|
Welcome
Welcome to our second issue of The Academic Advisor for 2025.
In this edition, we cover the following topics of interest for schools, institutions of higher education, and other education-focused organizations:
- the latest roundup of diversity, equity, and inclusion cuts across the country;
- National Institutes of Health cuts to university research funding;
- NCAA adjustments to its transgender student-athlete participation policy;
- Department of Education (ED) rescission of Title IX guidance on athlete pay;
- how dismantling ED could affect student loans and enrollment;
- the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion on the SAVE Plan and student loan forgiveness;
- the rescission of NLRB guidance identifying college athletes as employees;
- the potential increasing deportation of foreign students due to antisemitism; and
- cybersecurity threats facing higher education and mitigation techniques.
As always, thank you for reading and let us know if you have any questions.
Erin Jones Adams, Member, Co-Chair of the Education Practice Group, and Co-Editor of The Academic Advisor
and
Kevin L. Carr, Member, Co-Chair of the Education Practice Group, Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Practice Group, and Co-Editor of The Academic Advisor
| |
|
“From liberal arts colleges to massive public flagships, institutions of all kinds are moving to comply with changing federal expectations.”
Why this is important: On his first day in office, President Trump signed 26 Executive Orders. One of the most notable is Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing. The Order permitted the Executive Branch to eliminate all DEI programs, services, or activities within the federal government. Prior to the Executive Order, various states already passed anti-DEI legislation. States have become emboldened to enact laws banning DEI at colleges and universities that receive state and federal funding.
In West Virginia, Governor Patrick Morrisey signed Executive Order 3-25: Ordering cessation of DEI. Flagship state institutions thereafter began exploring ways to comply with the Executive Order. One university removed web pages concerning DEI, another eliminated its Division of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and created a Division of Campus Engagement and Compliance, and others are still reviewing their DEI efforts.
Beyond West Virginia, other schools across the country have adjusted their respective DEI programs. As this article highlights, Arizona State University instructed researchers to stop working on DEI-related activities. This was after the U.S. Office of Budget and Management released a memo calling for a freeze on federal funding to target DEI programs. Boston University has scheduled for its Center for Antiracist Research to close on June 30, 2025. Meanwhile, Missouri lawmakers have introduced bills that would ban state agencies from spending money on anything DEI adjacent. Citing the fact that 38 percent of the school’s budget comes from the state, Missouri State University closed its Office of Inclusive Engagement and cut all campus DEI programming.
On February 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) to all institutions receiving federal funds directing that they cease using race preferences and stereotypes in admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and beyond. The letter gave institutions only two weeks to comply. The funding at risk includes Title IV, student loans, and other sources. On February 25, 2025, the American Federation of Teachers Union filed a lawsuit to challenge the DCL. Pending the results of the lawsuit, it is likely other colleges and universities will adopt approaches similar to the schools previously mentioned. --- Isaiah C. Robinson
| |
|
“Experts say the cuts would devastate research, upend budgets and shrink opportunities for students.”
Why this is important: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a major reduction in indirect cost reimbursements for research funding, capping them at 15 percent for both new and existing grants. Previously, these costs, which cover lab equipment, utilities, administrative support, and other essential research expenses, were individually negotiated between the NIH and each research institution, with an average rate of 28 percent and exceeding 60 percent at some major recipient institutions. Experts warn that the policy change will cause severe damage to medical research, universities, hospitals, and patients by reducing funds for studies affecting all areas of medical research, including research on cancer, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes.
In response, 22 states sued the Trump administration, arguing the cuts are “arbitrary and capricious.” The Association of American Medical Colleges and other groups also filed lawsuits. In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs are alleging multiple violations of the Administrative Procedures Act for failure to substantively justify the cuts, for violating federal regulations regarding deviations from the negotiated rates, for retroactive rulemaking, and for rulemaking without public notice. In initial response to the complaint, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued a temporary halt in the plaintiff states, later expanding it nationwide. Hearings in these suits are currently ongoing.
As of February 21, 2025, Judge Kelley has extended the temporary nationwide block on the funding cuts pending a decision on whether a previously granted temporary restraining order (TRO) should be converted into a preliminary injunction. While they function similarly, a TRO is an immediate, short-term measure to prevent a party from taking a certain action, while a preliminary injunction is a longer-term order that preserves the status quo of a situation for the duration of a lawsuit. In this case, if the TRO is converted into a preliminary injunction, NIH funding for indirect costs will be ordered to remain in accordance with current rules until and if it is determined that the executive order reducing the costs is indeed a lawful and constitutional executive action.
The NIH under the Trump administration has defended the cap, arguing it aligns with private foundation grants, which typically reimburse indirect costs at rates between 0 percent and 15 percent. However, experts counter that universities and the private foundations themselves rely on NIH support to sustain research infrastructure, and private funding alone cannot replace this. The move to reduce research funding is part of a broader effort to curb federal spending aimed at handling the $36 trillion national debt.
Institutions like the University of California system, which received $2.6 billion in NIH grants last year, and the University of Kentucky, which would lose tens of millions in funding for heart disease and opioid research, are among those most affected. Critics argue the cuts will lead to massive layoffs, suspended clinical trials, and lab closures, undermining U.S. leadership in medical research and creating regional economic disruptions.
While the NIH claims the policy frees up $4 billion annually for cutting-edge research, it has not clarified where the money will go. Experts fear smaller institutions may not benefit, and some universities may need to raise tuition or tap into endowments to compensate. The policy also threatens research opportunities for students and less-experienced investigators, discouraging future scientists and medical professionals.
Amid growing legal and political battles, medical, premedical students, and the academic research community are being urged to advocate for science funding. Experts warn that if the cuts proceed, fewer graduate program positions will be available, and research-driven medical advancements in the U.S. may slow significantly, leaving opportunities for other nations to surpass decades of American leadership in medical science. --- Shane P. Riley
| |
|
“The NCAA policy change is effective immediately and applies to all athletes regardless of previous eligibility reviews.”
Why this is important: On February 6, 2025, the NCAA barred transgender athletes from competing in women’s college sports. This policy change was effective immediately and applies to all athletes regardless of any previous eligibility reviews. This new policy mirrors the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, which governs sports at 241 mostly small colleges in the country.
The new policy states that only athletes assigned female at birth will be allowed to compete in women’s sports. These athletes can still practice with the women’s teams and be able to maintain access to medical care and other benefits. It should be noted that this new policy does not apply to transgender men, so long as they meet all other NCAA eligibility requirements.
This new policy is in response to an Executive Order (EO) issued on February 5, 2025. Prior to the issuance of this EO, the NCAA permitted the governing body for the individual sports to decide the policies regarding transgender participation. In December 2024, the NCAA President Charlie Baker testified before a Senate panel. He advised that of the more than 530,000 athletes less than 10 were transgender. Mr. Baker recently stated that the new policy will provide uniform eligibility standards, as opposed to conflicting state laws and court decisions.
The EO also directs the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to investigate colleges and universities for any non-compliance. Any college or university found to be non-compliant with this EO could potentially be violating Title IX sex discrimination policies. It appears that enforcement of this EO is occurring swiftly as ED recently announced that three schools are currently under investigation, including for reportedly allowing transgender athletes to compete after the Title IX changes were announced. However, the overlap between the new NCAA policy and Title IX is not clear and is likely to lead to additional litigation.
In the meantime, states are questioning whether or not to apply the EO to high school sports. One of the three schools currently under investigation includes a high school sports league, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association. Specifically, questions have arisen as to how, if at all, the EO interacts with individual states’ laws.
While this new NCAA policy on its face appears to provide straightforward guidance, it is unlikely that states, schools, and individuals challenging both the EO and this new NCAA policy will withdraw their challenges to the same. --- Lisa M. Hawrot
| |
|
“The decision comes a week after President Donald Trump spoke about his support for women and girls in sports while surrounded by female athletes before signing an executive order banning transgender women from competing on women's and girls' teams, citing compliance with Title IX.”
Why this is important: In our last edition of The Academic Advisor, we considered how a Fact Sheet issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at the end of the Biden administration, which directed that compensation issued by schools for use of students’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) be treated as “financial assistance” under Title IX, would be viewed by the Trump administration. One of the possible options was revocation of the Fact Sheet, and less than a month later, the Trump administration did just that. As this article highlights, ED under the Trump administration has instructed that Title IX does not apply to NIL deals.
According to Craig Trainor, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, “[w]ithout a credible legal justification, the Biden Administration claimed that NIL agreements between schools and student-athletes are akin to financial aid and must, therefore, be proportionately distributed between male and female athletes under Title IX." In rendering this guidance, Mr. Trainor added that "[t]he claim that Title IX forces schools and colleges to distribute student-athlete revenues proportionately based on gender equity considerations is sweeping and would require clear legal authority to support it."
While this decision revives the path toward approval of the pending House V. NCAA settlement, at least as it concerns treatment of Title IX by ED for the next four years, it will not stop the inevitability of litigation by student-athletes who contend the NIL distributions once confirmed inequitably benefit male athletes in violation of Title IX. As a result, absent a change in the law that clearly directs otherwise, the impact of Title IX on NIL payments will likely be determined by the federal courts following protracted litigation. On April 7, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California will consider the various objections to the NCAA v. House settlement and finally determine whether to approve it. The extent to which Title IX-related objections may factor into her decision-making, if at all, remains to be seen.
This guidance also came on the heels of the Executive Order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which President Trump signed on February 5, 2025, banning transgender women and girls from participation in female athletic opportunities and making it a policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational institutions that “deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy.”
At the very least, these actions signal that Title IX continues to be at the forefront of White House scrutiny and interest, and educational institutions should expect more changes. Schools navigating these issues should continue to work closely with their legal counsel to assess the risks and determine how evolving Title IX guidance affects athletics and revenue sharing plans. --- Erin Jones Adams
| |
|
“While some of the department’s programs may be transferred to other agencies, that transition could cause major disruptions to the nation’s $1.6 trillion student loan program, experts say.”
Why this is important: On March 3, 2025, Linda McMahon was confirmed as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Prior to her nomination hearing, President Trump told reporters, “I want Linda [McMahon] to put herself out of a job[.]” During his campaign, President Trump called for ED to be shut down. Because ED is authorized by Congress, President Trump is unable to unilaterally eliminate the department. However, with Republicans controlling the legislative and executive branches, this campaign promise may be attainable. This begs the question: how would the elimination of ED affect colleges, student loans, and college access?
When it comes to distributing and collecting student loans, some experts believe the Treasury Department would take on the task. However, there are concerns that the Treasury Department would not prioritize student loans in the same manner as ED. This could potentially lead to major disruptions such as students not receiving student loan money to pay for upcoming semesters. Other experts, along with the current administration, have suggested allowing states and localities to manage student loans. While untested, this alternative raises the question of whether every state is equipped to manage student loan distribution and collection for all of its students and citizens.
The dismantling of ED could also change how colleges and universities interact with state and federal government. Every higher education institution would require cooperation from their respective state legislature, along with agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice. While it is theoretically possible, it is unknown whether education would be the top priority for the institutions filling the ED’s void.
Critics of ED have pointed to the delayed rollout of the 2024 FAFSA as further proof that abolishment of the department is necessary. States like West Virginia, a state that has successfully distributed state-funded scholarships (i.e., the Promise Scholarship) for decades, were unfortunately set back because of the FAFSA challenges. The delayed FAFSA resulted in a 9 percent decline in first-time FAFSA applications. However, turning higher education over to the states would require every state to create its own state-specific version of the FAFSA, implement the system, and process the applications. If a state does not have adequate systems and processes in place for financial aid applications, millions of students across the country could be barred from accessing higher education. --- Isaiah C. Robinson
| |
8th Circuit Court of Appeals Weighs in on The SAVE Plan and Student Loan Forgiveness | |
|
On February 18, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Biden administration’s income-driven repayment Plan was an overreach of authority. In doing so, it upheld a preliminary injunction on the Plan and sent the cases back to the district courts. As a result, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is currently prohibited from using the SAVE formula to calculate monthly payments and from forgiving loans after years of payments under the SAVE, Pay As You Earn (PAYE), and Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plans.
The SAVE Plan was implemented to lower monthly payments and eliminate high interest payments and also offered full forgiveness after meeting certain qualifications. However, it also phased out new enrollments in the older income-driven repayment plans – PAYE and ICR.
In its decision, the Eighth Circuit said it was "hard-pressed" to find that Congress would approve a repayment plan that would wipe out borrowers' balances after as few as 10 years of payments. The ruling also suggested that other student-loan repayment plans, including income-contingent repayment, were not permissible under the Higher Education Act. In the meantime, while this remains blocked, approximately eight million borrowers are in limbo as it is unclear when borrowers will be taken out of forbearance status and expected to resume payments.
However, late on Friday, February 21, 2025, the Trump administration unexpectedly took down the online application form for several popular student debt repayment plans. In response to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, ED officials quietly removed the application portal for both loan consolidations and income-driven repayment plans, which cap what borrowers must pay each month at a percent of their earnings. As a result, the Trump administration appears to be closing off access to repayment options that were not at issue in the litigation. The result is that borrowers who were already enrolled in income-driven plans are unable to submit their annual paperwork certifying their incomes. It remains unclear whether the form was removed to make changes or whether it will continue this way for an extended period of time. Doing so would effectively block borrowers from enrolling.
Unfortunately, the ED guidance was last updated on January 17, 2025, which was prior to the Eighth Circuit’s decision. It still indicates that borrowers enrolled in The SAVE Plan would not be expected to make payments until December "at the earliest." The guidance also provides that borrowers who are in general forbearance status will continue to be in forbearance until servicers are able to accurately calculate monthly payments. ED expects servicers to be able to do this no earlier than September 2025. However, if borrowers were enrolled in the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan, their loans can still be forgiven, as the IBR was separately enacted by Congress. The site continues to advise borrowers that they will have the opportunity to make another choice for repayment. Payments made on PAYE, SAVE, and ICR are counted toward IBR Plan forgiveness if the borrower enrolls in the IBR Plan.
During the Biden administration, ED provided approximately $175 billion in student loan forgiveness for around five million individuals. The Trump administration has opposed most efforts for similar programs. --- Lisa M. Hawrot
| |
|
“The memorandum comes against the backdrop of longstanding efforts by the NCAA, conferences and universities to pursue federal legislation that would prevent college athletes from becoming employees of their schools.”
Why this is important: Why this is important: The rescission of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) memorandum is significant because it directly impacts the ongoing debate over whether college athletes should be considered employees with the right to unionize and negotiate compensation. Over the past several years, several legal decisions and legislative efforts have supported the right of college athletes to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA):
- Northwestern University Case (2014-2015): Football players at Northwestern University attempted to unionize, arguing they were employees under the NLRA. While a regional NLRB director ruled in their favor, the full NLRB later declined jurisdiction, effectively preventing the players from unionizing but not ruling out the possibility for other private schools.
- NLRB General Counsel’s Memorandum (2021): Under the Biden administration, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo stating that certain college athletes are employees under the NLRA. This opened the door for student-athletes to seek unionization and collective bargaining protections.
- State Legislation: Some states, such as California, have introduced bills that grant college athletes additional rights, including fair compensation and the ability to negotiate their working conditions.
- Judicial Rulings on Compensation: While not directly related to unionization, cases like NCAA v. Alston (2021) have chipped away at the NCAA's control over athlete compensation, reinforcing the argument that college athletes provide labor deserving of legal protection.
These developments reflected a growing movement toward recognizing college athletes as employees, despite continued resistance from the NCAA and some lawmakers.
By reversing the previous position by the NLRB’s former General Counsel, the Trump administration reinforced the NCAA’s amateurism model, which argues that student-athletes should not receive employee benefits such as wages and collective bargaining rights. This decision also aligns with broader efforts by universities and athletic conferences to seek federal legislation that would solidify the non-employee status of college athletes, limiting their ability to push for the right to collectively bargain as provided for by the NLRA. --- Kevin L. Carr
| |
|
“The order cites ‘an unprecedented wave of vile anti-Semitic discrimination, vandalism and violence’ and states that U.S. policy ‘shall be’ to use ‘all available and appropriate legal tools to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.’"
Why this is important: This Executive Order is important to colleges and universities because it directly impacts campus policies, student conduct, and institutional responsibilities. It signals heightened federal scrutiny on how schools handle incidents of antisemitism, requiring them to enforce stricter measures against discrimination and harassment. Additionally, the Order's provision allowing for the deportation of foreign students involved in antisemitic protests raises concerns about free speech, due process, and the potential chilling effect on campus activism. Universities must navigate these legal and ethical challenges while ensuring compliance with federal regulations to avoid potential funding risks and legal consequences. Colleges and universities should review all policies relating to Title VI, Title IX and student conduct and harassment immediately to make sure they are compliant. --- Kevin L. Carr
| |
|
“As it stands, cybercriminals see schools as an easy path to success with a low barrier to entry.”
Why this is important: Colleges and universities have become prime targets for cybercriminals looking to steal valuable data, disrupt operations, and commit financial fraud. These institutions house a wealth of sensitive information, including personal details of students and faculty, financial records, intellectual property, and cutting-edge research. There are some key reasons why colleges and universities are often soft and desirable targets for cybercriminals:
1. Vast Amounts of Data
Higher education institutions collect and store enormous amounts of data. This includes personally identifiable information (PII) such as Social Security numbers, bank account details, and medical records. Cybercriminals can exploit this data for identity theft, financial fraud, and even blackmail. Additionally, universities often manage research data that can be valuable to competitors, foreign governments, or malicious actors.
2. Open and Decentralized Networks
Unlike corporate environments with highly structured security measures, colleges and universities prioritize open access to information and resources. Their networks are typically decentralized, with multiple entry points due to numerous departments, research centers, and collaborations with external entities. This openness makes it easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities and gain unauthorized access.
3. Large and Diverse User Base
University networks accommodate thousands of students, faculty, and staff using multiple devices, including personal laptops, smartphones, and tablets. This diversity increases the risk of security lapses, as users may unknowingly fall victim to phishing scams, download malware, or use weak passwords. Additionally, transient populations, such as graduating students and visiting scholars, make it difficult to enforce long-term cybersecurity policies.
4. Outdated or Inconsistent Security Measures
Many higher education institutions operate on tight budgets, allocating limited funds to cybersecurity. Some universities continue using outdated software and hardware, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. Even when security measures are in place, inconsistencies across different departments or campuses can create weak links that cybercriminals exploit.
5. Ransomware and Financial Gain
Ransomware attacks have become a growing threat to colleges and universities. Cybercriminals encrypt critical data and demand payment for its release, knowing that institutions cannot afford prolonged disruptions. Some universities have paid ransoms to regain access to their systems, further incentivizing attackers. In addition to direct financial extortion, hackers can siphon off funds through fraudulent transactions, payroll scams, or tuition payment fraud.
6. Intellectual Property and Research Theft
Universities conduct groundbreaking research in fields such as medicine, engineering, and artificial intelligence. This research is a goldmine for cybercriminals, including state-sponsored hackers seeking economic or political advantages. Stealing intellectual property can undermine innovation, compromise national security, and cause financial losses to institutions and their partners.
7. Weak Cyber Awareness and Training
Many students and faculty members are not sufficiently trained in cybersecurity best practices, making them susceptible to social engineering attacks. Phishing emails, fake login pages, and malicious links are common tactics used to compromise university accounts. Without regular cybersecurity awareness training, human error remains a significant vulnerability.
To combat cyber threats, colleges and universities must take proactive steps, such as those set forth in the article. --- Kevin L. Carr
| |
|
If you would like to subscribe to this newsletter or know someone who would, please email us with contact information and THE ACADEMIC ADVISOR in the subject line. We will be glad to add you or your acquaintance to the email list.
If you have any education law questions or would like to learn more about topics covered in this newsletter, please feel free to contact us.
| |
|
This is an attorney advertisement. Your receipt and/or use of this material does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between you and Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC or any attorney associated with the firm. This e-mail publication is distributed with the understanding that the author, publisher and distributor are not rendering legal or other professional advice on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use.
Responsible Attorney: Michael J. Basile, 800-967-8251
| | | | |
