commodore: My jam … 

Heather Shea: returning, returning, topic. And there were major developments this summer around accreditation, so let me give the brief overview.

So in August, the Department of Ed proposed a significant overhaul of the accreditation system, and public comments are due later in September. The proposal would make it easier for new accreditors to gain recognition and for institutions to switch accreditors while putting greater emphasis on student outcomes and economic return to relate to our last topic.

 it also addresses accreditation standards related to discrimination, academic freedom, and intellectual diversity. so all of that’s pretty technical, but I think accreditation should help us determine what counts as institutional quality and ultimately connect institutions to federal aid. So underneath all of this, for me, is this larger question, like who gets to define what counts as a good college?

 so Felicia, give us the two-minute version. What’s changing, and why should somebody who’s working in student affairs listening to the podcast today care? 

Felecia Commodore: So, I would say the, the, the main changes, and I’ll preface with a lot of this language is very ambiguous. So- 

Heather Shea: Yeah … 

Felecia Commodore: so just keep that in mind.

 one is around, transfer credit and credit transfer denial. And so, institutions would now, if, if this policy change goes through, institutions will have to explain every credit transfer denial and why they denied the credit. And, that’s a big one, especially if you think about institutions like community colleges and, institutions that take on high transfer populations.

Mm. they have to ex– thoroughly evaluate the efficic- efficiency of all their spending and be able to explain all their spending. there’s also, as we already started to see the changes, but more emphasis on, prohibiting standards of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and being part of the evaluation process.

 attached to that is Care– more oversight, I’ll say, on ensuring intellectual diversity. Well, that is the, the language that is used, but ultimately what professors can teach or who– what, um- Mm-hmm … who, what professors are hired or faculty are hired, what’s being taught, what’s being offered, is it a diverse array of representations of ideology.

Crystal Garcia: Mm. 

Felecia Commodore: And then also there is that board members, so who are on these credit agen-agencies, wouldn’t be able to affec– to vote on any standards that would affect institutions where they work, and accreditors couldn’t partner with trade associations. So, and then kind of the overarching thing that this, the change that this sit, this sits within is that, using kind of business speak, they, there is a push to create, a open market or free market for- Mm-hmm

accrediting agencies. So very much like the wild, wild west creation of higher education, if you and your friends got together and decided you wanted to start an accrediting agency, they’re opening up the lane to, for that to happen. So, so we could go from having, what is it, the five or six regional accrediting bodies to as many accrediting bodies that are niche-focused and or just ideologically focused as we wanna, as the Department of Ed, if it still exists, affirms.

 and so that’s been, one of the big kinda shifts, and we’ve already seen groups of universities coming together and doing that. 

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm.

Felecia Commodore: and, so those are kind of the big changes that, that are being discussed. 

Heather Shea: Crystal, I’m gonna, move to you because I know you, you and I were pinging back and forth and messaging earlier around this topic, around, defining quality through measurable outcomes like completion, employment, and economic return.

Talk a little bit about who or what becomes invisible and whose knowledge gets to determine what quality means. And, you know, share with us that article, because we’ll definitely put that in the show notes too. 

Crystal Garcia: Yeah. Really quickly because I didn’t wanna pipe in earlier, but I just wanted a note on Felicia’s earlier point about the private, you know, companies coming in for student loans.

I literally just saw a commercial today that was like, “Apply for- applying for loans is really old process and difficult. Do this new way and apply in minutes.” And I just wondered what the other side of it, like what were those interest rates on this platform- Mm-hmm … that was being touted on this commercial that I was watching, and would students just hop straight to that as opposed to filling out their FAFSA first and seeing if they qualified for grants, et cetera- Mm

initially. So anyway, a whole other thing, right? Mm. But, on this note of who’s determining what that quality looks like, I mean, even as I heard Felicia just mention, you know, the opening of the floodgates for who wants to kind of establish an accrediting body, and that this would allegedly be overseen by, the Department of Education- Mm

when the Department of Education is being dismantled and is already stretched, and can’t even h- handle, you know, like civil rights oversight and, and other essential duties of the department I have a lot of concerns around what that quality will look like and who’s determining that and whether that is more politically driven than academically.

 which I mean, arguably you could say that that already ha- that poli- politics already has, influence on accreditation. But kind of pulling a specific example, Inside Higher Ed just from today, and I don’t know when the vote was actually scheduled, so this might have already been updated as of the time that we’re recording this.

 but the American Bar Association Accreditation Council was holding a special meeting today to vote on whether it will maintain the requirement for law schools to, quote, “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion.” So the interesting thing about that is that that requirement has been in effect for decades, and that special vote, is coming up just two weeks after the Department of Education recommended that ABA’s council was denied, federal recognition in part, and only a small part, because of that diversity criterion.

And when I say a small part, they actually released an 86-page report recommending, you know, that, that, ABA is denied federal recognition, and it only mentions the diversity standard in one of 29 sections. So it didn’t– it’s not like they made it this whole case of, look how woke that they’re being.

It was part of the bigger case against the ABA’s council. and that particular critique was really around how, the ABA responded, took action, didn’t, in their minds, soon enough after the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action in admissions. So obviously, that’s a whole other rabbit hole to explore.

But the bottom line is that this administration is really mixing into accreditation in arguably unprecedented ways, or at least overtly, into the accreditation process and influence. And there’s also questions of whether that change, was actually necessary, for example. So some folks are saying, well, it’s the law, right?

Folks who support repealing this diversity standard, you know, it’s the law. We should abide by it. We shouldn’t have diversity and inclusion as a consideration in admissions. But the way that it was worded wasn’t specific around admissions. It was a commitment to diversity and inclusion more broadly.

Yeah. And so if they vote to repeal it, what will that look like moving forward in terms of political influence on accreditation and just a mere suggestion that this could go against some form of law or at least a stretch of the law? And how quickly will these accrediting agencies change track? And then what will that look like in terms of student outcomes?

So Yeah. Felicia’s been talking about this for a long time, and now we’re seeing very real cases starting to unfold. Curious what others think too. 

Heather Shea: Yeah. Leonard, Katherine, what would you add?

Leonard Taylor, Jr: There are so many, I mean, there are so many, so many things. So, you know, one, what’s interesting about this current moment is that a lot of people are learning very quickly the intricacies of higher education that we know and study, but that even people who work at institutions don’t necessarily know intimately, right?

And now society is being put, you know, kind of to the test in this way.  i- you know, in, in true cynical fashion, I also wanna just acknowledge that accreditation is not perfect, nor has it been nonviolent. 

Katherine Cho: Mm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: and so, you know, there are already ways, for example, that certain institutions, historically Black colleges as an example, have had to pursue alternative pathways to accreditation because of- Mm.

-restrictive standards that are beyond, you know, perhaps the capacity, you know, of a particular institution, institution to, to meet at a, in within a particular period of time. Not to say that the standards are bad, but just to say that n- they’re not always realistic for all of the institutions. Mm.

You know, so, so I don’t want to pretend that accreditation as we know it, has, been unstained in its role in higher education. 

Heather Shea: Mm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: And so I think that this raises some important questions on what ways we hold people accountable, hold institutions, accountable to understandings and perspectives on quality.

And this is also not a new conversation. I think, you know, I think back to, you know, the ’80s and ’90s when a lot of the accountability movement emerged in public policy, when it stopped being, when it be- you know, post-civil rights kind of,  moment it became less about access, and more about accountability, you know?

Mm. you know, we can rehash that in all types of ways, but, I think the fact of the matter i-i-is that we have to grapple with what e- quality means. 

Katherine Cho: Yep. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: And who is being attacked, so to speak, when these things come up? you know, and so, and, and not to, not to dismiss those attacks or dismiss those movements, but just to be more precise and more kind of pinpointed and focused, right?

So a lot of the accreditation conversation has implications first on federal financial aid. 

Felecia Commodore: Yeah. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: You know, and it becomes an institutional thing, right? Like what, if a school goes from accredited to accredited, you know- Right … accredited to non-accredited overnight, you know, students’ learning didn’t shift.

 you know, and, and depending on their major, their job prospects might not have shifted either, right? Mm-hmm. But what has shifted is institutional, you know, what those institutions are eligible for, so on and so forth. So, so one of the things I think about when it comes to this conversation is just being really particular about, like, not necessarily that the things are being conflated, but being clear about, like, where the fallout lives- Mm-hmm

when we think about some of these, implications, because that helps us to be more precise in how we address those issues. and then more specifically, and I really love this, you know, kind of, what this conversation does open when it comes to, when it comes to quality, though, because, what we also know is a s- you know, for, that the standards and expectations that are held, by certain accreditors are not always fielded equally across those institutions or, or experienced, uniformly based on the students that are at those institutions, right?

Like, not everybody gets the same type of quality out of an educational experience. And so I think that really starts to raise some questions on what’s possible when it comes to, you know, kind of beating this horse, what, demo- more democratic ways we can think about how we evaluate quality, what is possible when we think about how transparent we are about those,  evaluations of quality because many people at institutions have no idea how accreditation processes actually- Yes

work and operate. Yes. and there’s a lot of complexity there that is just beyond, you know, common knowledge, you know. But a lot of people will say, “Oh, well these co- these schools need to be held accountable because they’re using taxpayer dollars, and taxpayers don’t know how they’re being held accountable and to which standards.”

Mm-hmm. 

Felecia Commodore: So

Leonard Taylor, Jr: then it raises the question, though, of well, what does this opportunity afford us when it comes to thinking differently about how the folks whose, you know, tax revenue, if we stay in that line of thinking, is,  supporting these institutions and what they care about from a, a quality perspective.

Again, that’s a, that’s another rabbit hole that we can go down. But, I would just say that I think it’s interesting to see how These, you know, weird little foibles that we’ve come so, we’ve become so knowledgeable about in our kind of higher ed silos have become, you know, kinda common conversation. But I’m excited about the fact that these things that have been so shrouded in, you know, and tucked away in institutional knowledge are becoming more broader discourses, and I’m hoping to see more people take up these conversations in ways that help us understand what power we do have to, you know, guide the future of higher education at the institutional level and also at the social institution level.

Katherine Cho: Yeah. 

Felecia Commodore: I have to– Oh, oh, sorry, Katherine. I didn’t mean to cut you. 

Katherine Cho: Oh, no. Please go ahead. 

Felecia Commodore: Okay. I just wanted to jump in because,  I, I think it is also important to note I’ve been, peeping my head in on different conversations and presentations from the Under Secretary of Higher Ed around these proposed changes.

Mm-hmm. that one Ev-everybody’s not against the changes, right? Like there’s, there’s a number of institutional leaders who are like, “Yeah, we– this system and this process is garbage, and we need to change it.” So, so there is actually a, a chunk of the sector who wants to, to talk about changing the accreditation process.

And so they see this as an opportunity to change how we’ve been doing things. Because if we’re honest, there are some problematic processes involved with accrediting, or accreditation review. second, though a lot of this is framed around quality assurance and accountability, in a number of presentations I’ve sat in, there’s also this framing, that I think is very intentional and kind of savvy around we’re, we’re changing this to give you choice, and we’re changing this to, to cut out all the red tape, to, to make this a more streamlined, simplified process.

 literally sat in a presentation where someone said, “I don’t– We shouldn’t care how many books are in your library. That doesn’t really matter.” And, you know, that created a lot of furry in the chat about the importance of libraries. But, but I think that, it’s important to think about how this is being framed to institutional leaders, as well.

So, and, and I think, there is a portion of folks who can see the dangers, but I do think there is, a, a, a portion or a sector that’s like, “This, this is a great opportunity for us to create an accrediting agency specifically for our sector, specifically to meet our needs. this is an opportunity to change this antiquated process.”

 and, and some people do feel like it’s monopolized. and so this gives people more entry points and, and particularly institutions that don’t have as much political power, within the higher education ecosystem. Some of them are seeing this as an opportunity for them to come together and galvanize and, and create some power space.

Katherine Cho: Yeah. I, I love the opportunity of what this could be and simultaneously, right? And I feel like this is one of the threads, that- That, ties all, all three issues together and, and, Felicia already said it actually ear– in, in I think like one of the earlier, like issue areas, but like this is more along the lines of the growing privatization of higher education, right?

And so even to Leonard’s point about like, you know, if people are saying, “Where are my taxpayer dollars going?” And, you know, this was something I, I didn’t cover at the beginning, right? But like, you know, taxpayer dollars have increasingly not been going towards higher education. So if you think about the federal and even state funding, from– if you compare the seventies to now, the financial investments are completely different.

And so that’s also part of the reason why some cities had to pivot towards, you know, recruiting students internationally and all these other sort of different mechanisms that I feel like accreditation and the, and, and the changes that it offers is opening up further privatization of it, right? which, for me is also then a question of, um…

And a concern I have, and this is something we ta– we’ve, as a program chair now in higher education, and in school of ed, we– where we don’t have department chairs, so we, we tend to be in a lot of different discourses, right? We have been talking a lot about the impact of accreditation and its relationship to licensing, and then licensing and its relationship to students being able to get jobs.

And so there’s other questions then of if accreditation changes, who is directing and how are license, licensing then being able to then navigate that, which will actually create more red tape because now we don’t– now we have data discontinuity, now we have data inconsistency, and we don’t really have– Well, we have the Department of Ed, in all the ways that Crystal beautifully outlined, right?

 and all the changes that are undergoing, but they probably don’t have the capacity to direct licensure offices how to handle the data discredit– sorry, handle all of the accreditation changes. But then also, as you know, and we’ve seen this since like the eighties, right? The increasing sort of like alt degrees, like tech certification systems.

Like how would that then contribute to accreditation for which now part of what– And this is,  I, I don’t know, the, the resident pessimist is probably the best way to describe me, that like the doom and gloom of it all is like And then from accreditation, we’ll go to, well, we don’t need colleges, and then this is the beginning of the end, right?

 that part of these conversations are leaning towards, right? Because part of the other ethos that we know is that higher education Is imperfect, and I think for many of us, we’re, we’re arguing that it’s still worth saving, that I’m worried that so much of the changes in policies are actually trying to push that it’s not worth saving, right?

Um- Mm-hmm. And this is sort of a slow drain to ensure that it will not get saved. Um. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: And, and I’m, I’m gonna just– I, I love, I love this point and this line of, line of thought. And, and I, and I wanna just also, you know, offer this kind of in addition to that very real and kind of sobering moment. you know, the thing that I’ve been sitting with recently is, how beholden we’ve come, we’ve become to higher education, knowing the ways that learning has existed outside of higher education, especially in fugitive ways, right?

And so I go back to Black studies as an example. 

Felecia Commodore: Mm-hmm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: You know, is, is that, you know, we see right now across the country, you know, a, a kind of retrenchment of institutional commitments to Black study, and that is raising alarm. Mm. You know, you will also find a number of Black studies scholars who will say, “Well, institutionalization was the death of, you know, Black studies in a particular way,” more especially, you know, it’s more activist commitments.

 and, and so there, there’s something I think worth sitting with across these conversations around higher education is what, you know, what are we talking about when it comes to… And Felicia and I actually wrote an article about, like, are we, you know, how are we having a conversation about higher education as a social institution, about higher education as a organizational field, about college, universities, and other organizations that constitute higher education, and education and college-going as a cultural practice?

 because none of those things are learning. And learning is the one thing that is associate– Learning and development are the things that I think are associated with, like, human flourishing and thriving. You know, a-and we do know, right? Like, and it is a good bet, right? That going to college, you know, gets you the opportunity to learn and develop.

But, you know, the death and the, the apocalyptic me, um- … says even if all of this stuff goes away, I need to make sure that learning and development are still something that is accomplishable, you know, that is possible. I recognize that that is probably on the chopping block for the folks who perhaps want higher education to go away as well, so I’m not trying to dismiss that, you know.

But, but I think that, I think that, that there’s a tension that we have to hold, as we try to preserve what is, not to believe that preservation is our only pathway to success. 

Felecia Commodore: Mm-hmm. And, and I just wanted to a- you know, I could go on and on about this. I did wanna– ’cause, I know you had the question of like what student affairs like practitioners and folks should think about, and I wanted to say kinda two things to think about, and they’re connected.

 one of the things we’re seeing now because of this push to change the system and open up the market, is that the existing, accrediting agencies are kinda getting hyperactive. and they are starting to really interrogate institutions in ways that we– at, at levels, I should say, that we haven’t seen so broadly.

Certain sectors have been experiencing this for quite some time, but if you kinda pay attention, we’re seeing more kind of, show cause reports coming. We’re seeing more sanctions. We’re, um– And it, it, um… There is a discussion that this is kind of the, current existing regional accrediting agencies kinda trying to make sure they get picked for the, for the dance.

Like they, that they’re actually trying to show like, “No, no, we really are doing our job.” So I think that folks who are working at institutions need to be aware that that’s gonna have a trickle-down effect- 

Crystal Garcia: Mm-hmm … 

Felecia Commodore: on kind of processes, policies, edicts coming down from on high about what staff folks, what administrators are gonna be required to do, what programs are gonna be required to evaluate and reevaluate and update, data that you’re gonna have to collect, data that they don’t want you to collect.

Like, I think all of this, is gonna have a direct impact on kinda every day, the people who do the day-to-day work on the ground because the institutional leaders are becoming very aware that there’s becoming a hyperactivity by the, accrediting agencies and increased scrutiny. and so I think that’s something that, those who are working on campuses need to be aware of.

Katherine Cho: And I think– sorry, just to add really quickly, because this was, I’m so glad that Felicia brought this up ’cause the other– the last part of this that I’m really concerned about, right, is the fatigue and the burnout that’s hap– that’s already been in well in existence, right? But if we are switching accreditation institutions sort of left and right, let’s say like by whimsy, right?

Leonard Taylor, Jr: Yeah. 

Katherine Cho: The people on– the staff on the grounds who have to then process the paperwork for this or loo-learn new systems, and admittedly, I’m, I’m a little grumpy about this because we just changed our, our research grant system, and now we are changing our, learning module system, right? And like the amount of change that people are experiencing that again feels like it’s not just a waterfall or hurricane of federal policies.

The trickle-down effect is that it has been a hurricane of nonstop new systems that I would argue is also part of the engineered exhaustion. 

Heather Shea: Yeah. 

Katherine Cho: Right?

Heather Shea: Yeah. 

Katherine Cho: People are too tired to be like, okay, let’s- Let’s just try to survive another week. Let’s just try to survive this next policy system versus, I think, the strategic coordination that’s needed to then think about this strate– strategic coordination to think about this strategically doesn’t make sense, but, you know.

But to think about this actively, that’s really hard when, you know, the people who are sort of, who are in the positions and forced in the positions to make all of, and enact all of these changes left and right are not the w- individuals who then have the ability to explain, like, how difficult it is to manage and run your programs while also then trying to address all of their accreditation for it.

 and, and I think that that labor is also going to disproportionately f-fall on colleges that are already underfunded. Yeah. Staff who are already overworked- Yeah … who are then going to leave, and then those universities and colleges have the policies that are like, “If you leave, we are trying to cut budgets, so we will not hire to replace.”

And now we are just contributing more and more to the burnout of staff. And so, and, and staff who are, many of whom are student affairs professionals, right? that, I just wanted to sort of, also re-reoffer another downer, I suppose. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: Well, well, but I think it’s, I think you’re, you’re, it’s an important downer because it also becomes an opportunity.

There are lots of ways that colleges and universities are stretched thin because they’ve had to spread themselves thin in order to catch- Mm-hmm … as much resources as they can. And I think what we’re starting to see now is that for the colleges and universities that, are very clear in their mission and, and very, focused, and organized around that mission, even if the, the road is not, easier for them, the pa– the, the path is clearer.

Heather Shea: Mm-hmm.

Leonard Taylor, Jr: And I think that there are a lot of schools right now that are trying to make, people at institutions who are trying to make tough decisions on how to navigate. And I think there are other folks, to Felicia’s earlier point, who, you know, have only survived because they’ve been so focused on achieving- Mm-hmm

you know, their particular mission. And I think it’s, it’s gonna be an interesting opportunity at the institutional level for administrators, leaders, educators to really think about, you know, outside of what everybody is telling us we value or we should value. 

Felecia Commodore: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: What do I value as an educator?

What do we value as a unit? What’s our mission as an institution? And How do we continue to enact and deve– and, and, and pursue, those things amidst this climate? it, you know, it becomes a opportunity. Again, I don’t, I just, it’s, it’s a sad… In, in some ways it’s a sad opportunity, but it is, an opportunity.

Heather Shea: With that, I’m going to take us to our final thoughts. I– This, I love having more voices, more perspectives. Thank you so much, to all of you for joining the conversation today. part of why I was really excited about expanding our, expert correspondent pool is because I know you all are watching certain things maybe on the horizon or things that are keeping you up at night.

 so I’m gonna keep returning to this maybe each episode. so before we wrap up, I’d love to hear as we begin this academic year, what is one issue, trend, data point, court, court case, policy development, or campus dynamic that you’re watching that you think the rest of us in student affairs should be watching too?

 so just briefly, what is one topic that w-we need to be paying attention to moving forward? Leonard, I’m gonna start with you. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: I’m gonna say AI. 

Heather Shea: Mm. 

Leonard Taylor, Jr: because that, you know, that tends to be where everybody starts this conversation. But I’ll say AI from a different, a different, reason. people are– campuses are widely trying to figure out what their AI strategies are and come up with all of these stu– you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Mm-hmm. AI has the potential, in some ways, to be a technology that practitioners use to alleviate some of the burden that they’ve absorbed- Mm-hmm … over time, when it comes to all of the administrative work and labor. I don’t have an answer to that, but this was the first time in a long time where I was like, “Oh, this actually ma-might make, you know, entry-level practitioners work easier.”

Mm-hmm. or at least more manageable. and there are lots of ethical issues surrounding it, so this is not me, you know, saying, you know,  this is not a pro-AI statement as much as it is a, I think that there’s an opportunity for us to think about labor, of practitioners as we think about AI- Mm-hmm

and if there are opportunities to streamline or make their experiences more manageable. 

Heather Shea: Definitely a topic of conversation for a future episode and, and one that we have a couple of other episodes in the works around as well, so really fascinating. Katherine, what’s something you’re watching? 

Katherine Cho: Yeah. it actually was, already sort of named, earlier as Leonard was sharing, but, you know, I live in Chicago, and, Northwestern right now is debating, closing.

Actually, not even debating. They have decided, right, to close, the first, Black studies program, in, in the US. Mm-hmm. An eighty-year legacy program. Mm-hmm. and so I think it’s really important, and this has been an ongoing conversation, right? since ethnic studies was created, right? But, the– I think that there has been a continuous, weaponization of enrollment, and lack of enrollment- Mm.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm … consolidation and erasure

and closure of ethnic studies programs across the US. and so one of my projects has been tracking that, but I think that the uptick in that and, the, the ways that, again, I think our, our current administration is weaponizing that is something to be keeping very close eyes on, and especially, the, the closure of what I would consider like juggernaut programs, right?

Programs that have incredible history, and so there are these legacy programs that are being, particularly attacked in this moment. 

Heather Shea: Hmm. Yeah, definitely something to k- to keep track of broadly, yeah. Crystal, what are you watching? 

Crystal Garcia: Yeah. For me, I, there’s so many things, right? But one thing that’s at top of mind right now is the lawsuit that was brought by the AAUP and a group of faculty- Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm … against A&M, um- Yeah … for their academic censorship policy, you know, around pertaining to discussions and limiting those around gender, sexual identity, and race. And I’m just really curious to kind of see how this unfolds, particularly within a conservative state, to see, you know, what are the protections that the faculty members may see, or what will this look like for the future of, higher education as a, a, a place of restricted teaching or not, you know?

Or to what extent, I guess. and again, just always thinking about the ramifications and, how that will kind of trickle over to what is possible for other states. And as Leonard kind of mentioned earlier, if it is the case that those parameters continue to exist, what other spaces might we continue to create and dream of and think of outside of academia?

All right. Thanks, Crystal. Definitely on the, on the radar, too. Felicia 

Felecia Commodore: Yeah. So I think trying to think of, like, the umbrella term for what I’m looking at, and I guess it would be, state, state legislatures and their behaviors. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I, am really interested in seeing how, different states are not only approaching their investments in higher education, especially or divestment from higher education- Mm-hmm

 especially in response to the Big Beautiful Bill finally being enacted. 

Crystal Garcia: Mm-hmm. 

Felecia Commodore: I think that’s gonna be important to watch, but also how states are codifying their relationship with their higher education institutions. So whether that is, limiting or affirming academic freedom, we’re seeing, you know, the, the,  uh…

What’s the word I’m looking for? Not demolition. That’s not what I mean. But the- 

Heather Shea: Dismantling. 

Felecia Commodore: Dismantling of faculty senates, the- 

Katherine Cho: Mm-hmm … 

Felecia Commodore: the, the increased,  involvement in presidential selection and hirings, even down to accreditation. We’re seeing states now even codifying who you can go to for an accreditor or that you have to change every year or every two years.

So I just think, um– And also board appointments and how they’re codifying that. I, I’m really interested in seeing which states, how each state is gonna move as far as legislating their relationship with higher education and what that will signal to the sector about how different states or different regions may feel about higher education being a public good or a private good.

Katherine Cho: Mm. 

Felecia Commodore: and married with that, the impact of midterm elections. So I think, yeah, I, I’m really interested in seeing how these state legislatures are about to behave in this next upcoming session. 

Heather Shea: Yeah, midterm elections is definitely on my list of topics. I think it has such an interesting ripple effect, that and affordability and, you know, what does all of this mean for, for our institutions and those of us who work inside them?

 thank you to all of you for sharing that. I think that will be, you know, something that we’ll keep coming back to, right? Because I think predictions and observations, bring us together and also kind of give us that, like, what’s the canary in the coal mine or whatever that saying is. so thank you all for your con- contributions.

I think that today’s conversation really made me consider, you know, which is what we’re going to kind of title this episode, who gets to decide who gets in, who pays, who decides what quality means. And, you know, as I think about that, it really does kind of come back to this personal level. Higher education and student affairs, is where policy becomes personal for us and for our students.

 Crystal, Felicia, Leonard, Katherine, thanks for helping make sense of this moment. as I mentioned at the beginning, they’re joining a larger group. we will be announcing the full details of our entire lineup soon. and to stay in the loop, if you haven’t already subscribed, you can get all of our episodes delivered directly to your inbox via our Student Affairs NOW newsletter every Wednesday.

You can d– visit studentaffairsnow.com, to browse our full archive, including every episode, past episode of Current Campus Context. As always, thank you for listening, watching. Thank you to our viewers for being a part of this learning community. I’m Heather Shea. We’ll be back next month to make sense of what’s changing across higher education, what it means for students, the communities we serve.

Until then, take good care.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2026/07/16/trump-administrations-new-rule-will-limit-foreign-students-four-year-stays

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/international-students-us/2026/08/24/international-student-rule-already-spurring

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-obscure-rules-change-that-could-drive-more-foreign-students-away

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2026/04/21/5-charts-showing-impact-new-grad-loan-caps

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2026/09/04/why-ny-republican-taking-grad-student-loan-caps

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/accreditation/2026/08/26/3-key-changes-trumps-new-accreditation-rule

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/the-trump-agenda/the-education-departments-proposed-overhaul-of-accreditation-is-here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2026/08/21/trump-administration-attacks-bar-associations-power-accredit-law-schools

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/diversity/race-ethnicity/2026/09/08/aba-council-votes-long-contested-diversity-standard