Connect with us

Business

‘A bit of a shock’: Even community colleges, largely nonpartisan commuter schools, are feeling the Trump education crackdown

Published

on



Administrators at the state university’s campus in Colorado Springs thought they stood a solid chance of dodging the Trump administration’s offensive on higher education.

Located on a picturesque bluff with a stunning view of Pikes Peak, the school is far removed from the Ivy League colleges that have drawn President Donald Trump’s ire. Most of its students are commuters, getting degrees while holding down full-time jobs. Students and faculty alike describe the university, which is in a conservative part of a blue state, as politically subdued, if not apolitical.

That optimism was misplaced.

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of emails from school officials, as well as interviews with students and professors, reveals that school leaders, teachers and students soon found themselves in the Republican administration’s crosshairs, forcing them to navigate what they described as an unprecedented and haphazard degree of change.

Whether Washington has downsized government departments, clawed back or launched investigations into diversity programs or campus antisemitism, the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs has confronted many of the same challenges as elite universities across the nation.

The school lost three major federal grants and found itself under investigation by the Trump’s Education Department. In the hopes of avoiding that scrutiny, the university renamed websites and job titles, all while dealing with pressure from students, faculty and staff who wanted the school to take a more combative stance.

“Uncertainty is compounding,” the school’s chancellor told faculty at a February meeting, according to minutes of the session. “And the speed of which orders are coming has been a bit of a shock.”

The college declined to make any administrators available to be interviewed. A spokesman asked the AP to make clear that any professors or students interviewed in this story were speaking for themselves and not the institution. Several faculty members also asked for anonymity, either because they did not have tenure or they did not want to call unnecessary attention to themselves and their scholarship in the current political environment.

“Like our colleagues across higher education, we’ve spent considerable time working to understand the new directives from the federal government,” the chancellor, Jennifer Sobanet, said in a statement provided to the AP.

Students said they have been able to sense the stress being felt by school administrators and professors.

“We have administrators that are feeling pressure, because we want to maintain our funding here. It’s been tense,” said Ava Knox, a rising junior who covers the university administration for the school newspaper.

Faculty, she added, “want to be very careful about how they’re conducting their research and about how they’re addressing the student population. They are also beholden to this new set of kind of ever-changing guidelines and stipulations by the federal government.”

A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Misplaced optimism

Shortly after Trump won a second term in November, UCCS leaders were trying to gather information on the Republican’s plans. In December, Sobanet met the newly elected Republican congressman who represented the school’s district, a conservative one that Trump won with 53% of the vote. In her meeting notes obtained by the AP, the chancellor sketched out a scenario in which the college might avoid the drastic cuts and havoc under the incoming administration.

“Research dollars — hard to pull back grant dollars but Trump tried to pull back some last time. The money goes through Congress,” Sobanet wrote in notes prepared for the meeting. “Grant money will likely stay but just change how they are worded and what it will fund.”

Sobanet also observed that dismantling the federal Education Department would require congressional authorization. That was unlikely, she suggested, given the U.S. Senate’s composition.

Like many others, she did not fully anticipate how aggressively Trump would seek to transform the federal government.

Conservatives’ desire to revamp higher education began well before Trump took office.

They have long complained that universities have become bastions of liberal indoctrination and raucous protests. In 2023, Republicans in Congress had a contentious hearing with several Ivy League university leaders. Shortly after, the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania resigned. During the presidential campaign last fall, Trump criticized campus protests about Gaza, as well as what he said was a liberal bias in classrooms.

His new administration opened investigations into alleged antisemitism at several universities. It froze more than $400 million in research grants and contracts at Columbia, along with more than $2.6 billion at Harvard. Columbia reached an agreement last month to pay $220 million to resolve the investigation.

When Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s actions, his administration tried to block the school from enrolling international students. The Trump administration has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Northwestern University, Penn, Princeton and Cornell have seen big chunks of funding cut over how they dealt with protests about Israel’s war in Gaza or over the schools’ support for transgender athletes.

Trump’s decision to target the wealthiest, most prestigious institutions provided some comfort to administrators at the approximately 4,000 other colleges and universities in the country.

Most higher education students in the United States are educated at regional public universities or community colleges. Such schools have not typically drawn attention from culture warriors.

Students and professors at UCCS hoped Trump’s crackdown would bypass the school and others like it.

“You’ve got everyone — liberals, conservatives, middle of the road,” said Jeffrey Scholes, a professor in the philosophy department. “You just don’t see the kind of unrest and polarization that you see at other campuses.”

The purse strings

The federal government has lots of leverage over higher education. It provides about $60 billion a year to universities for research. In addition, a majority of students in the U.S. need grants and loans from various federal programs to help pay tuition and living expenses.

This budget year, UCCS got about $19 million in research funding from a combination of federal, state and private sources. Though that is a relatively small portion of the school’s overall $369 million budget, the college has made a push in recent years to bolster its campus research program by taking advantage of grant money from government agencies such as the U.S. Defense Department and National Institutes for Health. The widespread federal grant cut could derail those efforts.

School officials were dismayed when the Trump administration terminated research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Defense Department and the National Science Foundation, emails show. The grants funded programs in civics, cultural preservation and boosting women in technology fields.

School administrators scrambled to contact federal officials to learn if other grants were on the chopping block, but they struggled to find answers, the records show.

School officials repeatedly sought out the assistance of federal officials only to learn those officials were not sure what was happening as the Trump administration halted grant payments, fired thousands of employees and shuttered agencies.

“The sky is falling” at NIH, a university official reported in notes on a call in which the school’s lobbyists were providing reports of what was happening in Washington.

There are also concerns about other changes in Washington that will affect how students pay for college, according to interviews with faculty and education policy experts.

While only Congress can fully abolish the U.S. Department of Education, the Trump administration has tried to dramatically cut back its staff and parcel out many of its functions to other agencies. The administration laid off nearly 1,400 employees, and problems have been reported in the systems that handle student loans. Management of student loans is expected to shift to another agency entirely.

In addition, an early version of a major funding bill in Congress included major cuts to tuition grants. Though that provision did not make it into the law, Congress did cap loans for students seeking graduate degrees. That policy could have ripple effects in the coming years on institutions such as UCCS that rely on tuition dollars for their operating expenses.

DEI and transgender issues hit Campus

To force change on campus, the Trump administration has begun investigations targeting diversity programs and efforts to combat antisemitism.

The Education Department, for example, opened an investigation in March targeting a Ph.D. scholarship program that partnered with 45 universities, including UCCS, to expand opportunities to women and nonwhites in graduate education. The administration alleged the program was only open to certain nonwhite students and amounted to racial discrimination.

“Sorry to be the bearer of bad news UCCS is included on the list” of schools being investigated, wrote Annie Larson, assistant vice president of federal relations and outreach for the entire University of Colorado system.

“Oh wow, this is surprising,” wrote back Hillary Fouts, dean of the graduate school at UCCS.

UCCS also struggled with how to handle executive orders, particularly those on transgender issues.

In response to an order that aimed to revoke funds to schools that allowed transwomen to play women’s sports, UCCS began a review of its athletic programs. It determined it had no transgender athletes, the records show. University officials were also relieved to discover that only one school in their athletic conference was affected by the order, and UCCS rarely if ever had matches or games against that school.

“We do not have any students impacted by this and don’t compete against any teams that we are aware of that will be impacted by this,” wrote the vice chancellor for student affairs to colleagues.

Avoiding the Spotlight

The attacks led UCCS to take preemptive actions and to self-censor in the hopes of saving programs and avoiding the Trump administration’s spotlight.

Emails show that the school’s legal counsel began looking at all the university’s websites and evaluating whether any scholarships might need to be reworded. The university changed the web address of its diversity initiatives from www.diversity.uccs.edu to www.belonging.uccs.edu.

And the administrator responsible for the university’s division of Inclusive Culture & Belonging got a new job title in January: director of strategic initiatives. University professors said the school debated whether to rename the Women’s and Ethnic Studies department to avoid drawing attention from Trump but so far the department has not been renamed.

Along the same lines, UCCS administrators have sought to avoid getting dragged into controversies, a frequent occurrence in the first Trump administration. UCCS officials attended a presentation from the education consulting firm EAB, which encouraged schools not to react to every news cycle. That could be a challenge because some students and faculty are seeking vocal resistance on issues from climate change to immigration.

Soon after Trump was sworn in, for example, a staff member in UCCS’s sustainability program began pushing the entire University of Colorado system to condemn Trump’s withdrawal from an international agreement to tackle climate change. It was the type of statement universities had issued without thinking twice in past administrations.

In an email, UCCS’s top public relations executive warned his boss: “There is a growing sentiment among the thought leadership in higher ed that campus leaders not take a public stance on major issues unless they impact their campus community.”

—-

AP Education Writer Collin Binkley in Washington contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Millionaire YouTuber Hank Green tells Gen Z to rethink their Tesla bets—and shares the portfolio changes he’s making to avoid AI-bubble fallout

Published

on



For years, YouTube star Hank Green has stuck to the same straightforward investing wisdom touted by legends like Warren Buffett: Put your money in an S&P 500 index fund and leave it alone.

It’s advice that has paid off handsomely for millions of investors: this year alone, the index is up roughly some 16%, and averaged more than 20% in gains over the last three years and roughly 14.6% over the past two decades. In most cases, it’s easily beaten investors who try to pick individual stocks like Tesla or Meta.

But as Wall Street frets over a possible AI-driven bubble—with voices from  “Big Short” investor Michael Burry to economist Mohamed El-Erian sounding alarms—Green isn’t waiting around to see what happens. He’s already rethinking how much of his own wealth is tied to Big Tech.

A major reason: The S&P 500 is more concentrated than ever. The top 10 companies—including Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta—make up nearly 40% of the entire index. And nearly all of them are pouring billions into AI.

“I feel like my money is more exposed than I would like it to be,” Green said in a video that’s racked up over 1.6 million views. “I feel like by virtue of having a lot of my money in the S&P 500, I am now kind of betting on a big AI future. And that’s not a future that I definitely think is going to happen.”

So Green is hedging. He’s taking 25% of the money he previously invested in S&P 500 index funds—a meaningful chunk for a self-made millionaire—and moving it into a more diversified set of assets, including:

  • S&P 500 value index funds, which tilt toward companies with lower valuations and less AI-driven hype.
  • Mid-cap stocks, which he believes could benefit if smaller firms catch more of AI’s productivity gains.
  • International index funds, offering exposure outside the U.S. tech-heavy market.

Green’s thesis is simple: even if AI transforms the economy, the biggest winners may ultimately not be the mega-cap companies building the models.

“I think that these giant companies providing the AI models will actually be competing with each other for those customers in part by competing on price,” Green said. “And that might mean that the value delivered to small companies will be bigger than value delivered to the big AI companies. Who knows though? I just think that’s a thing that could happen.”

And if his concerns are overblown? He’s fine with that, too.

“If I’m wrong, 75% of my money is still in the safe place that everybody says your money should be, which is the S&P 500.”

YouTuber’s message to his Gen Z and Gen Alpha viewers: The stock market isn’t a ‘Ponzi scheme’

Gen Z continues to trail other generations in financial know-how—from saving and investing to understanding risk, according to TIAA. Moreover, one in four admit they are not confident in their financial knowledge and skill—a stark admission considering that 1 in 7 Gen Z credit card users have maxed out their credit cards and many young people hold thousands in student loan debt.

As a self-described “middle-aged, 45-year-old successful person,” Green said he’s trying to model what thoughtful, long-term decision-making actually looks like. And part of that effort includes dispelling one big misconception shared among some of his audience:

“I get these comments from people who are like, I can’t believe that you’re participating in this Ponzi scheme,” Green told Fortune. “I do want to alienate those people, because I don’t believe that the stock market is a Ponzi scheme. I do think that it’s overvalued right now, but I think that it’s tied to real value that’s really created in the world.”

His broader point: Investing isn’t about vibes or just dumping money into the hot stock of the week; rather, it’s something to seriously research.

“A lot of people think that investing is like getting a Robinhood account and buying Tesla,” Green added. “And I’m like, ‘Nope, you’ve got to get a Fidelity account and buy a low cost index fund everybody and or just keep it in your 401K and let the people who manage it manage it’—which is what a lot of people do, which is also fine.”

His younger viewers are paying attention. One popular comment summed it up: “As a young person entering the point in my life where I’m starting to think about investing, I really appreciate you talking through your logic and giving a ton of disclaimers rather than telling me I should buy buy buy exactly what you buy buy buy.” The comment has already racked up more than 4,700 likes.

Financial advisors agree: Portfolio diversification is king

While Green doesn’t come from a financial background, experts from the world of investing said they agree largely with his rationale: Having a diversified portfolio is the way to go—especially if you have worries about an AI bubble.

“Unlike many dot-com companies, today’s tech giants generally have substantial revenue, cash reserves, and established business models beyond just AI,” certified financial planner Bo Hanson, host of The Money Guy Show, said in a video analyzing Green’s take.

“Still, the concentration risk remains a valid concern for investors that are seeking diversification. However, this is precisely why we advise against putting all investments solely in the S&P 500, especially if you have a shorter time horizon.”

Hanson added wise investors spread their money across various asset classes, including small-caps, international, and bonds, in order to reduce portfolio volatility and provide

more consistent returns across various market environments.

It’s sentiment echoed by Doug Ornstein, director at TIAA Wealth Management, who said it’s important to realize that not every investment needs to chase growth.

“Particularly as you get older, having guaranteed income streams becomes crucial. Products like annuities can provide reliable payments regardless of market swings, creating a foundation of financial security,” Ornstein told Fortune. “Think of it as building a floor beneath your portfolio—one that market volatility can’t touch.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Warren Buffett: Business titan and cover star

Published

on


Warren Buffett’s face—always smiling, whether he’s slurping  a milkshake, brandishing a lasso, or palling around with fellow multibillionaire Bill Gates—has graced the cover of Fortune more than a dozen times. And it’s no wonder: Buffett has been a towering figure in both business and 

investing for much of his—and Fortune’s—95 years on earth. (The magazine first hit newsstands in February 1930; Buffett was born that August.) As Geoff Colvin writes in this issue, Buffett’s investing genius manifested early, and he bought his first stock at age 11. By Colvin’s calculations, over the 60 years since Buffett took control of his company, Berkshire Hathaway, its returns have outpaced the S&P 500 by more than 100 to one.  

Buffett has always had a special relationship with Fortune, particularly with legendary writer and editor Carol Loomis, who profiled him many times, and to whom he broke the news of his paradigm-shifting moves in philanthropy in 2006 and 2010. The end of an era is upon us, as Buffett on Dec. 31 will step down from his role as Berkshire’s CEO. We’re grateful to have been along for the ride. 

Warren Buffett on the cover of Fortune in 2009 and 2010.

Cover photographs by David Yellen (2009), and Art Streiber (2010)

Warren Buffett on the cover of Fortune in 2003 and 2006.

Cover photographs by Michael O’Neill (2003), and Ben Baker (2006)

Warren Buffett on the cover of Fortune in 2001 and 2002.

Cover photographs by Michael O’Neill

Warren Buffett on the cover of Fortune in 1986 and 1998.

Cover photographs by Alex Kayser (1986) and Michael O’Neill (1998)



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Kimberly-Clark exec says old bosses would compare her to their daughters when she got promoted

Published

on



Women have their own unique set of challenges in the workforce; the “motherhood penalty” can set them back $500,000, their C-suite representation is waning, and the gender pay gap has widened again. One senior executive from $36 billion manufacturing giant Kimberly-Clark knows the tribulations all too well—after all, she’s one of few women in the Fortune 500 who holds the coveted role. 

Tamera Fenske is the chief supply chain officer (CSCO) for Kimberly-Clark, who oversees a massive global team of 22,665 employees—around 58% of the global CPG manufacturer’s workforce. She’s in charge of optimizing the company’s entire supply chain, from sourcing raw materials for Kimberly-Clark products including Kleenex and Huggies, to delivering the final product into customers’ shopping carts. 

It’s a job that’s essential to most top businesses operating at such a massive scale; around 422 of the Fortune 500 have chief supply chain officers, according to a 2025 Spencer Stuart analysis. However, most of these slots are awarded to white men; only about 18% of executives in this position are women, and 12% come from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds. It’s one of the C-suite roles with the least female representation, right next to chief financial officers, chief operating officers, and CEOs. 

In fact, Fenske is one of just 76 Fortune 500 female executives who have “chief supply chain officer” on their resumes. However, the executive tells Fortune it’s an unfortunate fact she “doesn’t think about” too often—if anything, it motivates her further.

“Anytime someone tells me I can’t do something, it makes me want to work that much harder to prove them wrong,” Fenske says. 

The first time Fenske noticed she was one of few women in the room

Fenske has spent her entire life navigating subjects dominated by men—something she didn’t even consider until college. 

Her father, aunts, uncles, and grandfather all worked for Dow Chemical, so she grew up in a STEM-heavy household. Naturally, she leaned into math and science as well, eventually pursuing a bachelor’s in environmental chemical engineering at Michigan Technological University. It was there that her eyes first opened to the reality that she was one of few women in the room. 

“It definitely was going to Michigan Tech, where I first realized the disparity,” Fenske said, adding that there was around an eight-to-one male-to-female ratio. “As you continue through the higher levels and the grades, it becomes even more tighter, especially as you get into your specialized engineering.” 

Once joining the world of work, it wasn’t only Fenske who noticed the lack of women in senior roles—some bosses would even point it out. 

The Fortune 500 boss is paying it forward—for both men and women

After Fenske graduated from Michigan Tech, she got her start at $91 billion manufacturer 3M: a multinational conglomerate producing everything from pads of Post-It notes to rolls of Scotch tape. Fenske was first hired as an environmental engineer in 2000. Promotion after promotion came, but all people could seem to focus on was her gender.

“It would come to light when I moved relatively quickly through the ranks. Some of my bosses would say, ‘You’re the age of my daughter,’ and different things like that. ‘You’re the first woman that’s had this role at this plant or in this division,’” Fenske recalls. Over the course of 2 decades, she rose through the company’s ranks to the SVP of 3M’s U.S. and Canada manufacturing and supply chain. 

And anytime she was asked about her gender? She’d flip the questions back at them while standing her ground. “I would always try to spin it a little bit and ask them questions like, ‘Okay, so what is your daughter doing?’…I always try to seek to understand where they are coming from, but then also reinforce what brought me to where I am.”

Now, three years into her current stint as Kimberly-Clark’s CSCO, the 47-year-old is paying it back—but not just to the women following in her footsteps.

“I never saw myself as necessarily a big, ground-breaker pioneer, even though the statistics would tell you I was,” Fenske says. “I tried to give back to women and men, to be honest. Because I think men [are] one of the strongest advocates for women as well. So I think we have to teach both how to have that equal lens and diverse perspective.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.