Universities freeze hiring over federal funding concerns : NPR

Harvard, Washington University and Pittsburgh University are the latest institutions in higher education, announcing a recruitment freeze, citing uncertainty surrounding federal funding.

More and more university leaders across the country say they are looking for ways to cut costs and purchase time as the problem revolves around President Trump’s efforts to cut financial support in certain schools. Education experts say the pullback in resources will not only harm current and acquaintance students, faculty and staff, but also potentially harm local economies in university towns and ultimately make the U.S. poorly compete globally.

“The lack of clarity and uncertainty about future federal research support means missing opportunities,” said Toby Smith, senior vice president of government relations and public policy at the American College Association. “There are fewer job opportunities available to new researchers, and fewer enrollment for doctoral candidates.”

Many universities say the recruitment pause is temporary and they will evaluate when they get more information about the status of federal support.

“This is to maintain our financial flexibility until we have a better understanding of how changes in federal policy will form and can assess the scale of its impact,” Harvard President Alan Garber wrote in a announcement Monday.

Garber said he also asked school leaders to take measures such as reviewing discretionary spending and review any new years of commitments, citing “substantial financial uncertainty driven by rapidly shifting federal policies.”

Harvard’s belt cover is the largest donation university in the world – highlighting the level of attention and caution that many institutions have in the current political environment. But it’s not just private schools that act cautiously.

North Carolina State University announced a recruitment freeze last month, citing “uncertain impacts of executive orders and guidance from the Presidential Administration” as well as state financial problems and potential federal closures. The University of Washington said last week that “significant and rapid policy changes” at the federal level and shortages in state budgets need to be stopped in all recruitment and travel.

“The current federal funding trajectory, while not yet fully clear, is still bad,” wrote University of Washington President Ana Mari Cauce.

The Trump administration threatens to obtain federal funding from schools that have not eliminated diversity initiatives or adequately protect Jewish students from discrimination. It also proposed to limit funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

It proposes to remove the responsibility of the Department of Education, including managing university financial aid and federal student loans. The department announced Tuesday that it will lay nearly 50% of the workforce but said it will continue to offer plans protected by law.

Derrick Anderson, senior vice president of Education Futures Initiative for the American Council on Education (ACE), explained that federal resources are one of the main pillars of support for colleges and universities.

Anderson said he was not surprised to see the craze of recruitment freeze announcements in recent weeks. He called it a responsible first step for any organization around resource uncertainty as it delays potential layoffs and gives universities time to figure out their priorities.

“We are obviously in a world [Trump] He said the government has a higher education agenda in higher education, and universities have a long history with each government to become partners in promoting national interests. Therefore, the recruitment freeze allows these universities, especially those deeply involved in scientific research, to recalibrate where they need to start highlighting. ”

He said that because of their crucial role in the United States and the world, it is important for higher education institutions to evaluate and improve their strengths and weaknesses. But he hopes they do this in a way that “aligns with the values ​​we have long had in this country”.

“We are going through the time of uncertainty particles, and I think they are important,” Anderson said. “But in the long run, the story remains the same: higher education is a very valuable investment, especially at the undergraduate level, and we all agree… it’s an important value proposition for the whole country and we want to support it.”

More than a dozen schools announce hiring freezes and other steps

Some schools that freeze recruitment include Columbia University’s School of Medicine, Notre Dame, Emory University, Cornell University, Stanford University, Massachusetts Polytechnic Institute, Northwestern University and University of California San Diego.

Their announcement puts uncertainty in federal funding (due to executive orde

rs and legislative proposals) as the main factor. Much of their information also urges administrators and teachers to reduce costs in other ways.

For example, Northwest also announced 10% budget cuts last month. Emory is one of several schools that freeze compensation adjustments and announces a “significant reduction in operating expenses.”

The University of Pennsylvania announced a series of cost-cutting measures Monday, including a recruitment freeze, a review of capital expenditures and a reduction in non-compensation costs.

Provost John Jackson Jr. wrote that in addition to changes in federal research funding, other recommendations currently in front of Congress, such as a reduction in student loan programs and an increase in the increase in excise taxes to colleges, could also affect the financial status of schools.

The scope and pace of possible disruptions “could make them worse than previous challenges,” he said, including the Covid-19-19 pandemic and the 2008 financial crisis.

Jackson added: “While the extent and ultimate impact of these policies will be unclear within a few months, the direction is clear and we are already reducing the funding.”

Many other university leaders similarly acknowledge that the difficulties of hiring freezes and budget cuts and the general sense of uncertainty – composition of their communities.

MIT said that while its program “is designed to help butlers and maintain the Institute’s mission in the face of unpredictable changes, we recognize that it will pose a direct challenge in our community.” The University of Vermont said, “Realizing that this measure may introduce challenges or delays in the work of our valuable colleagues.” UC San Diego acknowledges: “It’s hard for many to focus all uncertainties in all uncertainties.”

“The rapid changes in rapidly changing policy directives and uncertainties about the future have been challenging to say the least, even confusing policy directives and uncertainties about the future,” wrote Principal Pradeep Khosla.

It is not only teachers and students who feel the impact

While “uncertainty” is still the current surgical word, if the Trump administration successfully restricts efforts to NIH funding, details start to appear about how much loss is, the university supports most medical research in the United States, that policy changes immediately prompt multiple lawsuits, currently blocked by federal judges.

NIH is the world’s largest public funder for biomedical research and also covers “indirect costs” such as facility maintenance and administrative support. For example, the “indirect rate” varies between universities, with Johns Hopkins University at 63.7% and Harvard at 69%. The Trump administration hopes to limit overhead costs to 15% of grants, which could cost colleges millions of dollars.

For example, the University of Pittsburgh said reducing the indirect cost rate would cost $168 million this year’s compensation.

Universities will have to choose how to make up for the difference, as how much they can immerse themselves in donations is limited. and “Their choices are very bleak,” Holden Thorp science Last month, the former prime minister of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill told NPR.

“They have to cut other programs to fill this loophole, which could affect any discipline or any function of the university,” he said. “Or they will have to shorten the corners in the way they study, which could create various problems when accounting or not complying with government regulations.”

Industry groups including ACE and AAU said the proposed NIH funding cuts would harm millions of Americans facing conditions such as cancer and dementia, as well as the next generation of biomedical researchers aimed at curing them.

“The loss of this American workforce pipeline will hit the U.S. economy, U.S. science and innovation, patients and their families, and our country’s position as a leader in medical research, U.S. economy, U.S. science and innovation, and our country’s position,” they said in a joint statement.

AAU’s Smith said the potential loss of research funding could also have a chilling impact on young students considering careers in science and technology research, calling it “a ruthless mistake and gift for potential opponents in our country who are now using this advantage to actively recruit senior American scientific talent.”

“The moment we need to strengthen the game, the fuel we need to support American science and the talent base is meaningless,” Smith added.

Anderson of ACE said the strong network of research activities for higher education institutions (through federal investments) is part of making the United States economically and scientifically competitive. He believes that one thing universities can do at this moment is to make sure they communicate effectively.

“We did a great job – not only very well, but we were the best,” he added. “Nationals around the world are trying to mimic the way we are at higher stages. I just think as an industry we need to explain this better.”