April 10, 2025 • 30 mins
The drumbeat against higher education continues to grow louder. In this revealing conversation with Janet Napolitano—former Arizona Governor, Secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama, and President of the University of California—we explore the existential threats facing America's great research universities.
Janet pulls no punches when discussing the political headwinds threatening higher education. With potential cuts that could strip "billions of dollars" from research universities like UC, we're witnessing what she describes as "eating our seed corn"—jeopardizing the very innovation pipeline that has powered America's global leadership. Graduate students, who become tomorrow's researchers and innovators, are already feeling the impact as professors hesitate to hire them amid funding uncertainty.
Equally concerning is the assault on First Amendment rights on campus. While Janet clearly disagrees with many of the protest positions on issues like Gaza, she warns that universities have historically been strongholds of free speech—and current efforts to punish institutions and students for protected expression marks a dangerous shift in American values.
Perhaps most illuminating is Janet's description of public universities as "the secret sauce for how the United States has become the top performing economy in the world." This isn't just rhetoric—it's backed by decades of evidence showing how accessible higher education creates social mobility and economic prosperity. Yet this story isn't reaching enough Americans, as costs rise and communication failures allow stereotypes to flourish.
For those feeling overwhelmed by today's political polarization, Janet offers practical wisdom: limit social media consumption, contact your representatives, and organize around issues you care about. "Democracy takes work," she reminds us. "You can't just be a passive recipient of democracy." In these challenging times for higher education and democratic institutions alike, her experienced voice provides both warning and hope.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Hi, this is Eloy Ortiz-Oakley, and welcome back
to the Rant Podcast, the podcastthat pulls back the curtain and
breaks down the people, thepolicies and the politics of our
higher education system.
In this episode I get to sitdown with my friend and
colleague who is a veteranpolitician, an author and higher
(00:31):
education leader.
Her name is Janet Napolitano,and Janet has had an amazing
career in public service.
She has held positions such asthe Attorney General and
Governor of the state of Arizona.
She has held positions such asthe Attorney General and
Governor of the state of Arizona.
She was the Secretary ofHomeland Security for President
Barack Obama and served as thePresident of the University of
(00:55):
California.
She's now a member of thefaculty at the UC Berkeley
Goldman School of Public Policyand she has a wide array of
experiences that center on manyof the issues impacting higher
education today.
But before we jump into myconversation with Janet, I want
to take a moment to reflect onthe last few weeks since the
(01:17):
recording of my last podcast.
Things are changing so fastthese days it's hard to keep up
with all the news.
In my last podcast I talkedabout the possible dismantling
of the Department of Educationand how that would have a
devastating impact on states.
Well, fast forward to today.
The executive order has beensigned.
(01:40):
Secretary McMahon has beengiven the marching orders to
begin the dismantling of theDepartment of Education.
What does all this mean?
Well, I really don't know, butI'm going to give you my
thoughts.
First, while there is anexecutive order, secretary
McMahon has her hands full todecide how to deal with all the
(02:03):
elements that go into theDepartment of Education.
And I strongly believe that,while there is going to be some
significant reduction in size ofthe Department of Education,
reduction in scope, I don't seehow many of the programs that
are within the Department ofEducation will go away.
Many of those programs affecteveryday working Americans in
(02:28):
states across this country.
Nevertheless, there is going tobe a serious effort to look to
see how they can scale back manyof the programs in the
Department of Education.
So, everything from financialaid, which I've touched on
before, there's been rumors thatfinancial aid FSA may go to SBA
(02:51):
, the Small BusinessAdministration, and while that
may seem relativelystraightforward to some people,
it's just amazing for me tothink how FSA, which is one of
the largest financial programsthat the federal government
manages that touch the lives ofpeople is going to a relatively
small agency that has its handsfull dealing with all the money
(03:14):
that goes out to smallbusinesses.
But we'll see.
Certainly, linda McMahon hasexperience with SBA, being the
former administrator during thefirst Trump administration.
But you also have programs likeTitle I that affects K-12
schools throughout the country.
You have programs like Title Vthat support institutions that
(03:37):
serve low-income workingAmericans throughout this
country, and you have the TitleIV program which, as I mentioned
, serves to support financiallylow-income Americans of all
backgrounds.
These are not DEI programs.
These are programs aimed atsupporting those Americans that
(03:59):
have the least resources andgive them an opportunity to
access a quality education sothat they can participate
meaningfully in the economy.
If the Department of Educationis dismantled in the ways that
some talking heads have beentalking about, we are going to
undermine the American workforce.
(04:21):
We are going to undermine atalent pipeline that's sorely
needed in every community ofevery state in this nation.
We cannot take this lightly.
This is going to havedevastating impacts on the
talent pipeline for theworkforce of tomorrow, for the
(04:42):
workforce of tomorrow, and so weneed to ensure, we need to
advocate, we need to highlightthe importance of many of the
programs within the Departmentof Education.
We can have debates about wherethese programs should lie, how
they should be constructed, whothey should serve, but the fact
of the matter is we are in amoment in time in this country
(05:04):
where we need to invest inbuilding the workforce of
tomorrow, and these programs arespecifically designed to
support states in doing theirjob, their role as overseeing
education in their states.
One can say the states shouldtake this on by themselves, but
there is a reason the federalgovernment has had to insert
(05:26):
itself.
Over the last 20, 25 years,states have significantly
divested in public support ofeducation in most states in this
country, and so, without thefederal government partnering
with states, it's going to bevery difficult to think how
states are going to come up withthose resources at a time when
(05:47):
there are greater and greaterdemands on state budgets.
So I hope that you join me intalking to your congressional
representatives, talking to yourlocal advocacy groups, talking
to students, administrators,anybody who will listen, about
the importance of ensuring thatwe build programs within the
(06:10):
federal government that continueto support a healthy and
thriving American workforce.
Okay, with that backdrop,please enjoy my conversation
with Janet Napolitano.
Janet, welcome to the RantPodcast.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Thank you, good to see you, lloyd.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
It's great to see you too, Janet.
It's been a little while, butyou look great.
You look rested.
Things must be going well inyour neck of the woods,
hopefully.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
They're going pretty well, but the things I control
are doing very well.
Things I don't control I havesome concern about.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Well, I think we're all saying the serenity prayer
these days.
Yeah.
So, Janet, it's been what?
Roughly five years since youleft the post of president of
the University of California.
A lot has changed.
In those five years, A lot hasbeen going on.
What are some of the biggestchanges that you've seen in the
last five years?
(07:05):
Within the University ofCalifornia, but also, more
broadly, the Research OneUniversity landscape?
Speaker 2 (07:13):
For those who are listening to this podcast, our
one, universities, is asubcategory of higher ed.
And these are universities thatspend a certain percentage of
their budget on basic research.
And there are also universitieswhere you find not only master's
programs but PhD programs and,in the way the United States
(07:35):
kind of scientific establishmentis set up, it's where the bulk
of basic research that underliesmany developments in our
country and many swaths of oureconomy emanate from our R1
universities.
And with the addition of UCMerced this year as an R1
(07:55):
university, all of the campusesof the UC system are R1.
And so that's a great thing.
You know the University ofCalifornia, it's an interesting
institution.
It has a grand history, butwhat I'm seeing is evolving over
time.
It is an incredible emphasis onbeing an opportunity maker an
(08:17):
opportunity maker for firstgeneration students, an
opportunity maker for studentsfrom lower income backgrounds,
an opportunity maker forCalifornians, more and more
Californians attending theUniversity of California, and
that's great, because a greatpublic university, which is what
the University of California is, should be building the future
(08:40):
for the state, and I think thatrole has been an increasing
focus of the University ofCalifornia.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Well, I certainly agree with you.
I firmly believe that the UC isreally the backbone of
innovation, of scientificresearch, of great ideas for the
state of California and a bigreason why the state of
California is what it is today.
So we both certainly agree onthat.
Now, as you are sort ofwatching what's going on these
(09:12):
days from the sidelines, what doyou see as some of the biggest
challenges to universities likethe University of California
today?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Well, the number one challenge is the new
administration in Washington DC,and I'll take it in a couple of
buckets.
First of all, thisadministration has never been a
fan of higher education, whichit presumes to be just kind of
institutions that foment liberalunrest, or what have you.
Be that as it may, therestrictions on research funding
(09:46):
are severe and fundamental, andfor R1 universities they are
demonstrating the University ofCalifornia.
If the recent moves by theadministration are hold they've
been held up in court for rightnow but if they hold it will
literally be billions of dollarsof loss to the University of
(10:07):
California, billions of dollars.
It means that programs even now, professors even now, are not
hiring graduate students becausethey don't know they will have
funding for them.
Well, what are graduate students?
Graduate students become notjust the professors of the
future, they become theresearchers of the future.
They become the researchers ofthe future, they become the
developers, the innovators ofthe future.
(10:28):
And you know, it's like eatingour seed corn not to support
this big research enterprise.
So that is an existential riskto the University of California.
The second existential risk tohigher education in general is
this business of targetinguniversities for not being
(10:53):
active enough in combatinganti-Semitism.
Now, what universities need todo is an unanswered question,
but we've seen what is happeningto Columbia University in New
York, where not only have theyhad $400 million in research
just summarily dropped We'll seewhether that holds up but where
the administration recentlyseized a student who graduated
(11:18):
last year, who was a leader inthe Gaza-Israel demonstrations
which were very active atColumbia and was one of the
negotiators for the pro-Gaza,pro-hamas, if you will position
in those demonstrations, andhe's here in the United States
as a legal permanent resident.
(11:38):
And they seized him in New York,where he has an American wife
who's pregnant, and immediatelymoved him to immigration
detention in Louisiana and areseeking to deport him, even
though he is a legal permanentresident.
And I am sure that they have alist of students they've been
able to identify whoparticipated in demonstrations,
(12:02):
didn't violate any laws.
You may disagree vociferouslyor vehemently with their
positions, which I do, butnonetheless universities in this
country traditionally have beenwhere First Amendment
protections have been thestrongest and this is a direct
attack on that.
And it will be a struggle foruniversities to figure out how
(12:26):
to protect the First Amendmentrights of students and faculty
and staff in this kind ofcontext and in that connection
they already have a list of 10or so universities they want to
quote, investigate beyondColumbia University, and that
list includes both Berkeley andUCLA.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
It's amazing to watch , given just the history of
First Amendment protests on alluniversity campuses.
I mean, when you and I spenttime with the University of
California, I don't think therewas a meeting that went by
without some sort of protestabout one thing or another.
And it is just a way of lifeand I think whether, as you
(13:07):
mentioned, whether you agree ordisagree with the protesters, it
is part of that university life, the experience, the
opportunity to express yourselfand to express ideas, regardless
of whether or not most peopleagree with them.
So the sudden shift here is Ithink, while I don't think it
caught it shouldn't have caughtanybody by surprise, but it
(13:30):
certainly is causing a lot ofconsternation on campuses.
Now, given your experience andyou know, for people living
under a rock, you have a widearray of experiences in the
public.
You've been elected severaltimes in a swing state like
Arizona, as attorney general, asgovernor.
(13:51):
In a swing state like Arizona,as attorney general, as governor
, you served in probably whatmany consider today as one of
the more controversial cabinetseats, the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
And, of course, you led theUniversity of California.
So what do you make of thispopulist movement that's going
(14:12):
on?
You know the president is apresident and we all have
experienced the kind ofcraziness that happens, but this
movement across the countrytoward a populist agenda, what
do you think is behind this, andhow do we in the higher
education sector begin to sortof shift the direction of some
(14:32):
of that frustration?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Well, I think one of the things in higher ed is that
when people think higher ed,they think the Ivy League.
The Ivy League is not higher ed.
You know, 80, 85 percent ofcollege students in this country
go to public universities andin California a great many of
those start at the communitycolleges, as you're well aware,
and then if they seek totransfer to a four-year, either
(14:58):
Cal State or UC or elsewhere,and somehow in this country we
have lost the value of having aneducation beyond high school.
What does it mean and how doesit assist students?
I think we lost that because ofcost.
(15:20):
The cost went up and for publicuniversities they went up a lot
during the 08, 09 period whenstates cut back on their funding
and really the only alternativewas for tuition to increase and
also the increasing perceptionincrease and also the increasing
perception which is bolsteredon social media, any number of
ways that universities somehoware not fair.
They're not fair to those whohave more conservative belief,
(15:43):
they're not fair to faculty orstudents who are from the more
conservative part of our countryin terms of their philosophy,
and that combination reallyplays into, you know, these
increasingly unpopular view ofhigher ed in national polls,
where higher ed used to bereally near the top in terms of
(16:05):
institutions that people trustedand liked.
Now you know we're not as lowas Congress, but we're on the
right track.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
That's a pretty low bar.
Yeah for sure, Given yourexperience in politics, Janet,
you understand better than mosthow political winds change, sort
of what drives some of thesemovements.
And you mentioned thechallenges with research
universities and research funds.
We've heard from theadministration these tropes, you
(16:36):
know.
We hear DOGE representativestalking about the waste that
they found in research funding.
You know, I think the mostrecent one is money spent on
trying to change the sex of somesort of reptile or something.
And they use these tropes toundermine the value of the
(16:58):
research dollars that thefederal government puts into
motion and leads to tremendousdiscoveries throughout the
country and throughout the world.
What can higher educationleaders do differently to combat
that misinformation?
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Well combating disinformation.
If I had the answer to that,maybe I'd be in the White House,
who knows?
But it is easy to cherry pickamong the hundreds of thousands
of research grants and find onesthat seem titled in a weird way
without asking well, why arethey doing that?
And I think the project youreferenced is they're not doing
(17:36):
sex changes on laboratory mice,they're trying to figure out the
hormonal differences, whichthen will translate into
research, into things likeovarian cancer, and it's kind of
ridiculous to manage yourresearch enterprise that way.
I think the whole Dogeenterprise is misguided.
(17:58):
It's misguided in severalfundamental ways.
First, let's begin.
Every large institution and thefederal government is comprised
of large institutions.
I ran one of those.
I ran the third largest agencyin the federal government.
I know the fact that you canfind some waste in there and
everybody should be doingefficiency reviews and the like
(18:19):
makes a lot of sense andeverybody should be focused on
that to make the highest andbest use of the taxpayer dollars
we have.
However, just going willy nillyand saying, well, I don't like
this agency and I don't likethis agency and I don't like
this, without any knowledge ofwhat the work is, what employees
(18:42):
are actually doing what thevalue of that work is, who it
serves.
It means that it is themetaphor you currently you hear
often is it's cutting with an axand not a scalpel.
Well, if you're going to reallycut with a scalpel, you got to
get in there.
You really have to understandwhat you're dealing with.
(19:03):
And the fact that Doge came in,didn't listen to anybody,
didn't consult with anybody,brought in a bunch of 20
something year old tech bros andand said here, you guys, you
know, set up some bunk beds inthis agency and and, just, and,
and just figure out all thepeople you can fire.
(19:23):
That is not the way torestructure government.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Well, that's for sure the absurdity of the way
they're going about it.
And look, I agree with you.
I mean, you and I have both hadto manage through large higher
education bureaucracies.
There's lots of things thatcertainly frustrated me about
local, state, federalbureaucracy, and certainly I'm
(19:48):
one of those people who believethat we could do things a lot
more efficiently and effectivelywith taxpayer dollar.
However, just bringing in yourchainsaw and cutting everything
apart is just craziness, givenhow much interconnectivity there
is between states and thefederal government today.
I mean, by and large, highereducation relies heavily on the
(20:13):
federal government, whether youagree with that or don't agree
with that.
And if you don't agree with it,there are ways to begin to wean
states off.
But you can't just do itovernight.
Now let me hone in on two areasof expertise that you certainly
have.
I mean, obviously we're talkingabout higher education, whether
research university, regionalfour-year university or
(20:33):
community college, serves itscommunity more that we can do to
skill the local workforce,regardless of where they came
from.
The better off local economiesare going to be, the better off
(21:05):
state economies are going to be.
How do we do a better job inhigher education to make that
case, to make the economic casefor the inclusivity of people in
the economy and making surethat they're upskilled.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Well, first of all, we need to talk about it more.
Very few people in Californiaknow that almost 40% of the
students are first in theirfamilies to go to college.
Very few people know that over35% of the undergrads don't pay
any tuition because theirfamilies make less than $80,000
a year.
I kept saying it and saying itand saying it when I was
(21:40):
pregnant, but that's in a wayit's not a story that, for
whatever reason, people wereinterested in hearing and the
media was interested in covering.
And maybe it makes sense forhigher education universities to
be more active on social mediaplatforms, particularly more
conservative social mediaplatforms, and kind of give the
(22:03):
lie to the stereotypes that havedeveloped about higher
education.
You know, public highereducation in the United States
is the secret sauce for how theUnited States has become the top
performing economy in the worldand it is the basis of the
richness and the diversity ofour economy.
(22:25):
And to attack it, to cut it off, to not fully appreciate what
it does, is a tragedy, and itbegins with a tragedy of
communication.
And then also the university.
Sometimes we are our own worstenemy.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
We sink into academic lingo, speak and, oh my gosh,
really the new terms for who youare growing up as a second
generation Mexican-American, I'mthe son of immigrant Just
(23:06):
trying to even understand whatlabel I should apply to myself
today, given the academicscholarship around trying to
identify who we are.
And I understand why we do thatand I understand the importance
of that.
I understand the importance ofthat.
I understand the importance ofgetting deep into a better
understanding of humanity, butthe way it translates into
(23:28):
everyday life sometimes getslost and then we become victims
of our own work.
Now, if you were coming ontoday as a higher education
leader, or if there's a highereducation leader who rang your
cell and said, janet, whatadvice would you have for me in
leading this big publicinstitution today?
(23:49):
What would that advice be?
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Oh, it's tough because, as you mentioned, eli,
higher education andparticularly R1 institutions are
heavily dependent on federaldollars, and institutions are
heavily dependent on federaldollars, and students are
heavily dependent on federaldollars for student aid,
financial assistance, and inthis administration, they are
more than willing to cut offmoney if you're not seen as
(24:14):
doing what they want, and so thetraditional independence of
higher ends is directly underfinancial attack.
Advice would be to prioritizeyour battles and figure out
which are the ones that aretruly existential versus which
(24:43):
are the ones you know you'rejust going to have to swallow A
place like the University ofCalifornia.
You know, figuring out thoselines may come sooner rather
than later.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
So what do you make of some of the recent moves?
We have a new Secretary ofEducation Under McMahon and I
think, almost immediately therewas a move to lay off half of
the staff of the Department ofEducation and while, as I
mentioned before, I think a lotof us would agree that there are
changes that need to be made,how do you see this playing out
(25:14):
in your mind?
Do you see the Department ofEducation go away or do you
think there are just somefundamental things that the
department does that commonsense will eventually settle in
and we'll hang on to some ofthose?
Speaker 2 (25:26):
You know, I would like to see the Department of
Education create a nationalinitiative to increase reading
and math scores in our K-12students.
Let's talk about what goes onin the classroom.
We spend a lot of time talkingabout what goes on in the
bathroom, but we are notspending any time talking about
what goes on in the classroomand really create a national
(25:48):
expectation of excellence in ourpublic schools in particular.
And if the Department ofEducation took that on and the
Secretary of Education took thaton, I think the country would
be better off for it on and theSecretary of Education took that
on, I think the country wouldbe better off for it.
Instead, we're going to spend alot of time as she goes about
whittling down the Department ofEd.
She can't get rid of it.
(26:12):
It was created by Congress.
We'll see what Congress doeswith some of this, and there are
some basic services that DOEDepartment of Ed provides that
well.
If they're not going to be at,the Department of Ed will need
to be moved to other cabinetdepartments, for example the
whole student loan program,which so many students rely on
for their higher ed budgets.
But you know, I just think themessaging is wrong.
(26:33):
It diminishes the value ofeducation, and in a democracy
like ours, education is so very,very important.
And you know I've been waitingto hear some grand pronouncement
.
We've heard that the presidentwants us to go to Mars.
Well, do you know what thatmeans?
That means we need lots ofstudents who become engineers,
(26:55):
who become scientists, whobecome technologists.
You know who can muster thatkind of effort.
But we're not hearing any ofthat.
We're just going to somehowmagically go to Mars.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yes, magically go to Mars.
Well, we'll see how that allworks out and we will hope for
the best.
I think there's some folks thatI know I would love to send to
Mars, but we'll see.
We'll see what happens.
So, Janet, as we begin to wrapup here, let me pick on your
(27:27):
political brain here.
As I talk to folks inCalifornia or across the country
, I'm sure you hear the samething in your travels People are
frustrated.
They feel like things havegotten away from them.
They feel like the politicshave gotten away from them.
They feel like they'reconstantly on the defensive,
(27:47):
wondering what's going to happenwhen they wake up and look at
their social media feed.
What's your advice to folksabout how to take back or at
least feel like they're moreempowered in today's politics,
in today's dialogue, given someof the frustration people feel?
Speaker 2 (28:07):
I think, Eli, that I would encourage people to stay
off social media.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
Or to recognize that in social media, in a way,
they're being played and to takewith a grain of salt any
information they see there.
I would encourage people tostay tuned in.
I would encourage people, onissues that are direct concern
to them, to be in touch withtheir congresspeople and their
senators.
(28:33):
People say, well, they don'tpay any attention to that or
whatever.
And I've been on the hill and Isay you know what, if they hear
from a lot of people, they payattention.
And that is, you know,something that is important for
people to express.
Democracy takes work.
You can't just be a passiverecipient of democracy.
Democracy is all of us andeverybody needs to play a part.
(28:56):
And if you're so inclined,organize, organize, organize,
organize around an issue,organize with a group of people,
but that's also part of thework of democracy.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Well, janet, I really appreciate you taking some time
to talk to us here on the Rantpodcast and, although it goes
without saying, I will repeat itagain I really thank you for
all your service all these years, and I think your experience
today is probably more importantthan ever as we all try to
navigate our way forward throughthis very turbulent times, not
(29:32):
just in this country, butthroughout the globe.
So thank you for your continuedwork, thank you for your
continued service and thank youfor being here on the RAND
podcast.
Well, thank you, eloy, andthank you for your continued
work.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Thank you for your continued service and thank you
for being here on the Rantpodcast.
Well, thank you, eloy, andthank you for your service.
You've also contributed quite abit.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
All right.
Well, folks, you've beenlistening to my conversation
with Janet Napolitano.
It's been a pleasure to haveher here on the Rant podcast.
If you're following us onYouTube, continue to follow us
on this YouTube channel, hitsubscribe.
And if you're following us onyour favorite podcast platform,
continue to follow us and wewill be back to you soon with
more episodes here on the RentPodcast.
(30:10):
Thank you.
Hi, this is Eloy Ortiz-Oakley, and welcome back
to the Rant Podcast, the podcastthat pulls back the curtain and
breaks down the people, thepolicies and the politics of our
higher education system.
In this episode I get to sitdown with my friend and
colleague who is a veteranpolitician, an author and higher
(00:31):
education leader.
Her name is Janet Napolitano,and Janet has had an amazing
career in public service.
She has held positions such asthe Attorney General and
Governor of the state of Arizona.
She has held positions such asthe Attorney General and
Governor of the state of Arizona.
She was the Secretary ofHomeland Security for President
Barack Obama and served as thePresident of the University of
(00:55):
California.
She's now a member of thefaculty at the UC Berkeley
Goldman School of Public Policyand she has a wide array of
experiences that center on manyof the issues impacting higher
education today.
But before we jump into myconversation with Janet, I want
to take a moment to reflect onthe last few weeks since the
(01:17):
recording of my last podcast.
Things are changing so fastthese days it's hard to keep up
with all the news.
In my last podcast I talkedabout the possible dismantling
of the Department of Educationand how that would have a
devastating impact on states.
Well, fast forward to today.
The executive order has beensigned.
(01:40):
Secretary McMahon has beengiven the marching orders to
begin the dismantling of theDepartment of Education.
What does all this mean?
Well, I really don't know, butI'm going to give you my
thoughts.
First, while there is anexecutive order, secretary
McMahon has her hands full todecide how to deal with all the
(02:03):
elements that go into theDepartment of Education.
And I strongly believe that,while there is going to be some
significant reduction in size ofthe Department of Education,
reduction in scope, I don't seehow many of the programs that
are within the Department ofEducation will go away.
Many of those programs affecteveryday working Americans in
(02:28):
states across this country.
Nevertheless, there is going tobe a serious effort to look to
see how they can scale back manyof the programs in the
Department of Education.
So, everything from financialaid, which I've touched on
before, there's been rumors thatfinancial aid FSA may go to SBA
(02:51):
, the Small BusinessAdministration, and while that
may seem relativelystraightforward to some people,
it's just amazing for me tothink how FSA, which is one of
the largest financial programsthat the federal government
manages that touch the lives ofpeople is going to a relatively
small agency that has its handsfull dealing with all the money
(03:14):
that goes out to smallbusinesses.
But we'll see.
Certainly, linda McMahon hasexperience with SBA, being the
former administrator during thefirst Trump administration.
But you also have programs likeTitle I that affects K-12
schools throughout the country.
You have programs like Title Vthat support institutions that
(03:37):
serve low-income workingAmericans throughout this
country, and you have the TitleIV program which, as I mentioned
, serves to support financiallylow-income Americans of all
backgrounds.
These are not DEI programs.
These are programs aimed atsupporting those Americans that
(03:59):
have the least resources andgive them an opportunity to
access a quality education sothat they can participate
meaningfully in the economy.
If the Department of Educationis dismantled in the ways that
some talking heads have beentalking about, we are going to
undermine the American workforce.
(04:21):
We are going to undermine atalent pipeline that's sorely
needed in every community ofevery state in this nation.
We cannot take this lightly.
This is going to havedevastating impacts on the
talent pipeline for theworkforce of tomorrow, for the
(04:42):
workforce of tomorrow, and so weneed to ensure, we need to
advocate, we need to highlightthe importance of many of the
programs within the Departmentof Education.
We can have debates about wherethese programs should lie, how
they should be constructed, whothey should serve, but the fact
of the matter is we are in amoment in time in this country
(05:04):
where we need to invest inbuilding the workforce of
tomorrow, and these programs arespecifically designed to
support states in doing theirjob, their role as overseeing
education in their states.
One can say the states shouldtake this on by themselves, but
there is a reason the federalgovernment has had to insert
(05:26):
itself.
Over the last 20, 25 years,states have significantly
divested in public support ofeducation in most states in this
country, and so, without thefederal government partnering
with states, it's going to bevery difficult to think how
states are going to come up withthose resources at a time when
(05:47):
there are greater and greaterdemands on state budgets.
So I hope that you join me intalking to your congressional
representatives, talking to yourlocal advocacy groups, talking
to students, administrators,anybody who will listen, about
the importance of ensuring thatwe build programs within the
(06:10):
federal government that continueto support a healthy and
thriving American workforce.
Okay, with that backdrop,please enjoy my conversation
with Janet Napolitano.
Janet, welcome to the RantPodcast.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Thank you, good to see you, lloyd.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
It's great to see you too, Janet.
It's been a little while, butyou look great.
You look rested.
Things must be going well inyour neck of the woods,
hopefully.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
They're going pretty well, but the things I control
are doing very well.
Things I don't control I havesome concern about.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Well, I think we're all saying the serenity prayer
these days.
Yeah.
So, Janet, it's been what?
Roughly five years since youleft the post of president of
the University of California.
A lot has changed.
In those five years, A lot hasbeen going on.
What are some of the biggestchanges that you've seen in the
last five years?
(07:05):
Within the University ofCalifornia, but also, more
broadly, the Research OneUniversity landscape?
Speaker 2 (07:13):
For those who are listening to this podcast, our
one, universities, is asubcategory of higher ed.
And these are universities thatspend a certain percentage of
their budget on basic research.
And there are also universitieswhere you find not only master's
programs but PhD programs and,in the way the United States
(07:35):
kind of scientific establishmentis set up, it's where the bulk
of basic research that underliesmany developments in our
country and many swaths of oureconomy emanate from our R1
universities.
And with the addition of UCMerced this year as an R1
(07:55):
university, all of the campusesof the UC system are R1.
And so that's a great thing.
You know the University ofCalifornia, it's an interesting
institution.
It has a grand history, butwhat I'm seeing is evolving over
time.
It is an incredible emphasis onbeing an opportunity maker an
(08:17):
opportunity maker for firstgeneration students, an
opportunity maker for studentsfrom lower income backgrounds,
an opportunity maker forCalifornians, more and more
Californians attending theUniversity of California, and
that's great, because a greatpublic university, which is what
the University of California is, should be building the future
(08:40):
for the state, and I think thatrole has been an increasing
focus of the University ofCalifornia.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Well, I certainly agree with you.
I firmly believe that the UC isreally the backbone of
innovation, of scientificresearch, of great ideas for the
state of California and a bigreason why the state of
California is what it is today.
So we both certainly agree onthat.
Now, as you are sort ofwatching what's going on these
(09:12):
days from the sidelines, what doyou see as some of the biggest
challenges to universities likethe University of California
today?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Well, the number one challenge is the new
administration in Washington DC,and I'll take it in a couple of
buckets.
First of all, thisadministration has never been a
fan of higher education, whichit presumes to be just kind of
institutions that foment liberalunrest, or what have you.
Be that as it may, therestrictions on research funding
(09:46):
are severe and fundamental, andfor R1 universities they are
demonstrating the University ofCalifornia.
If the recent moves by theadministration are hold they've
been held up in court for rightnow but if they hold it will
literally be billions of dollarsof loss to the University of
(10:07):
California, billions of dollars.
It means that programs even now, professors even now, are not
hiring graduate students becausethey don't know they will have
funding for them.
Well, what are graduate students?
Graduate students become notjust the professors of the
future, they become theresearchers of the future.
They become the researchers ofthe future, they become the
developers, the innovators ofthe future.
(10:28):
And you know, it's like eatingour seed corn not to support
this big research enterprise.
So that is an existential riskto the University of California.
The second existential risk tohigher education in general is
this business of targetinguniversities for not being
(10:53):
active enough in combatinganti-Semitism.
Now, what universities need todo is an unanswered question,
but we've seen what is happeningto Columbia University in New
York, where not only have theyhad $400 million in research
just summarily dropped We'll seewhether that holds up but where
the administration recentlyseized a student who graduated
(11:18):
last year, who was a leader inthe Gaza-Israel demonstrations
which were very active atColumbia and was one of the
negotiators for the pro-Gaza,pro-hamas, if you will position
in those demonstrations, andhe's here in the United States
as a legal permanent resident.
(11:38):
And they seized him in New York,where he has an American wife
who's pregnant, and immediatelymoved him to immigration
detention in Louisiana and areseeking to deport him, even
though he is a legal permanentresident.
And I am sure that they have alist of students they've been
able to identify whoparticipated in demonstrations,
(12:02):
didn't violate any laws.
You may disagree vociferouslyor vehemently with their
positions, which I do, butnonetheless universities in this
country traditionally have beenwhere First Amendment
protections have been thestrongest and this is a direct
attack on that.
And it will be a struggle foruniversities to figure out how
(12:26):
to protect the First Amendmentrights of students and faculty
and staff in this kind ofcontext and in that connection
they already have a list of 10or so universities they want to
quote, investigate beyondColumbia University, and that
list includes both Berkeley andUCLA.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
It's amazing to watch , given just the history of
First Amendment protests on alluniversity campuses.
I mean, when you and I spenttime with the University of
California, I don't think therewas a meeting that went by
without some sort of protestabout one thing or another.
And it is just a way of lifeand I think whether, as you
(13:07):
mentioned, whether you agree ordisagree with the protesters, it
is part of that university life, the experience, the
opportunity to express yourselfand to express ideas, regardless
of whether or not most peopleagree with them.
So the sudden shift here is Ithink, while I don't think it
caught it shouldn't have caughtanybody by surprise, but it
(13:30):
certainly is causing a lot ofconsternation on campuses.
Now, given your experience andyou know, for people living
under a rock, you have a widearray of experiences in the
public.
You've been elected severaltimes in a swing state like
Arizona, as attorney general, asgovernor.
(13:51):
In a swing state like Arizona,as attorney general, as governor
, you served in probably whatmany consider today as one of
the more controversial cabinetseats, the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
And, of course, you led theUniversity of California.
So what do you make of thispopulist movement that's going
(14:12):
on?
You know the president is apresident and we all have
experienced the kind ofcraziness that happens, but this
movement across the countrytoward a populist agenda, what
do you think is behind this, andhow do we in the higher
education sector begin to sortof shift the direction of some
(14:32):
of that frustration?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Well, I think one of the things in higher ed is that
when people think higher ed,they think the Ivy League.
The Ivy League is not higher ed.
You know, 80, 85 percent ofcollege students in this country
go to public universities andin California a great many of
those start at the communitycolleges, as you're well aware,
and then if they seek totransfer to a four-year, either
(14:58):
Cal State or UC or elsewhere,and somehow in this country we
have lost the value of having aneducation beyond high school.
What does it mean and how doesit assist students?
I think we lost that because ofcost.
(15:20):
The cost went up and for publicuniversities they went up a lot
during the 08, 09 period whenstates cut back on their funding
and really the only alternativewas for tuition to increase and
also the increasing perceptionincrease and also the increasing
perception which is bolsteredon social media, any number of
ways that universities somehoware not fair.
They're not fair to those whohave more conservative belief,
(15:43):
they're not fair to faculty orstudents who are from the more
conservative part of our countryin terms of their philosophy,
and that combination reallyplays into, you know, these
increasingly unpopular view ofhigher ed in national polls,
where higher ed used to bereally near the top in terms of
(16:05):
institutions that people trustedand liked.
Now you know we're not as lowas Congress, but we're on the
right track.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
That's a pretty low bar.
Yeah for sure, Given yourexperience in politics, Janet,
you understand better than mosthow political winds change, sort
of what drives some of thesemovements.
And you mentioned thechallenges with research
universities and research funds.
We've heard from theadministration these tropes, you
(16:36):
know.
We hear DOGE representativestalking about the waste that
they found in research funding.
You know, I think the mostrecent one is money spent on
trying to change the sex of somesort of reptile or something.
And they use these tropes toundermine the value of the
(16:58):
research dollars that thefederal government puts into
motion and leads to tremendousdiscoveries throughout the
country and throughout the world.
What can higher educationleaders do differently to combat
that misinformation?
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Well combating disinformation.
If I had the answer to that,maybe I'd be in the White House,
who knows?
But it is easy to cherry pickamong the hundreds of thousands
of research grants and find onesthat seem titled in a weird way
without asking well, why arethey doing that?
And I think the project youreferenced is they're not doing
(17:36):
sex changes on laboratory mice,they're trying to figure out the
hormonal differences, whichthen will translate into
research, into things likeovarian cancer, and it's kind of
ridiculous to manage yourresearch enterprise that way.
I think the whole Dogeenterprise is misguided.
(17:58):
It's misguided in severalfundamental ways.
First, let's begin.
Every large institution and thefederal government is comprised
of large institutions.
I ran one of those.
I ran the third largest agencyin the federal government.
I know the fact that you canfind some waste in there and
everybody should be doingefficiency reviews and the like
(18:19):
makes a lot of sense andeverybody should be focused on
that to make the highest andbest use of the taxpayer dollars
we have.
However, just going willy nillyand saying, well, I don't like
this agency and I don't likethis agency and I don't like
this, without any knowledge ofwhat the work is, what employees
(18:42):
are actually doing what thevalue of that work is, who it
serves.
It means that it is themetaphor you currently you hear
often is it's cutting with an axand not a scalpel.
Well, if you're going to reallycut with a scalpel, you got to
get in there.
You really have to understandwhat you're dealing with.
(19:03):
And the fact that Doge came in,didn't listen to anybody,
didn't consult with anybody,brought in a bunch of 20
something year old tech bros andand said here, you guys, you
know, set up some bunk beds inthis agency and and, just, and,
and just figure out all thepeople you can fire.
(19:23):
That is not the way torestructure government.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Well, that's for sure the absurdity of the way
they're going about it.
And look, I agree with you.
I mean, you and I have both hadto manage through large higher
education bureaucracies.
There's lots of things thatcertainly frustrated me about
local, state, federalbureaucracy, and certainly I'm
(19:48):
one of those people who believethat we could do things a lot
more efficiently and effectivelywith taxpayer dollar.
However, just bringing in yourchainsaw and cutting everything
apart is just craziness, givenhow much interconnectivity there
is between states and thefederal government today.
I mean, by and large, highereducation relies heavily on the
(20:13):
federal government, whether youagree with that or don't agree
with that.
And if you don't agree with it,there are ways to begin to wean
states off.
But you can't just do itovernight.
Now let me hone in on two areasof expertise that you certainly
have.
I mean, obviously we're talkingabout higher education, whether
research university, regionalfour-year university or
(20:33):
community college, serves itscommunity more that we can do to
skill the local workforce,regardless of where they came
from.
The better off local economiesare going to be, the better off
(21:05):
state economies are going to be.
How do we do a better job inhigher education to make that
case, to make the economic casefor the inclusivity of people in
the economy and making surethat they're upskilled.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Well, first of all, we need to talk about it more.
Very few people in Californiaknow that almost 40% of the
students are first in theirfamilies to go to college.
Very few people know that over35% of the undergrads don't pay
any tuition because theirfamilies make less than $80,000
a year.
I kept saying it and saying itand saying it when I was
(21:40):
pregnant, but that's in a wayit's not a story that, for
whatever reason, people wereinterested in hearing and the
media was interested in covering.
And maybe it makes sense forhigher education universities to
be more active on social mediaplatforms, particularly more
conservative social mediaplatforms, and kind of give the
(22:03):
lie to the stereotypes that havedeveloped about higher
education.
You know, public highereducation in the United States
is the secret sauce for how theUnited States has become the top
performing economy in the worldand it is the basis of the
richness and the diversity ofour economy.
(22:25):
And to attack it, to cut it off, to not fully appreciate what
it does, is a tragedy, and itbegins with a tragedy of
communication.
And then also the university.
Sometimes we are our own worstenemy.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
We sink into academic lingo, speak and, oh my gosh,
really the new terms for who youare growing up as a second
generation Mexican-American, I'mthe son of immigrant Just
(23:06):
trying to even understand whatlabel I should apply to myself
today, given the academicscholarship around trying to
identify who we are.
And I understand why we do thatand I understand the importance
of that.
I understand the importance ofthat.
I understand the importance ofgetting deep into a better
understanding of humanity, butthe way it translates into
(23:28):
everyday life sometimes getslost and then we become victims
of our own work.
Now, if you were coming ontoday as a higher education
leader, or if there's a highereducation leader who rang your
cell and said, janet, whatadvice would you have for me in
leading this big publicinstitution today?
(23:49):
What would that advice be?
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Oh, it's tough because, as you mentioned, eli,
higher education andparticularly R1 institutions are
heavily dependent on federaldollars, and institutions are
heavily dependent on federaldollars, and students are
heavily dependent on federaldollars for student aid,
financial assistance, and inthis administration, they are
more than willing to cut offmoney if you're not seen as
(24:14):
doing what they want, and so thetraditional independence of
higher ends is directly underfinancial attack.
Advice would be to prioritizeyour battles and figure out
which are the ones that aretruly existential versus which
(24:43):
are the ones you know you'rejust going to have to swallow A
place like the University ofCalifornia.
You know, figuring out thoselines may come sooner rather
than later.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
So what do you make of some of the recent moves?
We have a new Secretary ofEducation Under McMahon and I
think, almost immediately therewas a move to lay off half of
the staff of the Department ofEducation and while, as I
mentioned before, I think a lotof us would agree that there are
changes that need to be made,how do you see this playing out
(25:14):
in your mind?
Do you see the Department ofEducation go away or do you
think there are just somefundamental things that the
department does that commonsense will eventually settle in
and we'll hang on to some ofthose?
Speaker 2 (25:26):
You know, I would like to see the Department of
Education create a nationalinitiative to increase reading
and math scores in our K-12students.
Let's talk about what goes onin the classroom.
We spend a lot of time talkingabout what goes on in the
bathroom, but we are notspending any time talking about
what goes on in the classroomand really create a national
(25:48):
expectation of excellence in ourpublic schools in particular.
And if the Department ofEducation took that on and the
Secretary of Education took thaton, I think the country would
be better off for it on and theSecretary of Education took that
on, I think the country wouldbe better off for it.
Instead, we're going to spend alot of time as she goes about
whittling down the Department ofEd.
She can't get rid of it.
(26:12):
It was created by Congress.
We'll see what Congress doeswith some of this, and there are
some basic services that DOEDepartment of Ed provides that
well.
If they're not going to be at,the Department of Ed will need
to be moved to other cabinetdepartments, for example the
whole student loan program,which so many students rely on
for their higher ed budgets.
But you know, I just think themessaging is wrong.
(26:33):
It diminishes the value ofeducation, and in a democracy
like ours, education is so very,very important.
And you know I've been waitingto hear some grand pronouncement
.
We've heard that the presidentwants us to go to Mars.
Well, do you know what thatmeans?
That means we need lots ofstudents who become engineers,
(26:55):
who become scientists, whobecome technologists.
You know who can muster thatkind of effort.
But we're not hearing any ofthat.
We're just going to somehowmagically go to Mars.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yes, magically go to Mars.
Well, we'll see how that allworks out and we will hope for
the best.
I think there's some folks thatI know I would love to send to
Mars, but we'll see.
We'll see what happens.
So, Janet, as we begin to wrapup here, let me pick on your
(27:27):
political brain here.
As I talk to folks inCalifornia or across the country
, I'm sure you hear the samething in your travels People are
frustrated.
They feel like things havegotten away from them.
They feel like the politicshave gotten away from them.
They feel like they'reconstantly on the defensive,
(27:47):
wondering what's going to happenwhen they wake up and look at
their social media feed.
What's your advice to folksabout how to take back or at
least feel like they're moreempowered in today's politics,
in today's dialogue, given someof the frustration people feel?
Speaker 2 (28:07):
I think, Eli, that I would encourage people to stay
off social media.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
Or to recognize that in social media, in a way,
they're being played and to takewith a grain of salt any
information they see there.
I would encourage people tostay tuned in.
I would encourage people, onissues that are direct concern
to them, to be in touch withtheir congresspeople and their
senators.
(28:33):
People say, well, they don'tpay any attention to that or
whatever.
And I've been on the hill and Isay you know what, if they hear
from a lot of people, they payattention.
And that is, you know,something that is important for
people to express.
Democracy takes work.
You can't just be a passiverecipient of democracy.
Democracy is all of us andeverybody needs to play a part.
(28:56):
And if you're so inclined,organize, organize, organize,
organize around an issue,organize with a group of people,
but that's also part of thework of democracy.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Well, janet, I really appreciate you taking some time
to talk to us here on the Rantpodcast and, although it goes
without saying, I will repeat itagain I really thank you for
all your service all these years, and I think your experience
today is probably more importantthan ever as we all try to
navigate our way forward throughthis very turbulent times, not
(29:32):
just in this country, butthroughout the globe.
So thank you for your continuedwork, thank you for your
continued service and thank youfor being here on the RAND
podcast.
Well, thank you, eloy, andthank you for your continued
work.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Thank you for your continued service and thank you
for being here on the Rantpodcast.
Well, thank you, eloy, andthank you for your service.
You've also contributed quite abit.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
All right.
Well, folks, you've beenlistening to my conversation
with Janet Napolitano.
It's been a pleasure to haveher here on the Rant podcast.
If you're following us onYouTube, continue to follow us
on this YouTube channel, hitsubscribe.
And if you're following us onyour favorite podcast platform,
continue to follow us and wewill be back to you soon with
more episodes here on the RentPodcast.
(30:10):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!