College Leaders Oppose White House Demands in Statement
Over 150 US college leaders signed a statement on Tuesday against the White House’s alleged “government overreach and political interference” in college operations.
The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is the organization behind the statement, which they titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement.”
The letter’s chief claim is that the White House is levying unwarranted action in colleges by asking for their compliance with various demands. It consists of several calls to action:
“[W]e must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.”
The statement further calls for “constructive engagement” with the White House:
“The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.”
Signatories of the letter include several major public universities and liberal arts colleges, along with every Ivy League school.
Though Columbia University has been in the process of changing its policies to accord with an ultimatum from the White House prompted by disruptive anti-Israel protests, the university’s acting president, Claire Shipman, appointed in March 2025, signed the AAC&U statement.
Shipman replaced Columbia’s interim president Katrina Armstrong, who initiated steps to regain federal funding but resigned in late March.
When Shipman replaced Armstrong, an approach toward White House demands similar to that of Harvard President Alan Barber was adopted. In a mid-April letter to the university, Shipman exclaimed a series of rejections toward White House demands, marking a change in tone from the prior president:
“We would reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution and undermine useful reforms that serve the best interests of our students and community. We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire. And yes, to put minds at ease, though we seek to continue constructive dialogue with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”
