Tough Decisions for the Future of US Research Universities: Transparency and Shared Governance are Critical

The Trump administration is unsettling universities with aggressive cuts to federal research funding, including a reduction of the National Institutes of Health’s indirect cost rate to 15%, cancellations of grants on legitimate scientific topics conflicting with new executive orders, and billions of dollars of cuts to several universities that have allegedly failed to protect students and faculty from antisemitic harassment and other alleged offenses.^1,2 In contemplating possible responses, the US scientific community must be clear-eyed about the compromised position of research universities due to both their own weaknesses and the government’s agenda to erode universities’ influence and independence. Acknowledging that tough decisions must be made, we call for greater transparency and shared governance regarding who will make these decisions and how.

At this critical juncture, universities confront two fundamental weaknesses. First, an immense proportion of research funding—and of major universities’ general operating budgets—comes from the federal government,¹ creating a stark financial dependence if the current operating model is to continue. Second, large segments of the US public no longer trust higher education institutions, broadly perceiving them as elitist. In a 2023 Gallup poll, only 36% of Americans expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education institutions, sharply down from 57% in 2015.³

The Trump administration has recognized and is capitalizing on these weaknesses. The unpopularity of universities provides cover for a thinly veiled effort to break their influence and independence and, in the words of the New York Times editorial board, “undermine [them as] independent sources of information and accountability” in ways reminiscent of political transitions toward authoritarianism.⁴ There is little effort to keep this plan hidden from the public; in fact, key elements were proposed publicly and in striking detail well ahead of the current campaign,⁵ including in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.⁶

In the face of mounting federal pressure, the public responses of too many university leaders have remained muted for too long—despite country-wide protest by scientists.⁷ This approach, ostensibly motivated by the desire to appease federal regulators and to protect institutions’ financial well-being, leaves universities exposed to a negotiation counterpart with little interest in their long-term strength and independence, while reneging on making a compelling argument to broader society regarding the value of strong, independent universities. Relying on nontransparent, closed-door negotiations over the reinstatement of federal funding requires that universities be trusted to act in good faith. However, large parts of the public—and even parts of the academy—have lost this trust.

This lack of faith exists even though universities have long held tremendous value for society. At their best, universities are engines for societal progress, incubators for novel ideas and innovative technologies, rigorous education institutions that are open and accessible to all societal sectors, and communities for evidence-based debate among conflicting schools of thought. These virtues require academic freedom and freedom of speech without governmental interference. With these freedoms granted throughout the history of the American republic, US universities have advanced revolutionary technologies like the internet⁸ and life-saving therapies including modern cancer treatments,⁹ and have supported social movements that were quintessential to the creation of the modern United States, such as the Civil Rights Movement.¹⁰

It is essential to restore the public’s recognition of and faith in the value of universities’ institutional freedoms and contributions. Many major universities facing the largest federal funding cuts have tremendous endowments and connections at their disposal to advance this task, and they are filled with bright faculty and students whose mission is to advance science and benefit society. However, universities must turn their attention inward and critically examine their incentive structures, how the benefits of their work are distributed within their own institutions and across society, and whether these factors have played a role in universities’ loss of public trust.

Recent trends should be considered to understand the scope of the current rift between elite universities and the broader public. Like US corporate profits, university revenues have risen substantially over the past 40 years, primarily driven by rising tuition costs and increases in federal research dollars and contracts.¹¹ Concurrently, the earnings difference for individuals with and without a college degree has widened, putting increasing pressure on Americans to pursue higher education.¹² For those who pursue higher education, the decision is often associated with substantial student debt.¹³ For those priced out of higher education, large segments of the labor market are closed off. Meanwhile, universities’ administrative expenses have increased, the size and compensation of their executive leaderships have grown, and, consequently, there has been less reliance on shared governance with faculty and students for critical decisions.¹⁴

Universities have also been reluctantly drawn into taking stances on complex social issues, often without demonstrating authentic commitment to these causes, resulting in muted responses, wavering decisions, and additional loss of societal trust. This has engendered a debate on the role of institutional neutrality whereby universities remain neutral on contentious social and political issues.¹⁵ Often tied to the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report,¹⁶ institutional neutrality is viewed by many as foundational to free scientific inquiry. However, even the Kalven Report acknowledges that circumstances may arise “in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its value.”

Universities that are currently in conflict with the federal government must make a difficult choice regarding this obligation: Do they acquiesce to governmental pressure in order to maintain federal funding—the path that Columbia¹⁷ (most prominent among others) appears to have embarked on, at least for now? Or do they maintain historical standards of academic freedom in service of their extraordinary societal benefits—the path that Harvard¹⁸ (most prominent among others) seems to be leaning toward? Cutting a deal that yields to governmental demands may protect an institution’s fiscal well-being in the immediate term, but comes at the expense of losing a hard-to-foresee degree of independence and freedom from federal interference. Standing firm in protecting institutional independence and academic freedom may reinvigorate the core values of scientific inquiry and yield renewed public support from segments of US society that believe in the benefits of independent institutions and academic integrity. Still, this solution comes at the likely expense of painful financial cuts for all university stakeholders, particularly those not protected by strong unions or contracts.

This is a tough spot to be in. Hard decisions will have to be made. Given the weight of these decisions for the future of entire research universities, they must be made with complete transparency regarding the choices at hand and their respective implications, and in open communication with the impacted constituencies, namely, faculty, students, researchers, and the broader university workforce. These decisions must not be made behind closed doors by university leaders, trustees, and lawyers alone. Universities must not further erode institutional trust and must lead with their values in action. Shared governance that centers full transparency, rigorous debate, and academic freedom offers universities a way to harness their strengths, address current weaknesses, and ensure that they remain central to the betterment of scientific and civil life in the United States.

References