As former presidents of American colleges and universities who care deeply about the contribution of higher education to our country, we call on the Trump administration to end the destructive attacks on colleges and universities and establish a constructive dialogue with board trustees and presidents over university governance and educational guidelines. The federal government’s aggressive threats to withdraw funding and the ideological conditions it has named for reinstating withdrawn funds—before formal investigation, hearing, or reporting—are illegal under Title VI the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. These threats directly imperil the core mission of colleges and universities: to prioritize open dialogue, free inquiry, academic integrity, and the unfettered pursuit of truth. Our nation’s colleges and universities have served as engines of creativity and innovation, contributing exponentially more than their costs to the prosperity, safety, security, and well-being of Americans and our nation. 

We support board trustees and presidents as they collectively defend the values and ideals of higher education; resist and legally challenge unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance; protect departments and programs against political threats; preserve science and other research from funding cuts by providing legal and financial support to affected scholars and research units; and promote the exercise of free expression and a culture of civil discourse. We ask the American public to productively engage in community forums and find solutions to the challenges facing their alma maters as well as their regional and local academic institutions.

We recognize that recent events on college campuses raise legitimate concerns about the independent mission and governance of these schools. Academic institutions should never insist that any student or scholar display ideological purity. Nor should they ever be externally pressured to do so. Matters of social justice or partisan politics must not take precedence over the core mission of colleges and universities, namely the pursuit of truth, advancement of knowledge, and education of responsible citizens.

However, arbitrary assaults on higher education—bypassing legally required due process—have an extremely chilling effect on campus life and undermine the unique contributions of higher education to the nation’s economic vitality, to U.S. technological leadership, to the cultural pillars of our society, to health care, and to the quality of life in communities around the nation. The economic contributions of these institutions to American GDP underpin the $7 trillion in digital transactions that occur each year; the biotech sector’s $3 trillion annual contribution to U.S. GDP; and the $5+ trillion in annual investments to AI and other emerging technologies. Together, these industries, each closely linked to academic programming, contribute nearly half of American GDP, account for the majority of annual GDP growth, and amount to twice the spending of the federal government. The trade surplus from higher education accounts for nearly 14% of total U.S. services trade surplus—comparable to the combined exports of soybeans, coal, and natural gas. A global magnet, international student tuitions contribute $45 billion to the U.S. economy. Colleges and universities are also responsible for massively increasing the average lifespan, improving socioeconomic mobility and access to opportunity, and training millions of highly skilled workers. Their innovation and dynamism play an essential part in promoting American prosperity and global leadership. U.S. colleges and universities remain the best in the world, but every assault on their academic freedom threatens this standing.

We call on the Trump administration to halt its destructive, ever-increasing attack on higher education. We encourage all boards of trustees to avoid concessions toward core institutional principles while encouraging their presidents to speak out in defense of their own schools.

Authors:

• Edward Ayers, University of Richmond
• Kimberly Benston, Haverford College
• Lee Bollinger, Columbia University, University of Michigan
• Phil Boroughs, SJ, College of the Holy Cross 
• Richard Brodhead, Duke University 
• Robert Brown, Boston University
• Carol T. Christ, University of California – Berkeley 
• Mary Sue Coleman, University of Michigan
• Ron Crutcher, Wheaton College (MA)
• Adam Falk, Williams College
• Jonathan Fanton, The New School
• Wayne A. I. Frederick, Howard University
• Stephen Friedman, Pace University
• Amy Gutmann, University of Pennsylvania
• Andrew Hamilton, New York University
• Phil Hanlon, Dartmouth College
• Robert Head, Rockford University
• John Hennessy, Stanford
• Freeman Hrabowski, The University of Maryland, Baltimore County
• Nan Keohane, Duke University, Wellesley College
• Brit Kirwan, University System of Maryland
• Tony Marx, Amherst College
• Gail Mellow, LaGuardia Community College – City University of New York
• Anthony Monaco, Tufts University
• Richard Morrill, Centre College
• M. Duane Nellis, Ohio University, Texas Tech University, University of Idaho
• Lynn Pasquerella, Mount Holyoke College
• Laurie Patton, Middlebury College
• Steven Poskanzer, Carleton College
• Gregory Prince, Hampshire College
• Stuart Rabinowitz, Hofstra University
• L. Song Richardson, Colorado College
• Mark Schlissel, University of Michigan
• Jake Schrum, Southwestern University, Texas Wesleyan University
• Allen L. Sessoms, Delaware State University, University System of DC, Queens College – City University of New York
• Donna Shalala, University of Miami, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Hunter College of the City University of New York 
• Teresa Sullivan, University of Virginia
• Beverly Daniel Tatum, Spelman College
• Lara Tiedens, Scripps College
• Steve Trachtenberg, George Washington University
• Daniel H. Weiss, Haverford College, Lafayette College
• Julie Wollman, Widener University
• Meredith Woo, Sweet Briar College

Institutional affiliations provided for identification only.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:

• Harvard’s defiance of Trump’s ‘authoritarian incursion’ supported by 60 past and present college and university presidents

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• Before he was a multimillionaire Star Wars star, John Boyega was nearly broke—spending $43 of his last $60 to meet J.J. Abrams for dinner and then acting like he had other offers waiting. Playing hard to get is a move usually seen in dating, but in this case, it helped him land the breakout role of rogue Stormtrooper Finn.

Before John Boyega became a household name as rogue Stormtrooper Finn in Star Wars, he was a struggling actor with just £45 [$60] to his name when the director J.J. Abrams invited the 33-year-old actor to dinner.

At the time Boyega barely had enough to cover his travel to meet with Abrams, let alone cover his half of dinner. But the British actor was so hopeful for a big break that he emptied the little left in his bank account to drop everything and trek across London—and now, during a panel at Chicago’s Comic & Entertainment Expo, he said he will “never forget the day.”

“He goes, ‘Where are you?’ And I said, ‘I’m at this art show in Greenwich, mate. I’m very, very busy. Where are you?’ He goes, ‘Well, I’m in Mayfair and [at a] restaurant. Need to talk to you now. And we’ll talk about something important,’” Boyega recalled the exchange with J.J. Abrams, following several rounds of auditions.

“And I go, ‘Okay, okay, I’m gonna be right there’… It took £33 and 83p to get to J.J. Do the math.”

After paying for his fare, Boyega arrived with less than £12 [$15] in his account and everything to gain. If nothing else, he thought, at least the meal would be free.

“Each step I took, I was nervous,” he continued. “I was like, ‘Okay, cool.’ You know, J.J. is a phenomenal, nice guy, and if he was to tell me I didn’t get the part, he would still feed me.”

Boyega played hard to get—and it worked

Before landing the role, Boyega already had a decade of experience, starring in movies like The Whale, Imperial Dreams, and Half of a Yellow Sun. But work had since dried up. Roles weren’t rolling in, but Boyega didn’t want Abrams to know that. After all, the legendary action director—behind box-office hits like Star Trek, Super 8, and Mission Impossible—had the potential to launch the young actor into stardom. 

So he took a page out of the old dating playbook: acting unavailable just enough to pique interest.

“I had been auditioning for so long, so I felt like he kind of took away my dignity a little bit. So I decided to pretend as if I was busy,” Boyega said—and Abrams bought it. 

“Everything felt very surreal,” he remembered. “And then this just puts the Star Wars stamp on it: [The movie’s cowriter Lawrence Kasdan] walks out and he said, ‘Kid, this movie’s gonna change your life.’ And that’s the Hollywood s—.”

Within a span of hours, Boyega went from financial uncertainty to a golden paycheck from Lucasfilm. 

It’s estimated that the actor earned between $100,000 and $300,000 for his role in Star Wars: The Force Awakens in 2015—which grossed more than $2 billion at box offices around the world. He also went on to reprise the role in Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker in 2017 and 2019, which both raked in billion-dollar theater earnings. That discussion with Abrams in the Mayfair restaurant was the first glimmer of his career to come.

Boyega’s career advice for the next generation 

While adopting a “fake it, till you make it” mindset worked out in the end for Boyega, he advises Gen Z to go into their dream job with their eyes wide open—including studying how predecessors in similar backgrounds have found success in that field.

“It’s important to understand the type of industry you’re joining, the opportunity that is available, and the different ways in which you can enter and be a part of something,” Boyega told Backstage in a 2020 podcast episode.  

The Star Wars alumni also said young people should carefully watch how people like them are treated once they get through the door. Boyega himself has been open about his dissatisfaction with Black character portrayals—including his own—in the Lucasfilm franchise.

“Train hard, be a fan of what you love, study other people who have struggled the same way you have,” Boyega added. “It’s all about just calibrating and trying to find what specifically motivates you. Your freedom in that is knowing that there are no rules that could limit you as a creative.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

An estimated 1 in 31 U.S. children have autism, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday, marking another jump in a long string of increases.

The CDC’s data was from 14 states and Puerto Rico in 2022. The previous estimate — from 2020 — was 1 in 36.

Boys continue to be diagnosed more than girls, and the highest rates are among children who are Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native and Black.

To estimate how common autism is, the CDC checked health and school records for 8-year-olds, because most cases are diagnosed by that age. Other researchers have their own estimates, but experts say the CDC’s estimate is the most rigorous and the gold standard.

Here’s what you need to know about the new numbers, as well as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plan to do a “massive testing and research effort” around autism.

What is autism?

Autism is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain. There are many possible symptoms, many of which overlap with other diagnoses. They can include delays in language and learning, social and emotional withdrawal and an unusual need for routine.

For decades, the diagnosis was rare, given only to kids with severe problems communicating or socializing and those with unusual, repetitive behaviors.

As late as the early 1990s, only 1 in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism. Around that time, the term became a shorthand for a group of milder, related conditions known as ″autism spectrum disorders,” and the number of kids labeled as having some form of autism began to balloon.

In the first decade of this century, the estimate rose to 1 in 150. In 2018, it was 1 in 44. In 2020, it was up to 1 in 36.

Why are autism numbers rising?

Health officials largely attribute growing autism numbers to better recognition of cases through wide screening and better diagnosis.

There are no blood or biologic tests for autism. It’s diagnosed by making judgments about a child’s behavior, and there’s been an explosion in autism-related treatment and services for children.

Roughly two decades ago, studies by the CDC and others ruled out childhood vaccines as a cause of autism. Since then, a lot of research has looked at variety of other possible explanations, including genetics, the age of the father, the weight of the mother and whether she had diabetes and exposure to certain chemicals.

Some researchers have theorized it may be a series of things — perhaps a biological predisposition set off by some sort of toxic exposure.

Vaccines and autism

Kennedy and anti-vaccine advocates have remained fixated on childhood vaccines, pointing at a preservative called thimerosal that is no longer in most childhood vaccines or theorizing that autism may be the cumulative effect of multiple vaccinations. A number of studies, including some with CDC authors, have not found such links.

Last week, Kennedy said HHS was launching “a massive testing and research effort that’s going to involve hundreds of scientists from around the world” and identify what causes autism in less than six months. He also promised “we’ll be able to eliminate those exposures.”

Kennedy and President Donald Trump both referred to the 1-in-31 estimate that CDC released Tuesday during last week’s White House meeting, and Kennedy also repeated the statistic at a meeting with FDA officials on Friday,

Kennedy’s statement followed reports that he had hired David Geier, a man who has repeatedly claimed a link between vaccines and autism, to lead the autism research effort. The hiring of Geier, whom Maryland found was practicing medicine on a child without a doctor’s license, was first reported by The Washington Post.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com