All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2025 14:10-14:50 - CSPAN
39:51
Washington Journal Ted Mitchell
Participants
Main
g
greta brawner
cspan 05:55
Appearances
d
dustin burrows
00:31
|

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
To order in a pro forma session tomorrow at 11 a.m.
dustin burrows ▲ ● ▼
Unless you receive a call to be here tomorrow because of DPS's good work. I will provide written permission to be entered in today's journal for each member registered as present during the session to leave the chamber and return 1 p.m. Monday.
Members present today do not need to return until at 1 p.m. Monday.
Members present today do not need to return until Friday.
unidentified
Until Monday.
dustin burrows ▲ ● ▼
Mr. Guerin moves the House stand adjourn until 11 a.m. Saturday.
unidentified
Is there any objection?
dustin burrows ▲ ● ▼
Chair hears none, and the House stands adjourned.
unidentified
And pass precedent nominally.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Why are you doing this?
unidentified
This is outrageous.
This is a kangaroo clause.
This fall, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Join Political Playbook Chief Correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns as host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground.
Ceasefire, this fall, on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Welcome back to The Washington Journal.
Ted Mitchell is joining us now.
He's the president of the American Council on Education, here to talk about the Trump administration and higher education in this country.
Ted Mitchell, let's just begin with a review of the administration's efforts to influence higher education in this second term of President Trump.
What have they done so far?
unidentified
Well, you know, great to be with you, Greta.
Thanks for having me.
It really started on day one with the set of executive orders and then a memo from the Office of Management and Budget declaring a couple things.
First, declaring that American universities and colleges were anti-Semitic, they were soft on anti-Israel protests.
Second, that they were woke and that they had way too much emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI for short.
And that there was general waste in the system, including waste in the research enterprise.
And so the administration has gone after higher education on those three grounds from the very start.
So it's been a tough road for higher ed, mostly because it's very difficult to defend yourself without an opportunity for due process.
And that's the other thing that I would say is that the administration has pushed aside due process and has exerted fines and penalties and freezes on research without any sort of open, open process, open hearing attempt to try the case, as it were, before the American public or in judicial hearings.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
How have these universities responded?
unidentified
Well, you know, I think first, this is an environment of fear and chaos, and nobody does well in an environment of fear or chaos.
I think that's probably a part of the point that the administration wanted to put universities on the back foot, and they've done.
And so universities have responded in a variety of ways.
Most importantly, I think, and even before the Trump administration, universities and colleges took last spring's protest as a wake-up call.
And so they have redone their student conduct policies.
They've held hearings for students involving students who broke the rules.
They've exerted punishments.
Have increased their work to develop programming on anti-Semitism.
So, I think that universities are well on their way to addressing the anti-Semitism problem.
The research issue is an interesting one because there are two things going on.
First, there is an attempt by the various funding agencies to scrub research projects of anything having to do with gender, race, differential health impacts on different groups of people.
And that's really willfully blinding us to the importance of research having to do with these categories.
But the other thing that's been going on is just a blanket unilateral freeze.
And so, we've seen freezes of federal funding in the hundreds of millions of dollars at Harvard, at Duke, at UCLA, at Columbia, and at Brown.
And those freezes are having a really negative impact on research.
It means that clinical trials can't continue.
It means the labs shut down.
It means, frankly, that we are ceding our leadership as the world's leaders in technology, biotechnology, AI.
We're just giving that away by freezing all of this research.
So, lately, and I think that this is where we're going to end up on our conversation this morning.
Lately, institutions have taken a hard look at this and they've figured that the best thing that they can do is go to the administration and ask what's it going to take for us to get back to the research that we do, the teaching that we do, doing what we're supposed to be doing for America.
And so, we've seen settlements over the last week and a half or so from Columbia and from Brown.
And I know that there are discussions going on with Harvard and with UCLA similarly.
And those, you know, frankly, those discussions are a lot like discussing a hostage crisis.
There's no connection between what the government wants in terms of financial recompense to the problems that they're talking about.
So, take Columbia, for example.
Columbia has offered to, has agreed to give the federal government $200 million.
Will a dollar of that help Jewish students?
No.
Will it help Jewish faculty?
No.
And so it's unclear how these penalties are anything more than just a ransom that's being paid to the federal government by universities to allow them to go back to the business of building America.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Let's take a look at these settlements that you were just referencing, Mr. Mitchell.
Columbia settled with the Trump administration a $200 million payment to the federal government, a pledge to end diversity programs, compliance with the administration interpretation on sex discrimination, new vetting and reporting on international students.
This from reporting of the Associated Press.
Review of its Middle East curriculum and faculty changes, adoption of Israel-related anti-Semitism definition and restrictions on campus protests.
That's from the Columbia settlement.
Now onto the settlement with Brown University and the Trump administration.
$50 million in payments to state work development programs, not the federal government.
Adoption of the government's definition of male and female, and removal of any consideration of race from the admissions process.
Trump administration threatened $510 million in funding to Brown University.
And also, other schools have reached a deal Back in July, per the Associated Press, it agreed to modify a trio of school records set by transgender swimmer Leah Thomas and said it would apologize to female athletes disadvantaged by Thomas's participation in the women's swimming team.
Ted Mitchell, what do you make of these settlements and the details that we've heard here?
unidentified
Yeah, I think, Greta, it's great to turn to those details.
The dollars have been the headline.
But I think you rightly point out that the settlements have brought the federal government way into the internal affairs of colleges and universities.
So, I mean, a couple of things.
Race and admissions.
We've been clear about that since the Students for Fair Admissions Act.
So there's nothing really more to be done there, even though there seem to be efforts afoot to try to continue to gather new data.
But universities have been working since Students for Fair Admissions to eliminate race as a consideration in admissions.
It's the law, and universities will comport with the law under any circumstances.
The other things that you mentioned, though, really do get into what we think at the American Council on Education are sort of three red lines that define institutional autonomy and define the ability of institutions to have diverse missions serving in different elements of the country, whether they're religious colleges, historically black colleges, or universities.
And those three are who we teach, what we teach, and who teaches.
And so I think that the settlements get close to those lines in, for example, Columbia's settlement that will change the way they think about their Middle East studies program, or in Harvard's case, the appointment of a special monitor who will look into every aspect of hiring and as well as student admission.
And I worry, and we worry, that the relationship between the federal government and higher education has always been one of partnership.
And we see this now as just stipulating that there will be an antagonistic relationship between the two sectors.
And we don't think that that is good for America.
We don't think it's good for higher education.
We don't think it's good for the things that the Trump administration seems to care about.
Transgender athletes, a lot of news, a lot of noise, and institutions are following not only the Trump doctrine there, but also the NCAA's rulings.
So we've been working on that one ourselves as well.
The admissions thing I mentioned, we have worked hard to eliminate race as an upfront consideration in admissions.
At the same time, the Supreme Court in its ruling reminded us that diversity on college campuses is important.
We just can't use race as the dominant way of achieving that.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Ted Mitchell, remind our viewers, who is we?
What is the American Council on Education?
unidentified
Yeah, the American Council on Education has been around for 107 years.
We represent all higher education institutions, public, private, two-year, four-year.
And we do that mostly in informing federal policy discussions and debates, but also in bringing our institutions together around important issues such as making sure that university degrees are valuable in the workplace, that colleges are addressing the completion issue, and the colleges are as affordable as they can be for every young person and adult in America.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Ted Mitchell here to talk about higher education and the Trump administration influence over it.
We want you to join the conversation with us this morning.
Republicans, dial in at 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
Remember, you can text as well if you'd like at 202-748-8003.
Just include your first name, city, and state.
Mr. Mitchell, the headline from CNN: Trump takes executive action to target race-based university admissions.
The president took executive action yesterday to expand the type of admissions data given to the federal government from colleges and universities, a move aimed at boosting transparency regarding race-based admissions.
What do you make of this action by the president?
unidentified
Yeah, and I referred to that obliquely a second ago.
You know, I think that this is, there's really no change here.
The president is asking for information that in large part is already provided by universities to the government.
And so I think that that's good.
We're all in favor of transparency.
As I mentioned, we support students for fair admissions.
And if there are places where we've not been up to par, well, good for us to hear about that and see that so that we can correct our work.
But let me be clear: colleges and universities in America understand that using race as a primary criteria for admissions is against the law.
And we will proceed accordingly.
What the Trump administration seems to be a little bit confused about is that much of the information that they're asking for is unavailable because of the very fact that we're not taking race into consideration anymore.
We'll know the race of students who enroll at our institutions in the fall.
We'll know that because institutions typically do a census and report that information already to the federal government.
What we can't do because of privacy regulations and won't do is deliver to the federal government specifics on any individual applicant.
And so again, I think we're constrained by the existing structure, but we will certainly do everything in our power to provide the administration and the public with the information that they know, that they need to be reassured that institutions are taking students for fair admissions seriously and that we are searching for ways to make diverse classes without discriminating against any other.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Mr. Mitchell, walk our viewers through your resume here, your work in higher education over the years.
unidentified
Yeah, so I'm an old veteran.
I began my teaching career at Dartmouth College, taught there for 10 years, and then moved to Stanford, where I worked as chief of staff to the president, then to UCLA, where I was dean of the School of Education, and then vice chancellor for a number of administrative parts.
I went to Occidental College where I was president, and then moved to the spent some time supporting educational entrepreneurs with work in Silicon Valley for the new schools venture fund, and then spent the second Obama term as Undersecretary of Education there, and from there moved to ACE.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
All right.
Let's go to DL, who's in Levine, Arizona, Independent.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, and thank you for the show and quite an impressive list of accomplishments by the guests.
I just want to go back to the direct question here: race and college admissions.
Race has always played a role.
Initially, they kept individuals out, and now we're using it as one way to codify and qualify individuals.
What then will be used to allow qualified students the opportunity to attend colleges across this great country?
That's the right question, and there's no doubt that higher education institutions had used race as one of many considerations in identifying qualified applicants.
The Supreme Court has ruled that that is no longer possible to do, and so we will adhere to that.
But I think institutions are looking at ways, and again, to make sure that everyone who is qualified has an opportunity to attend.
And so looking at things like first generation status, looking at things like the economic profile of a family, the economic circumstances of the high schools that students attend, because we know that inequality is not just a higher ed matter, it's a K-12 matter as well.
So trying to take all of those things into consideration without focusing directly on race is what we need to be doing, not as proxies for race, but as a way of creating a diverse class that will include racial diversity.
Ted Mr. So it's a great question.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, talk about the 2023 Supreme Court decision on affirmative action and reminder viewers how that changed the admissions process.
unidentified
Yeah, so that was the case that I've referred to it a couple times as students for fair admissions and those were the plaintiffs who brought the suit.
And basically their argument was that the current application of affirmative action in college admissions was in itself discriminatory, that it essentially set aside seats or took seats from other qualified applicants solely on the basis of race.
And the Supreme Court generally agreed with that argument, while at the same time agreeing that the diversity of a class is really important, both for the uplift that it provides to every student who's in the class, but also because of the well-known fact that diversity of opinion, diversity of background,
diversity of perspective is an important part of what college is, and it's how it widens all of our apertures as we're looking at the world around us.
So A, diversity is important.
B, you can't use race.
C, the Supreme Court was actually quite helpful in identifying a number of ways that they specified could be used.
One, targeted outreach programs, not about applying, not about judging admissions applications, but reaching out to students of different racial groups, different socioeconomic groups, to encourage them to take the courses that they need to qualify for college, to encourage them to apply for colleges and to expand their horizons beyond what they may have been in the past.
That's one.
Two is that the Supreme Court also recognized that every applicant's lived experience is important to who they are and what they want to be when they grow up.
And for many students, their racial identity is a part of that.
So the Supreme Court explicitly allows admissions offices to inquire, to ask students about who they are, where they came from, what they want to do when they grow up.
And so the Supreme Court has allowed statements about how race has influenced students to be a part of the application process.
What's interesting is that there's conflict there, Greta, between what the Supreme Court says and the way the Trump administration has interpreted SFFA.
And so in that executive order you referenced yesterday, or executive memorandum, the Trump administration is asserting that those two things, outreach and expression of sort of self-expression of who students are and the role that race might have played in their lives, that the administration believes that that violates SFFA.
So we have a little bit of a conflict between the executive branch and the Supreme Court on a couple of very important issues.
My guess is that those will play themselves out over the next year, and we'll see SFFA, Students for Fair Admissions, sort of re-litigated, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
A couple of viewer texts for you here, Ted Mitchell.
This is from Steve in Tampa, Florida, who writes, if the universities that allowed anti-Semitic behavior and their educational leaders to promote anti-Semitism had immediately responded appropriately by ending anti-Semitism there, there would have never been a question about having to pay a fine to continue with receiving huge financial payments from the government.
And then you have Diane in Morristown, New Jersey saying the fine for Columbia as punishment is absolutely appropriate after what the university allowed to happen to their Jewish students.
Ted Mitchell?
unidentified
Yeah, a couple things.
One is there's no doubt that many universities were slow to act last spring.
And we, as a sector, have been looking at why and how.
And we could talk for the rest of the time about how these protests were different than others.
It's one of the first times that the protests pitted students against students and importantly, students against faculty and faculty against students.
We were ill-equipped to deal with that.
And last spring was not a proud moment for higher education.
And I agree that we did not respond well or effectively.
We're better at that now.
And I guess my argument about the fine is it does nothing to change the circumstance on the ground.
It does nothing to change the way student conduct is adjudicated.
It does nothing to support Hillels or other organizations on campus that advocate for and provide programming for Jewish students.
It does nothing to help socialize faculty to the importance of maintaining a balance in their teaching and their informal conversations.
So I wouldn't mind it if the 200 million had been spent in somewhat the way that the Brown settlement seems to be, which is to provide positive momentum and an investment in the future either of the university or of other social purposes like the workforce development program in workforce development program in Rhode Island.
So the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
The punishment doesn't help the crime, help mediate the crime, and it, I think, is backward looking in a way that doesn't really support what institutions have done and are doing to reject anti-Semitism on campus.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Couple calls for you here.
John is first in North Carolina, Independent.
Morning, John.
unidentified
Yeah, hello.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Go ahead, John.
Question or comment.
We're listening.
unidentified
Well, I don't object to Our neighboring friends and any of our friends are coming to college, but all these foreign countries are sending them in there to give information all they can.
That's what they're up there for.
And they don't mind paying the money.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Okay, John, I'm going to take your point.
John is referring to what some have called espionage, sending foreign students into our universities to exert influence and to get information about our country.
Ted Mitchell, is this an issue?
unidentified
Yeah, thanks, John, for your question.
And thanks, Greta.
It is an issue.
And I think we would be silly to argue that it's not.
Espionage is a problem.
Graduate student espionage, especially in scientific fields, has been an issue of concern for our institutions, for funding agencies, for the security apparatus.
And we've been working to root that out.
And we, by we, in this instance, I mean all of us, education leaders, security officials, granting agencies, and so on.
And are we perfect at it?
No.
Are we going to find a spy in our midst occasionally?
Absolutely.
But let's remember, too, that the other side of the coin is that we are essentially recruiting the very best and the very brightest from every country in the world to come and participate in the American experiment.
Most graduate students, most undergraduates who come have hopes of staying, hopes of contributing to the American economy, to our society.
If, for example, you look at the number of immigrants who came to this country as students, who have started phenomenal businesses or now the CEOs of established businesses, it's a disproportionate number.
We gain through the international student flow.
Let's look at one other piece of this, which is if students go back, what do they go back with?
Well, some of them go back with marketable assets in the form of intellectual property, and we need to stop that.
But the majority of them leave with a strong feeling of connection to America.
And they, when they return, disproportionately attain positions of leadership in their country.
So we win if they stay, we win if they go back, with the exception of the very few who come with nefarious purposes.
And we're doing everything that we can to create an environment in which our discoveries are secure.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
We've recently covered a discussion on foreign espionage in higher education here on C-SPAN.
You can find it on our website at c-span.org.
Gina, who's in Mount Vernon, New York, an independent.
Hi, Gina.
Welcome to the conversation.
Question or comment here for our guest, Ted Mitchell.
unidentified
Yes.
Excuse me.
I do have two right quick.
But the first one is that we did, I did hear it when we were talking about diversity at the college.
Because to me, I feel as though that this is something that is very, it's very important to urban students.
Okay.
We have been shut out for a long, long, long, long, too long, you know, and it is something that needs to happen, that has to put in place.
I don't understand why it is so difficult to have a small percentage of urban students to actually go there.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
All right, Gina, let's take that.
Ted Mitchell's shaking his head.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Yeah, Gina, it's a real question.
And I think that we at ACE spend a lot of time trying to answer the question: What is it that's preventing urban students and also rural students, I might add, from applying to and going to college?
And there are a couple of things.
We know that most families look at the sticker price of colleges and universities and say, whoa, that's way above our ability to pay.
And that's partly our problem, right?
Because we advertise the sticker price.
But in truth, most families pay half of that.
It's called the discount rate.
And it's a sort of understudied, underunderstood part of higher education, particularly in private institutions, independent institutions.
That while, yes, there is a high price that a few pay, the majority, through federal student aid, through private student aid, through institutional aid, get a lot of help to go to college.
So we need to do a better job talking about that.
I think second is that it has become clearer as the economy changes that there are plenty of jobs out there that don't require a college degree, that may require not a four-year college degree.
They may require an associate's degree or a certificate.
And we're very, very bullish on giving students a start wherever they want, but making sure that those experiences can eventually translate into a four-year degree if students want it.
So price, cost, other opportunities for jobs.
And I think the final one is that we continue to think of the college experience as one that is different from everyday life.
And so, you know, lots of adult students, 24 to 36-year-olds, have started a family.
They started a job.
We need to be more flexible in how we offer courses.
Some of that will be online.
Some of it will be just changing the time of day that courses are offered.
We need to fit our curriculum and our structure around the needs of students rather than the other way around.
And we're slowly doing that, but we need to do it faster and harder.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Joe is in Butner, North Carolina, Democratic caller.
Joe, let's hear from you.
unidentified
Yes.
I am concerned about Ted Mitchell's statement about anti-Semitism and how it costs Columbia and other Ivy League schools.
I have not yet heard of a single lawsuit, a single injury, or the reduction of the plurality of Jewish students at Ivy League schools as a result of the protest.
The APAC seems to have made an impression on him and the government to take up this campaign.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Well, Joe, let's get a response to that because you're accusing him of being influenced by APAC, which is a Jewish lobby effort in the United States.
Ted Mitchell, I want to give you a chance to respond.
unidentified
Yeah, thanks.
Thanks.
And thanks for giving me the opportunity to go back to my overly long monologue.
I'm trying to, I agree with you.
And that was, I was trying to make that point and obviously didn't.
The problem here is that the government has made all of these assertions that institutions are anti-Semitic, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And at no point has there been an opportunity to examine that.
There have been no lawsuits.
There have been no The normal way we do this is that there's a complaint.
The complaint goes to the Office of Civil Rights.
The Office of Civil Rights gathers information.
They make a recommendation.
And the university sits down with the Office of Civil Rights and comes up with a solution to the problem.
When I said that the government has not obeyed due process, this is exactly what I mean.
They have asserted a crime.
They have exerted a punishment.
And at no point has there been a legal process to justify either.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Ted Mitchell, Wall Street Journal article recently with the headline, Trump comes for public universities with UCLA now in his sites.
University of California system agrees to negotiate after more than 500 million in federal research funds are frozen.
How do you think this effort will be different with public universities versus private?
unidentified
Yeah, it's a great question, and it's obviously an unfolding story, so we'll watch it closely.
I think that this is the third effort around public universities.
Let's not forget the University of Virginia system, George Mason University, and UVA that were in the Trump administration's target zone just a couple of weeks ago.
In both of those cases, rather than going to the freeze research, demand a payment and move on, which is the Columbia and Harvard model, they have demanded that the president resign.
In the case of the University of Virginia, that has happened.
Jim Ryan resigned and has been replaced by an interim.
At George Mason, the demand that Gregory Washington resign has been rebuffed, at least for the moment, by the board at George Mason.
So I think we're seeing the Trump administration starting to probe at the defenses of public institutions.
And now we'll see what happens at UCLA.
It's a very, very different setting because in a public institution, the purse strings are not just campus purse strings.
They are system purse strings.
And they are, at the end of the day, state purse strings.
And so any significant settlement with any public institution will need to eventually be okayed by the governor and perhaps the state legislature.
It's going to be a very different case in California where Governor Newsom has already been clear that he has no interest in participating in this kind of hostage taking, I believe is the term he used.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
We'll go to Merle next.
Wilson, North Carolina, an independent caller, your turn.
unidentified
Yes, I got to suggest that I think you guys should interview some of the students.
I haven't heard anything about what the students had to say.
I'm saying the regular American students, you know, the students that we send, that Americans, born Americans.
I have talked to them.
I talked to quite a few of them.
And their biggest complaints is that they are favored, that the Jewish, that they have created, like the last caller, that CPAC has created this thing of anti-Semitism.
And if you look at the one thing they complain about is Jewish students, they get free education, free health care.
Our students over here, they're burdened with hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans that we charge them for going to school, but we turn around and give Israel trillions of dollars over the time that it has been existed, trillions of dollars, which they have been built up their economy and they get everything free.
And we don't get anything.
And you know, we got states over here going bankrupt and need money, but we find the money to give bills.
And nobody is, we got Netanyahu came over here on the TV and called all of our students a bunch of idiots when they was out there protesting.
And if you check, man, we have a right to protest.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Okay, Merrell, I'll have Mr. Mitchell jump in now.
unidentified
Merrell, great points.
And I think that one of the things, and foreign policy is way above my pay grade, but I do think that it's important to recognize that the students who are on our campuses today are they are borrowing money.
They are paying them back.
The good news is that the average student debt hasn't changed much over the last 15 years.
It's about $30,000.
It's not the hundreds of thousands of dollars that we sometimes read in the headlines.
And that the majority of students are able to pay back their loans within the time period specified.
The students who have difficulty paying back their loans are students who come to college and leave without the benefit of a degree.
There's a degree bump that makes you eligible for all kinds of other jobs that pay more.
And if you leave with, say, two years of college and two years of debt, that's going to be a harder road for you.
And I hear your point about the way that we have chosen domestically to spend our money.
And I think that that's something that Congress was working hard on in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, is to do things like cap the amount of money that graduate students could borrow, make sure that the loan payment programs were clear and simple for students.
And I applaud both of those.
But I hear you that if you step way back and you look at aid to Israel, for example, against the aid that we provide to American students, we've got a long-time discussion about how we set priorities in this country.
And in particular, how we set priorities around education, which is clearly the way we support our future as a country.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼
Ted Mitchell, I wanted to go back to foreign students attending universities and colleges here in the United States, because Brookings put together a piece recently where they estimated that the cost of eliminating foreign students, international college students, is $44 billion.
And that would be the economic blow, they say.
And it would add to the trade deficit, harm many college budgets, and badly damage businesses in many college towns.
What do you think?
unidentified
100% agreement.
The struggle against international students, to me, seems to be three strikes.
Strike one is that you eliminate a group of people who are paying substantially more than the average domestic student actually lowers the cost to American students.
That's one.
Two, these are students who provide incredible diversity to the institution along with their purchasing power in local communities.
And three, as I mentioned before, the net result of international enrollment is either a boon to our economy as people stay and contribute or a soft power diplomacy as those students go back and assume positions of authority in their home countries.
Education, higher education, is the fifth leading export in the U.S.
It's right up there with car manufacturing.
So I think we've got the telescope on backwards here, and we really need to look at the importance of international student recruitment as a positive for not only American higher education, but the American economy.
And 40 billion is the number in addition to the Brookings study.
That's sort of where our analysts have been as well.
If you eliminate foreign students, that's what happens.
One other thing that I've mentioned, Greta, is that foreign students are not equally distributed across all the campuses in the country.
▲
Export Selection