Will Trump’s ‘Compact’ End Autonomy in Higher Ed?

Electric Kite ad read

Erin Hennessy

Hello and welcome to the Trusted Voices Podcast. I’m Erin Hennessy, alongside Teresa Valerio Parrot, and in each episode we discuss the latest news and biggest issues facing higher education leaders through a communications lens. For these conversations, we’re often joined by a guest who shares their own experiences and perspectives, but we also make time for one-on-one conversations about what we’re seeing, hearing, and thinking. Trusted Voices is produced by Volt, the go-to news source for higher ed leaders and decision-makers. Remember to visit Volt at Voltedu.com and subscribe to Trusted Voices on Apple podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts to make sure you never miss an episode.

I am super excited to welcome all of our listeners to this episode of Trusted Voices. We have, you’ll notice, dispensed with our usual format because we are doing a crossover episode today with our colleagues and friends Scott Schneider and Eric Kelderman, who are the hosts of Volt’s newest podcast, which is called Campus Docket. As you can imagine from that title, this podcast really looks at the legal side of issues facing higher education. So we’re talking about court decisions, policy shifts, and some of the cases that are really shaping the future of colleges and universities. So we were super excited to bring them together and talk about the higher education compact that has been offered by the Trump administration to at first a subset of institutions has now gone broad. And so we’re not going to do our usual back and forth at the beginning of this episode. I will just tell you that Eric Kelderman is a reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, and he covers a real range of issues focused on power, governance, politics, and money. The big four, I guess you could call them. And Scott Schneider is an attorney, the founder of Schneider Education and Employment Law. He previously worked at several large national law firms and also served as in-house counsel at Tulane. So you will hear our conversation. Teresa and I had a great time with Scott and Eric, and we’ll look forward to having you back for our next episode in just a couple of weeks. Here we go.

Starting off with a bang. As we just told you, we’re so excited to welcome Eric Kelderman and Scott Schneider of the Campus Docket podcast on Volt. I’m very excited that we’re no longer the baby of the Volt podcast family. We are now grizzled veterans and these two can get hazed by the Volt team and by their fellow podcast hosts. Thank you both for joining us.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

But Erin, does this make us Jan? Does this make us Jan?

Erin Hennessy 

It’s possible.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Or as I’m going to start to think about it, we’re now the Charlie’s Angels. That’s another way to think about it, because there’s three of us. Right? Because I refuse to be Jan.

Scott D. Schneider 

I often get confused with Farrah Fawcett. So yeah, it’s so weird that you would bring that up. So there, yes. Anyway, good to see you all.

Erin Hennessy 

It’s the flowing locks. It’s the flowing locks. So the reason that we invited these gentlemen and scholars to join us on Trusted Voices is because we think their podcast should absolutely be in the feed of all of the folks who are listening to us because of the regular and close intersection of communications, leadership, and legal issues. And so we decided that bringing us together around the topic of the Trump administration’s higher education compact would be useful and entertaining for us at the very least and useful for our listeners. So here we are. And I think it’s important that we timestamp this episode because things are changing so quickly today, as we record, it’s the 23rd of October and at current we have seven or eight institutions that have said thanks but no thanks, two that have said something, and two that no one has heard from. Is my count right, gentlemen?

Eric Kelderman 

I think it’s seven nos and one radio silence from the University of Texas at Austin and then Vanderbilt, yeah, hook and horns, and Vanderbilt is not saying much, but they’re saying we aren’t rejecting it, we’re submitting comments. We’ll leave the comments.

Erin Hennessy

And WashU said the same, right?

Eric Kelderman 

Yeah, more or less, yeah.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

WashU kind of said beige.

Erin Hennessy

Yes. yes. Okay. So Eric, that’s sort of the current state of play. Can you just do a real quick primer for folks who have been occupied with other things this week and last week? What is the compact? What is it attempting to do? Do we think, and anything else you feel like folks need to know sort of foundationally going into this conversation?

Eric Kelderman 

Yeah, so I’ll tell you what’s been reported. And I phrase it that way because it’s not entirely clear to me what any of this actually means when you start to think about it in terms of a regulatory structure or, you know, making this operational. And I’ll get into that, but more or less, you know, the Trump administration has been seeking to reshape the relationship between higher education and the administration in a variety of ways. Some of them quite punitive as we know because they’ve gone after say Columbia and Harvard and some other institutions over allegations of Title VI violations, anti-Semitism, civil rights laws, breaking civil rights laws. This is sort of the latest thing and so last week-ish the administration sent this offer of some sort to nine institutions saying if you’ll agree to these conditions, we will provide you some sort of preference in accessing federal money. Now, it’s not entirely clear if that means, does that mean federal student aid? Does that only apply to research grants? We don’t really know what any of this means in terms of like, how would it actually work, right? But it covers things like requires the institution to adopt the administration’s view on using race in admissions and using standardized test scores for admissions, having something called ensuring that there’s civil discourse or intellectual diversity on campus, whatever that means. Non-discrimination of faculty and administrative hiring, institutional neutrality, so the institution doesn’t issue any statements that would, I guess, take a partisan or political viewpoint on issues that aren’t directly related to the campus operation. A bunch of stuff like that, right? 

Erin Hennessy 

Right, tuition freeze, right?

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Right. Tuition free.

Eric Kelderman

Things like that. And then you have to agree that you will certify your compliance annually. I guess this is sort of like the post-Enron sort of thing for corporations. So that’s it. And again, I think the big question is, there’s really very little definition of what this means. How much would this actually apply? Like standardized test scores, most schools, most of the nation’s college universities don’t use standardized test scores for admissions, right? 

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Right. And with a specific test provider, right?

Eric Kelderman 

That’s sort of more or less where we’re at. And then when it became clear that maybe a lot of institutions weren’t keen to jump on board, the Trump administration apparently said, well, anybody can sign on to this. Nobody that we know of has, although I’ve recently read reports that lawmakers in Iowa and a former regent there who is now joining the administration is urging the regents universities in Iowa, there’s three of them to join, but nobody said yes is the bottom line.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

So I do have a question, and I know we’ll also get the legal side from Scott as well, but one of the questions that I continue to have is that we have all of these things that happen with the administration. And then time passes, and then they start to have legal questions, and they shift back. And then they move forward, and then they shift back. Sometimes with lawsuits, sometimes with the realization that there isn’t legal standing, knowing that lawsuits can be different from legal standing, right?

If institutions do adopt this, it’s going to have to take resolutions, which will be hard to then reverse. And if they are found not to be legal or to have lawsuits that claw them back, the institutions will have already codified this. That’s different, right? So the institutions may have already bitten off more than they can chew, which will be different than if there is a legal action or decision or motion, something that moves it forward on the legal side, that’s different than the governance side. So as the institutions, if they decide to move forward on this, that has different kind of ramifications and different steps that would take unwinding should they decide to move forward. So I know Erin wants to talk about what’s the legal side of this, but it’s tricky and complex should anybody want to move forward because it’s not as simple as what’s the legal side. Scott, that’s for you. 

Scott D. Schneider 

Well, yeah, can I say a few things too on, we’re just going to riff for a little while. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Yeah.

Erin Hennessy

Yeah

Scott D. Schneider

I’m old, right? 

Erin Hennessy 

I mean, you said it. I’m not going to disagree with you.

Scott D. Schneider

I think my kids make it plain all the time. It’s so, part of this is just so unusual and it’s reflective of kind of a complete political realignment. You know, I think historically, you know, at least as long as there’s been a Department of Education, the Republican take has always been we have deep unease about the marriage and involvement of Washington, DC and sort of influence over institutions. And, you know, that was almost too, by the way, part of the first Trump administration. That’s one of the most interesting political pivots is that now it’s conservatives. You’re talking about like in Iowa, but certainly in Washington, DC. At the end of the day, this compact would be one of the most remarkable federal interventions in the operation of both private and public institutions of higher education and history. And that pivot is hard to process. The other thing I think about with this, and there’s a lot of questions, I don’t think it’s going to go very far, primarily because I don’t know what the carrot really is at this point, right? It’s not clear to me what benefit a school gets from, like, tangible benefit to the institution.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

It’s, in theory though, do you think it’s that the pushback could end? They don’t say that it will end, but it could end. Also you might get access to these nebulous dollars, right? So it’s, it’s great. And it’s gray, right? But is that enough?

Scott D. Schneider 

Yeah, maybe so. But the thing I just, when I said I’m old at the beginning, it’s to reflect the way I feel right now because I feel old and tired. It’s also to go, wow, this is weird. But to also be mindful. You know, I suspect the Trump administration won’t last forever. I don’t know. I mean, maybe it’s an open question, but are all these conservative institutions, and my politics are pretty boring, who are going, hey, or in Iowa, hey, this is a great idea, really going to go, wow, this was the dumbest idea ever when you get another federal administration: President AOC, or whatever. So there’s a lot of these just really weird, the politics of this is very odd.

This is completely unprecedented. I also find at least some of the kind of principled pushback about no, grant funding should go. I thought the whole idea here is we’re trying to bring merit that’s so important. Grant funding should flow to the top researchers and it shouldn’t be political, but this really convenient willingness to really marry yourself as an institution to the federal government in this sort of like really profound and difficult to untangle way, which you were just referring to. My hunch is, you know, that’s probably not a good idea now. And it certainly is the political winds change very dramatically. A lot of these schools, I suspect, are really going to regret that decision if, again, nobody at this point has signed on to this.

Erin Hennessy 

I’m going to be fascinated to see if on November 20th, there is this event at the White House where we, institutions then sign this compact. If no one is going to say yes, who’s showing up at that event?

Scott D. Schneider 

I didn’t get the invite. I likely will not be there, although I will be, I think, in Washington that week for talking at NACUA. 

Erin Hennessy 

Well, you should just tip on over and see if they’ve got an extra seat. I just, you know, I’m fascinated and we can get to this later by the shift in tone where we went at Harvard, we went at Columbia, we went at Brown, we went at UVA to force these settlements. And then we flip to, we’re inviting you to participate in a conversation and come to the White House and we’ll have an event and you’ll sign this compact and it’ll be great.

And the tonal shift is sort of boggling to me. And I don’t know what the strategy is behind it, but I also wonder what happens when they get to November 18th and somebody’s ironing the bunting and setting up the flags, but there’s nobody there to sign this thing.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Well, and I’ve spent a lot of time in the last two weeks thinking about this. And what I would say is there’s two things that really strike me. Erin, you and I talked about that Atlantic article where someone leaked that what should have been a president’s only conversation. And it is not surprising to me that some of those institutions that said, hey, maybe we need to think about this a little bit differently and be more friendly towards the administration got an invitation.

And some of that beige language that I was talking about earlier, some of those institutions are in that beige range. And there’s a real reason for that, right? And so this didn’t just come out of nowhere. The Easter bunny didn’t just hop over and drop some eggs. There’s a, I’m just saying. So I think we need to…

Erin Hennessy 

Mixed metaphors, but go with it.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

I’m mixing all my metaphors today and I’m gonna keep going with them. But I think there is something here, that the administration is, here we go, reading the tea leaves. They’re listening to what’s going on and trying to figure out who could we have as partners, especially those with political and social capital within the industry. So that’s one part of it. And the second part of this is, I’ve really been thinking about, is this when we have a new form of shared governance? Is this when we’re completely blowing up the model of shared governance and redefining it as Scott was just talking about, with the federal government having a little bit of a slice within shared governance? Are we redefining what that looks like? Because that’s what this sounds like to me. The federal government is inserting itself as a new partner and player within what could be a new form of shared governance. Is it what we’ve always talked about and used? No, but this really could be what they’re proposing for the future because they are determining components of what has been shared governance-type elements and components. And others, if you have a pie and somebody new comes in and takes a slice of that pie, it means others get less of a piece of that pie. And what does that mean moving forward for those institutions, for the relationships among those who have had the relationships and for the transparency and the honesty on campuses for who has traditionally been a part of shared governance?

Eric Kelderman 

Can I, I want to jump in here for just a little bit, which is I think as we discussed this within the newsroom, we really saw this as another attempt by the administration to divide and conquer. The Trump administration has been very strategic about driving wedges between groups and, you know, thinking back to the Atlantic article when Vanderbilt and WashU were posited against some of the other highly selective institutions.

It may be that that, like Teresa says, that may have created the appearance of a wedge that they could exploit. And as we thought about this, we thought, well, if anybody signs on to this and there are real intangible benefits, then somebody is going to sue, right? And some judge at some point, they’re going to go to the first circuit or whatever, and they’re gonna get a favorable ruling, and that’s gonna create a lot of hard feelings because now there’s people who signed up said, we wanna access this, and this other group of institutions, this elitist group is saying no to us. So I think there was an opportunity that the Trump administration saw to push its agenda by creating a wedge within the sector. And I think that may have, I don’t know about motive here, but you could certainly see that playing out in that sense. And also I think it’s just the reality that the other methods that the administration was using to try and get universities to come to heel have not been very labor intensive, very labor and time intensive, and not super successful with the exception of Columbia.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Right.

Scott D. Schneider 

Which was the dumbest, Eric, which was the dumbest agreement…

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Yes.

Scott D. Schneider 

…in the history…

Erin Hennessy 

of agreements.

Scott D. Schneider 

…of 70 years of the relationship between the federal government and higher education. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Amen.

Scott D. Schneider 

And I said that at the time, I will continue to say that. That agreement made absolutely no sense. And the folks, I understand the, you know, whatever they signed off on it, but my hunch is history is not going to judge, both short-term history and long-term history is not going to judge that agreement kindly. There, I know you can’t say that, I can say that. Now I won’t get invited to NACUA.

Erin Hennessy

Now you’re not going to get invited to Columbia either.

Scott D. Schneider

Bummer.

Erin Hennessy 

Okay, so let’s go back a click. Is something like this enforceable? I mean, I know there’s reporting language in there, but legally, is this an enforceable compact?

Scott D. Schneider

Yeah, I don’t, and I’ve looked at at least the draft. I don’t know. I mean, that’s the whole thing. I mean, you know, they’re talking about preferential treatment funding. It’s not clear to me what that is. And so, you know, the expectations around institutions, by the way, some of which are really clear, some of which aren’t, I think are outlined. What you get in return is not clear. So in that sense, the obligations are kind of locked in. The administration or the government’s obligations are very amorphous. So in that sense, it’s kind of a one-way obligation. Look, can we just take a, I want to take a step back. And I feel it, I’m in Texas and, you know, we’ve been in the middle of this, I think Texas and Florida for probably the last decade or so. I mean, there is, you talk about what the agenda of the administration is and some of this is good politics. I mean, maybe it’s, you know, cool to beat up on higher ed.

But there’s also this sense, and you hear this from folks like Chris Rufo, he heard this from JD Vance prior when he was running for Senator of Ohio, that higher education had become kind of an institution, an American institution that had been captured by the left and had excluded conservative voices. And I think to the extent that you look at what is the goal ultimately of both the work at Columbia, the compact, other things that I think the administration is contemplating, the ideas in part to shift the ideological composition of institutions of higher education. You know, I think that’s one goal.

I think Teresa was making a really interesting point. And we’ve seen this play itself out in Texas around the shared governance models. And I think, historically, when you talk about higher education and how they’re operated, just so that folks know, I mean, faculty for a long time had a fairly significant role in the governance of institutions. And one of the criticisms from AAUP, and this has been a criticism for like 20 years, has been the erosion of the role of faculty. Well, here in Texas, I mean, we basically pass legislation that applies to public institutions that say, your faculty senate’s cute, that’s really fun, you can have them, but they’re not gonna have any authority.

So think part of it, you know we talk about goals. I think it’s number one, the sense that there was ideological capture among institutions of higher education. And we need to change that because these are influential institutions. And number two, we want to take, especially at publics, faculty out and have politicians exercise more influence over the operations of an institution. And I feel that by the way, in a profound way in Texas, where you look at places like Texas Tech, where there’s a state senator who’s now the head, the comptrollers, the head of Texas A&M. I know Jim Davis, I like Jim Davis. He’s the new president at the University of Texas. Yeah, there’s a lot of, need to change who has influence in setting policy within institutions.

Eric Kelderman 

And just to point out here that the irony in a sense is that much of the criticism about selective institutions is coming from people who have graduate degrees or degrees in graduate degrees from those institutions, right? Ron DeSantis, right? Christopher Rufo went to Georgetown as an undergraduate and Harvard Extension. You know, these folks are familiar with those institutions because they attended them. They were there and so that I always find fascinating, a fascinating element of…

Scott D. Schneider 

Stephen Miller went to Duke and Duke may be in the crosshairs because of that.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

As a board officer, I very much believe that it’s not as much about the legality because I think they’re looking at this and they’re saying it will get challenged at some point. It will get rolled back. And that was the basis of my question. So instead, if you have the institutions adopt this, they’re going to have to have the boards themselves adopt this within the institutions, which means that you will need to have a majority of the board moving forward disagree with what these adoptions are to roll them back. So if you get the institutions to say, yes, we will do this, they are going to have a series of board resolutions for each of these. So it doesn’t matter if there’s a lawsuit. It doesn’t matter if there’s a change in administration. What is going to need to happen is that you will need to have a majority of the board that says they no longer agree with what the terms of this agreement was for things like admissions, for things like this nebulous policy on freedom of expression and whatever they’re saying this is, for the different elements associated, not with the funding part because that’s a whole different thing, but for these other compliance, if you will, elements. And that is going to need a shift in the board to a different type of majority and board action to change that. So in some ways, if the administration gets any board to agree, it’s inconsequential to them if the law says you can’t do this because they will already have a victory.

Eric Kelderman 

But then you’ve removed the carrot, and there’s no benefit.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

They already have the victory for that institution until a board change in numbers. And for some of these states and for some of these boards that is going to perhaps not be in our lifetimes.

Erin Hennessy

Well, and it’s going to be fascinating to watch the election in Virginia next week and two weeks from now, whatever. The people who are smarter than I am are prognosticating what the outcome is. It’ll be really interesting to see what happens with board appointments under what most people assume is going to be a Democratic governor following the Youngkin term. And it’ll be interesting to see, right now there are two public institutions that have board members who were appointed by Youngkin who are senior leaders at ACTA. And it’ll be interesting to see, you know, we’re talking about politics coming into an ideological approach is coming into the boardroom. What will happen under a democratic administration? What appointments will be made? And to your point, Teresa, if a board agrees to this thing, it’s sort of the…I’m interested in the short-term play versus the long-term play because in three and a half years, maybe we’ll have another Republican administration. Maybe we’ll have a Democratic administration. Maybe we’ll have a Republican administration with a different take on higher ed altogether. But we’ve, to your point, opened the door and invited a federal government in.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

To the table to set policy.

Erin Hennessy 

And we will then start to see the swing, I think, even more significantly between we’re going to start to see politics play an even larger role in the boardroom as institutions and as administrations and as state governments try and navigate this swing. We’ve said yes to the federal government but sometimes that’s a democratic administration, sometimes that’s a republican administration, and how do we navigate this to make it ideologically aligned and, I don’t want to say profitable, but beneficial for our institution.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Well, I’ve told people for years, I was board officer for a publicly elected board in Colorado. 

Erin Hennessy

Which is bananas.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

And I told people for years, yes, that’s what I’ve been telling people. It was, it was a thing. And there are, last I counted, 17 boards like that across the country. People need to look to those boards to see what that looked like, because we’re seeing more and more political activity, public education, and all of higher education has always been political. And we need to be thinking about what that looks like more and more because the politicalization of higher education is only increasing. What can we learn from what that looks like and what will that mean in the future? Because there is opportunity for that to be a positive and there are many ways in which we are not making the most of what those opportunities can also mean.

Scott D. Schneider 

One of the interesting things you said a second ago, and again, I’ve done this for a long time and so over a quarter of a century, I’ve kind of seen the shift.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

You really are focusing on your age today, Scott. 

Erin Hennessy 

Yeah, what happened, man?

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Yeah. Go ahead.

Scott D. Schneider 

Friggin’ old, man. What are you want? There are various parts of my body where the check engine light is coming on. So one of the interesting things, you all were alluding to this, and I think by the way it finds itself in the Columbia resolution, is 25 years ago, if you were to look at the board of a private university. I mean, it was a real mix of folks in the community, folks that had some kind of stake or understanding about how higher education institutions work and what made them special and what were red lines. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

It was more fundraising and social capital.

Scott D. Schneider

Yeah, and now what has happened is presidents have put on boards, disproportionately people who are very wealthy and for good reason. At the end of the day, like I’ve been part of presidential searches and the primary criterion is what kind of fundraiser is this person? So, I mean, I understand that’s an important part, but that’s one thing. The composition of boards has changed so that it’s really heavy on folks who are very wealthy. Obviously, I think more right of center than certainly, you know, historically where those boards have been. And this is the interesting part. I have found over the last two to three years, especially in private institutions, board members coming in and saying, we want to have a say on day-to-day operational decisions. We want to be, you know, intervening more. And by the way, on political boards, it’s always been the case. I mean, you can go back to the 50s and 60s. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Yes. Yes.

Scott D. Schneider 

It was always that way. But that’s the difference in privates. My hunch is, by the way, that’s how you end up with the deal you end up with at Columbia, which was some influential conservative board members who are probably deeply uncomfortable with the handling of the protests and all that sort of stuff. But that’s one of the interesting, like you talk about kind of a reduced role for faculty, an increased role for politicians and the government, but also a kind of oversized role for boards of trustees in a way that I think is historically, especially for private, historically unprecedented.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

I will say I don’t think it’s historically unprecedented. Do I have a dissertation for you to read? Erin’s going to die because I bring this up all the time. My dissertation was on intercollegiate athletics. And I talked exactly about this because historically, if they had a pet project, Scott, it was going to be about athletics. But now where I’m seeing the shift, so I talk about this a lot, I’m seeing the shift that it’s not just about athletics. So we let them in for that to be their pet project and we allowed them to dabble with that as the pet project, but that opened the door. As soon as you let them have a space that they can control, a space where they are able to influence things like who the coach can be…

Erin Hennessy

And sign off on that overreach.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

…and sign off on that overreach of who the coach can be. If we’re going to get this AD, should we be going after this specific player, right? And then we have the collectives and we have all of these other things. We have allowed for the dabbling in the day-to-day business. And this is an entry point to then say, well, what about the rest of the institution? And this is for publics and for privates, right? So when you open up Pandora’s box, it’s not just this one piece. You’re opening up the box for the operations of the institution. It’s not just this cute little thing that they may like because it’s all of it.

Campus Docket ad read

Eric Kelderman 

I’d like to, since we have the professionals here in the room with us, I’m going to ask a question from the institutional side now, if you’re at one of these universities, if you’re on the comms team at one of these universities, and you get one of these invitations, what’s your play? What’s your strategy? We’ve seen a wide range of communication strategies from radio silence at UT to one of the flagships actually offered reporters an off the record conversation with the president of the institution after the meeting with the White House. There was nothing substantive that came out of that, I can tell you. Secondhand, I did not participate, but one of my colleagues did. So I’d like to hear about, you know, Teresa and Erin, tell us about what, is there a right way to do this, a wrong way to do this? What do you see?

Erin Hennessy 

So interestingly, I was in a room with a bunch of college and university presidents the afternoon after the Trump administration expanded this opportunity and invitation to all institutions. And there was a lot of consternation. There was a lot of consternation. There was a lot of, I don’t want to say resignation, but an understanding that this was sort of a point where they were going to have to have a conversation with their board and the board came up a lot to figure out what the way forward was. And I think what we’ve seen in the letters that are out there is that, and I’ll let Teresa layer onto this, every one of these presidents who has declined has written a letter that is addressed to Linda McMahon, but is attempting to speak to an enormous number of audiences beyond Secretary McMahon. Both, you know, if you’re thinking about it as a ladder, both up the ladder, because you have to think about President Trump’s reaction. And then, throughout the rest of their community, whether it’s donors, it’s the board, it’s faculty, it’s students, it’s state legislators, it’s your governor, it’s your peer institutions, it’s your aspirational institutions. They are writing to so many people. And I think that’s why you see some of these letters being a little fuzzy in places. But they’re following advice that I think Teresa and I would have given them, which was ground this in values…

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Yes.

Erin Hennessy

…and ground this in mission…

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Yes.

Erin Hennessy

…and ground this in the way that you have always positioned yourself as an institution. I thought MIT’s letter was really good. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot

I agree.

Erin Hennessy

And I thought the Dartmouth president’s letter was fascinating because it was about six sentences long. There’s a lot of analysis to do there. They are rich texts. But I think the institutions that have said no have done it about as well as they possibly could for the most part. Teresa, do you agree?

Teresa Valerio Parrot

I do. I think it’s really hard. Well, it’s really easy to be a Monday quarterback. It’s really easy. It’s really hard to be the person who is making these decisions and to be in it. And this is one of those moments where I would say presidents earn their paycheck and where they have to start to delegate because this is one of those moments where they are writing this message to so many different audiences and they have to use their team to start with the cascading communications out to their own campus so that they understand where this is coming from and what it means for the individuals on their campus. Because every single president who received one of those letters basically had something nailed to the front door of the campus, if such a thing existed, saying you were on notice and we are scaring the bejesus out of your campus.

So how do you start to put together a communication that says, we’ve got you, we’ve got this, and we’ve got the next steps, and people don’t feel as if everything is going to hell in a handbasket, right? And that’s where you really need to lean on your people to help your students understand, we’re working not to sell you out. The faculty, we’re working not to sell you out. The people on your campus, we’re working not to sell you out. If your message is, we’re rooting this in values and we’re rooting this in mission. So all of that has to be communicated on the ground level as well as in your letter, if that’s your message. And I thought that they did a great job. And I’ve been kind of peeking around and seeing what’s going on on social and listening to see what others are saying. And I haven’t seen an uproar of this is what they’re saying and this is different than what I’m feeling that would suggest that they haven’t been doing the retail therapy of telling their campuses, we’re working to make sure that we have you. And that’s a lot of work in a very short time span when they didn’t know that they would be getting a notice that says, basically, we’re offering you a golden ticket that you don’t know if it’s really gold or if it’s gold plated like the White House these days.

Eric Kelderman 

And then what’s the, I know that comms offices and universities now collaborate extensively usually with the general counsel’s office on some of these issues. So what’s the interplay here, Scott, between, you know, if you’re a GC at one of these campuses and the PR team.

Scott D. Schneider 

It’s so weird. That’s the NACUA talk I’m doing in November. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

And I’m not there? Erin’s not there? Scott, our feelings are hurt.

Scott D. Schneider

Yeah, I didn’t pick the panel. They just, come jibber jabber for an hour. Yeah, I don’t know. It’s a good question. Look, I think right now so much of the advice you’re giving clients or I’m giving clients, I hate to say this is let’s just keep our head down.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Yes.

Scott D. Schneider

You know, I mean, we don’t want to draw too much attention to ourselves and so from a risk management standpoint, it’s about the communication pieces. How do we assuage these various constituencies without at the same time, like poking an eye at the Trump administration so that they go, aha, we’re coming after you. Then it’s just kind of the advice and counsel to the client is, hey having set the politics aside, which I know is easier said than done, like what are we committing to here, right?

And what are the real benefits. And there was this great quote, I’ll have to find it. I do, Teresa, a lot of athletics work as well, which I find fascinating. And I was really interested in this Big Ten Enterprises thing. And I kind of had a sense of where I thought this was going to go. But there was this great quote from a University of Michigan board member, and I’m trying to find it really quick. And I said, I’m going to use this for every training I do on a go forward for leadership. It’s the job, and this was for the board, it’s the job of the board to protect the future from the present. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot

I love that.

Scott D. Schneider 

I loved it and I was like, man, that’s so good. And it’s, you know, having a sense of on top of, this in the moment, this is what we were talking about earlier, there might be some benefits, but in five or 10 years from now, we need to think about that because there will be a five or 10 years from now. And as a leader of an institution, you have this fiduciary obligation to protect the future of the institution as well. So it’s all of that kind of gumbo of ideas. But from a legal standpoint, I’m just like, hey, look, this is, my preference would be to not have this administration paying too much attention to us right now. And by the way, look, I mean, in that way, it’s really not unique. I mean, it’s unique and it’s not. I mean, when we were going through, during the Obama administration, the real, you know we’ve talked about this a lot, Eric, the Title IX, you know, and Catherine Lhamon, it was, know, hey, we want to put out a press release saying we’re the greatest at this. You go, at least one constituency, but I guarantee you, someone will say you’re not the greatest at this, it’ll get to the administration. You know, some of it’s just, hey, set boundaries, align with mission. And by the way, a lot of this has been really good for leadership to start really thinking about what are the principles? 

Erin Hennessy

Mm-hmm.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Yes.

Scott D. Schneider 

What are the red lines? And that’s a healthy exercise. But really the chief risk management issue is I just don’t want to get on the administration’s radar.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

And we’ve put together some really good frameworks for administrations right now that are rooted in their mission, that are rooted in their values, that are not just about statements, but instead are about decision-making that then end in statements. Because we hear this quite often, and that is we need a statement. And really, they’re focused on the communications at the end, and they’re actually in the decision-making stage. So how do we actually start with the decision and make the right decision based on mission and values?

And then the communication flows very easily, but it’s the decision that’s the important part. And that’s where Scott and I or Erin and Scott or right that communications and legal part usually meet. And, and I can say this having worked with Scott before we’re 99% of the time on the same page. It’s usually more of a comma. I like Oxford commas. So there we go. It’s not about the decision. It’s about the edges, because we’re on the same page, which is what is in the best interest of the institution, short and long term, but more importantly, long term, right? And working through what that looks like so that the emotions are peeled back, but the mission is front and center and the students are front and center.

Scott D. Schneider 

Yeah, and as counsel, look, that’s, you know, I have the short term best interest of the school in mind, but it’s like, I don’t want to suggest I’m good, but I think a good, a good counsel in this case has that wisdom to be able to say it’s not just now, but it’s what is the institution about, what are our values, and will this align with our values both in the short term and the long term? It’s to be a voice for the culture of the institution.

Erin Hennessy 

Can I throw one last observation out there? Looking at all of these letters and Eric, tell me if I’m wrong. They were all signed by presidents. 

Eric Kelderman

I believe so, yeah.

Erin Hennessy 

And I didn’t see any that were jointly signed by the president and the board chair or just by the board chair. And I think that’s interesting.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Were they all addressed to the president? Is that why?

Erin Hennessy

Probably.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

From a protocol standpoint, that might just be the easy answer.

Erin Hennessy

Yeah, I just, I think there’s a spot for the board there, you know? I mean, this is overreach into management, definitely, but it’s also overreach into governance. And if it is, you know, the beginning of a governance shift, I just think it’s interesting that boards have not been publicly out there.

Eric Kelderman 

That makes sense to me on a lot of levels. When I think about the typical role of the board member, I’m sure board members have been engaged behind the scenes in a ton of different ways, right, conferring with the president, but also reaching out to their own connections. And I’m sure a lot of the board members of these institutions know people at very high levels. I’m sure there was a ton of communication there.

But it makes sense to me to just have the president sign it and have the board members stick to more sort of behind the scenes roles. I think it’s a great observation. And I think if the institutions are to weather this successfully, boards will have to be engaged deeply in pushing back in  resisting this effort, but I think, but maybe not publicly, yeah.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

And I think it aligns with the advice that we always give, keep it at the level at which it needs to be addressed. 

Erin Hennessy

Yeah…

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

And so for that reason, kudos to the institutions for not raising it to the board level if it was addressed at the president level.

Eric Kelderman 

And by the way, if there are board members listening to this that want to talk about their efforts, you can reach me on Signal.

Erin Hennessy 

I’m just not sure there’s like a bigger shot at the heart of what we do than this.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

I would not have let my board chair sign it. I would not. I would have jumped in front of that pen and I would have knocked the pen out of her hand. I truly would have.

Erin Hennessy 

Mm.

Eric Kelderman 

And to Teresa’s point, thinking of the University of Virginia situation. If you’re a board member and you’re thinking about protecting the future against the president, sadly, you let Jim Ryan go. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Yeah.

Erin Hennessy 

Yeah.

Eric Kelderman 

And Jim Ryan knows that as well. And then you get an agreement that may not make anybody happy, but in reality is probably a lot less punitive than it might have been had he stayed on principle. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Well, and as we always say, Erin, if a board chair signs this, you just signaled to everybody that you have a weak president. Congratulations.

Erin Hennessy 

Well, yeah, or a joint signature. Because it’s also, if you did a joint signature, it’s a way to signal there’s no daylight between us. And so you can’t go over my head as the president and try and peel off, Eric, to your earlier point, my buddies, my pals who might be on the board showing that we’re in lockstep, I think also sends a message that could be useful.

Eric Kelderman 

Do you then make the board chair the target rather than the president though by signing on?

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Then that’s one target, right? Because unless you have the whole board signed, the whole board would have signed that had been one, but you’re not gonna have for some of these institutions, the entire board agreeing with the decision. I can guarantee it some of these institutions and you’re not gonna get full signatures. You have the full board, then you have all of them serving as a target. If you just have the board chair, you have a target. And also I think you have the diminishment of the president. I would have slapped that pen out of the board chair’s hand.

Erin Hennessy

Well, I think it shows that…

Teresa Valerio Parrot

And really, I am an optimist Pollyanna. I really am.

Erin Hennessy

I think what it shows is that there are, I was talking to somebody about a different situation, but there are enough parallels this morning. There are so many options and none of them are great. And there are so many ways that all of these decisions can be read and parsed and analyzed. And it’s just a real strange time to be trying to do this work and this business.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Well, it goes back to our theme from the spring, and I think that it applies now. So I’m going to say it again. You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. So choose your damning wisely. And that’s where we are now in October and November.

Scott D. Schneider 

Has UT shipped in on this yet? Eric?

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Not yet.

Erin Hennessy 

Not since the board member got way out in front the day it was released, right?

Scott D. Schneider 

What do you think, Eric? What’s gonna happen?

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Should we take a bet? I’m kidding.

Erin Hennessy 

You know, like at the end of Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me, they say, what are we talking about next week? We can say…

Scott D. Schneider 

I’ll chip in. Can I chip in for a second? 

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Ha ha ha, yes.

Scott D. Schneider

Yeah, because I’m in Austin and I teach in the law school, only as an adjunct. 

Eric Kelderman 

Not for much longer maybe.

Scott D. Schneider

Yeah, no, I don’t know. That’s the funny thing is I just speak my mind and somebody goes, Governor Abbott, can you believe you’ve got this professor at UT? I’m like, I’m going to get fired. So it’s interesting, you know? I think UT, we’ve talked about this before, UT was the institution defending the use of affirmative action in admissions in the Fisher case. What was it, like 15 years ago or 10 years ago? And, you know, they had a successful outcome in that. There’s no way that that would happen today, right? There’s been a huge political shift. So that sort of underscores, by the way, how quickly politics can change within an institution. It’s been really fascinating to watch, in addition to that, sort of the leadership changes at UT.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Mm-hmm.

Scott D. Schneider 

Jim Davis is someone I know, I like, a friend. I have an enormous, very, very smart, you know, but Jim does not have, and I think a lot of people view this as probably a, not a bug, but a feature. He doesn’t have that sort of robust academic background within higher education.

And, you know, I mean, came from, I don’t view Jim as a culture warrior, but did come from Ken Paxton’s attorney general office. And you all did mention the board member who had said, hey, you know, we’re entertaining this. It wouldn’t shock me to see UT because of, you know, the influence of politicians on the academic enterprise, which is especially profound right now, not just at UT, but at other public institutions in Texas come to some sort of an agreement. I will say, just from what I’m monitoring on social media, and it’s to the point Teresa was making about all the different constituencies, I think alums of UT and faculty members at UT will be if, let’s assume, there is some agreement in that regard, and I don’t know if it will, but the fact that they haven’t said anything makes me go, well, maybe they’re working on something. There will be, obviously, a lot of upset and outrage over that. But it’s a really interesting time. I was reading this article at The Chronicle about the president at, the now former president at Texas A&M, and kind of his downfall was that he had all of these different constituencies that he was trying to appease. And you couldn’t. It was impossible. And so we may be in this moment, like especially at public institutions in Texas, where you have to have as a leader sort of a real clear-eyed understanding of which constituency it is that’s truly important here.

Erin Hennessy 

Mm-hmm.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Yes.

Scott D. Schneider 

You know, if it’s making the state politicians, if that’s the real constituency here…

Eric Kelderman 

And a generous separation agreement.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Well, and Scott also that’s that’s leadership though, right? Leadership is you have to prioritize who you’re communicating with, who you are working with and who you’re appeasing. And that is the job. You can’t always be liked and you can’t always please everybody. And that is a real shift for leaders to understand is that making everybody happy, appeasing everybody isn’t always possible. And sometimes you’re going for the elegant solution, which is to make the most people happy and more importantly, going back to what we talked about, to serving mission and making sure that you’re aligning with values while also meeting the needs of the most possible. And that may not mean that you keep your job. That may mean that you serve the institution.

Scott D. Schneider 

It’ll be interesting to see what happens. Again, I just want to be clear, zero insider information, just watching from afar. And there’s been a lot of turnover in the provost office, really brilliant. They have a new…

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Can you imagine that SMU’s president Jay Hartzell has to just be going to sleep and sleeping like a baby, right?

Scott D. Schneider 

I have a pretty good sense that that’s probably true.

Erin Hennessy 

For a variety of reasons.

Scott D. Schneider 

Yeah, no public records request is a big one, but not having Greg Abbott on the hotline.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Right? SMU alum right here. Go Mustangs.

Erin Hennessy 

Yeah.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Right? Proud SMU alum.

Erin Hennessy

Pony up. Okay. Go Ranger Bears. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Go Mustangs.

Erin Hennessy

That’s yeah. We’ve taken a lot of your time gentlemen, and we really appreciate the ability to just have a free ranging conversation about this topic. It’ll be interesting to know what we know when this episode drops and see how this story continues to unfold.

Eric Kelderman 

Thanks, great being with you! Great talking with you again.

Scott D. Schneider 

There’s no lighthearted ending where you ask us, hey, what are you doing this weekend?

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Hey, what are you doing this weekend?

Erin Hennessy 

Old man.

Scott D. Schneider

Hey, man.

Erin Hennessy 

Hey man.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

He’s going to the senior center and he’s gonna get some butterscotch pudding.

Erin Hennessy 

re-upping his his supply of worthers

Scott D. Schneider 

Hey, we’re gonna see music. So in Austin, it’s the greatest music scene in the world. And Friday, Eric, we’re gonna go see Heartless Bastards.

Eric Kelderman

Nice!

Erin Hennessy 

There’s our explicit rating.

Scott D. Schneider 

They are so fantastic. I recommend them to everyone. Austin-based band, one of my favorites, so good. And then Saturday, we’re going to the greatest, one of my favorite places on planet Earth, which is C-Boys on South Congress to go listen to a band that I am totally in love with. They’re called ¿Qiensave? and they’re from Mexico and they are amazing. 

Eric Kelderman 

Awesome.

Eric Kelderman 

I might drink some alcohol there.

Eric Kelderman

I think there’s about 110% chance of that.

Erin Hennessy

We’ll put links to that in the show notes, give people some music. I will also be seeing live music this weekend in another great music city called Nashville, Tennessee, at the greatest place to see live music, the Ryman Auditorium. So…

Scott D. Schneider

Awesome. Who are you seeing?

Teresa Valerio Parrot

Who are you seeing and why? 

Erin Hennessy 

I am seeing my very favorite band in the entire world, Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit, and I will be celebrating my [mumbles] birthday.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Her birthday! Happy birthday, Erin!

Erin Hennessy 

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Eric, what are you doing?

Eric Kelderman 

I’m gonna be recuperating. Last weekend was my son’s wedding. It was a weekend of joy and fun. There were alpacas at the reception. 

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

That’s my dream!

Eric Kelderman 

So that was great. It was beautiful event, really lovely. And this weekend, just catching up on life and gonna play a little baseball on Sunday.

Erin Hennessy 

There you go. And Teresa Parrott?

Teresa Valerio Parrot

I will be at The Honest Eye of Pissarro’s Impressionism opening tomorrow night for the Denver Art Museum. It is their fundraising gala, so I will get spiffied up and will be at the Denver Art Museum’s opening of the Pizarro exhibit. So everybody please support the arts.

Eric Kelderman 

Wow, that’s fancy.

Erin Hennessy 

There we go. There’s your lighthearted ending, friends.

Teresa Valerio Parrot 

Yes, everybody go support family music and arts in our honor.

Erin Hennessy 

And drink an alcohol if that is a thing you like to do.

Teresa Valerio Parrot

With llamas.

Thank you for joining us for this episode. You can find links in the show notes to the topics and articles referenced, as well as a copy of the show’s transcript on the Volt website, voltedu.com. Remember that you can always contact us with feedback, questions, or guest suggestions at trustedvoices@tvpcommunications.com. Follow Trusted Voices wherever you get your podcasts, and be sure to check out Higher Voltage and Campus Docket, the other podcasts on the Volt network. Until next time, thanks to Erin Hennessy, DJ Hauschild, and the Volt team, including Aaron and Maryna, for a great episode. And thank you for listening.