In Trust Center
The In Trust Center podcast is hosted by Matt Hufman. Walk alongside theological school leaders and innovators as they explore issues relevant to North American seminaries, all while helping institutions live out their missions more intentionally. Find more at intrust.org/podcast.
In Trust Center
Ep. 89 - Rooted and Ready: Strengthening Theological Schools Amid Regulatory Upheaval
In a time of political shifts and regulatory uncertainty, the Good Governance podcast dives into how theological school leaders can respond with clarity and authenticity. Governance expert the Rev. Dr. David Rowe and law professor Peter Lake, a higher education policy expert, discuss navigating potential changes to federal education policy, including impacts on Title IV, Title IX, and accreditation. They offer practical guidance for boards and presidents — emphasizing mission alignment, shared governance, and measured leadership. This episode is essential listening for those guiding faith-based institutions through complex and fast-changing landscapes. David Rowe can be reached here. Peter Lake can be reached here.
Hello and welcome to the Interest Center Podcast, where we connect with experts and innovators in theological education around topics important to theological school leaders. Thank you for joining us. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the Good Governance Podcast. I'm Matt Huffman. For anyone in higher education in the United States, we've seen the news change almost by the day. The Trump administration recently announced its plans to dismantle the Department of Education. There are concerns about any number of other things as well for theological schools, such as what that means for Title IV funds and Title IX programs, as well as the administration's changes on immigration rules has certainly had an impact on foreign students and what students and schools can expect. Today I've asked two experts with deep understanding of higher education and policy to join the podcast. First, let me introduce the Reverend Dr. David Rowe, a former president who has served in both undergraduate and graduate settings and in theological higher education. He's now a consultant and a governance coach working with the Intrust Center. David, welcome to the podcast. Thanks so much, Matt. Glad to be with you. And we're also joined by Peter Lake, a Harvard-trained lawyer, scholar, trainer, expert, witness, author, and consultant. He's a recognized expert in higher education policy and compliance. Peter, welcome to the podcast. Thank you, Matt.
SPEAKER_00:It's great to be here.
SPEAKER_02:Now I'm going to note a couple of things. First, we're recording on March 26, 2025. So if you're listening later, if we're if we talk about news, those things will change. Today we're going to talk a little bit about how leaders of theological schools should consider how they approach the news of what we know and then set some frameworks for what may come. I'm going to ask Peter and David to weigh in on this and to be clear, Peter is not here offering legal advice. We're going to talk about some policy matters in that. I will put both of their contact information on the podcast page at intrust.org slash podcast. Now, all that said, let's start this way. The government, both state and federal, have influence and direction over schools in some way, shape, or form. So I want to start here. I think that before we can even discuss what may come, um, what are the ways that the federal government can and does exert influence over a school? Peter, what do you see in that?
SPEAKER_00:Well, Matt, you know, the federal government actually comes at us in a couple of different ways. Um, one is directly through the Constitution. It's always important for this sector to remember that the First Amendment protects free exercise and prohibits establishment. And that's always been a baseline. But I think today we're very focused on how the executive branch is operating, particularly through regulatory arms, particularly through regulatory enforcement arms. And in the middle of the 20th century, the federal government was very generous to higher education and often detethered that from a lot of particular intrusion into internal affairs, curriculum, et cetera. But what has happened is that uh generosity has turned into a bit of a Trojan horse, and we're seeing the government fill into our area. Now, that being said, I'd love everyone to walk away with one image that higher education federal regulation has trifurcated. So we're seeing public education, private, non-sectarian, and then sectarian private education in it in really a different position from the other two types of education are out there. And that's why I started with the constitutional point, because what's also becoming prominent as the federal executive branch is being more, shall we say, uh hands-on with operational colleges. So that's where I need to put it. Um, there's the Supreme Court. And I think even the Trump administration itself that has a deep respect for theological education, which, you know, I will point out is the root of American higher education, the first college in America is our material training. So, you know, it's an it's an interesting time for this particular sector of higher education. And I would say, you know, just as we move forward, it's really important for people to know that and exercise those liberties, freedoms, and protections on whatever spectrum that you might be. So this is not a time to just sit by and be a spectator in what's occurring, uh, particularly in this sector, because uh, frankly, in some ways, this sector is the envy of the other two. Sure. It's uh a more protected area.
SPEAKER_02:Well, let me let me jump in there because that's that's uh they're all good points. And of course, there's a wide spectrum of theological schools and beliefs from very, very progressive theologically and politically to conservative. Uh, but there's there's anxiety in the field right now. And one of the things is as you both know, when boards and leaders are anxious, they tend to take some actions. So, first let's talk a little bit about where you think a board ought to be coming at it right now. Uh, David, you've been a president in a number of contexts and a leader. Um, tell me about how you think uh uh as a president you would want to frame this to your board.
SPEAKER_01:Yes, I think this is a really uh important question. I agree with Peter, we should it shouldn't be spectators, but they should be watching closely uh what's what's going on as members of the board and asking um the administration to help keep them uh in touch with what's what's going on. With respect to our uh Canadian members, I would say this is probably not a time to skate to where you think the puck is gonna be because you don't want to get ahead of the administration, you don't want to get ahead of the law, uh, you don't want to get ahead of your compliance responsibilities and uh begin taking steps or changing policy because you think that's where it's gonna end up. And uh so I would I would uh one thing I would caution boards on right now is is not to overreact prematurely. Uh there's certainly time for responsiveness and attentiveness to what's going on. And the climate is changing. I don't mean to say that. You know, there's gonna be a different way of doing um theological education vis-a-vis the the the federal government, or as Peter's pointing out, the executive branch at least going forward. But we don't really know exactly what that is or what the implications are for theological education yet. And I so I think just not trying to to um get ahead of where uh the policies and regulations actually are right now is probably the best thing that I can think of. It's just be be alert, but not not um don't don't try to correct too soon.
SPEAKER_02:Peter, what do you think? What what kind of things are you thinking that uh board should or shouldn't be thinking of at this point in in the overview? I mean, you know, David's talked a little bit about the this anticipatory compliance is a phrase I've come to love. Um, is you you don't want to jump ahead of where we're at. Um, but at the same point, you know, with the speed at which things are moving, because we don't know where we're gonna be, but but what are the kind of discussions that you think uh president and board ought to be having? Sure.
SPEAKER_00:Well, there certainly is a lot of regulatory uncertainty, and it's not entirely sure where the the ball is gonna land uh in roulette that's being played. Exactly sure where it's all gonna hit. And I think there's risk of uh over compliance, even under compliance. I think there's risk either direction. But what I would really emphasize, and I and David's absolutely right, there's no reason to strap the parachute on in the plane at this point. I mean, it's nice to know where it is, but you don't need to be getting ready to jump uh at this time for virtually everyone that's out there. But what I would say is that clarification of your mission values and what you stand on is an exercise that would have been good to do before this administration and is excellent to do right now. And I think that's what's happening because we have some institutions that really aren't part of this particular conversation out there who've had a religious tradition at one time, and they're beginning to look back to it to try to see what's in there that might support their argument to continue to do the things they want to do. Um, and I think we're we're all well situated if we examine our core values. And Matt, you know, given the range of folks that are listening in today, some folks will be embracing the federal executive's approach to a wide number of issues and thinking this is exactly the path that we were on and wanted to be on. Others may see it slightly differently. I think there's going to be a range of instincts on this, but I think people need to dig deep and say what's what's important to us and make sure that that gets articulated, particularly at that board level, because, you know, again, I'm not giving legal advice, but I have to point out the Supreme Court has drawn attention to the fact that it's the managing entities that really set the tone for whether something qualifies for the kind of protection that the First Amendment really offers the institutions.
SPEAKER_01:I could pick up on that just for a second, Matt. One of the things that I think as Peter was saying, getting clear, I would also add just getting consistent. Um, we have a lot of um things on our websites. We've got a lot of policies that were made by different parts of the institution, and they may speak to some of these now more critical categories in different ways, even within the same institution. And so the board might ask the president or dean to be um attentive to that, making sure that the marketing language is, you know, consistent with the language that maybe is actually in the you know faculty handbook or the staff handbook or the way that HR carries things out. Right. And so in addition to trying to understand what your values are, what your mission are, what how how you live out and embody your religious traditions, commitments, uh make sure that that's communicated consistently across the board so that people can't kind of play your words off against each other.
SPEAKER_02:So let's talk about that for a second. I mean, in terms of how we present ourselves, we have schools, as I say, from any number of traditions and backgrounds and histories. What does that mean? What is it, what would you be looking for, David? If you're if you're the president of, you know, our a school right now, what kinds of things are you looking for? You're looking to limit communications, you're looking to to clarify what that really means in terms of, as Peter noted, what your religious commitments are. So if it comes to a question of your faith-based school, uh expand on that, would you please?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. So this I was a VP for advancement before I was a college president. So and and communications and marketing was within my uh role and responsibilities there. Let's just say Peter came and did training for our our uh school while I was a VP for advancement. He probably would have helped them come up with precisely the right language to use in our policies. Um, and then that that part of our staff team might have sent it over to communications and marketing and said, hey, we've we're required to publish this on our website. And I'm thinking about the website as a marketing tool, not as a place for policies, a policy repository, right? Sure. And not only, not only does Peter tell us or help us discern what it is that we should say, he also has to be readily accessible and people have to be able to understand it. And I'm looking at it, I think, I, you know, I just don't want this policy or this procedure leading the way out there. I want our, you know, the student experience, uh, you know, and so I might be tempted to try to soften the language, or we might be sending that language through a committee, but this isn't something that can be, you know, decided upon by a group of people there or or for marketing reasons. There are things that so that might come out in a different way. The other, the other way it might come out is we might have just different units, subunits within the organization that are roughly aligned in terms of their values, but they might have different ways of expressing it with different language. And so you might have if you if you push on it, especially if a critic is pushing on it, you might have contradictory language even within your policies in your websites.
SPEAKER_02:Well, I know I mean, having served in that role as a chief marketing communication officer of a university, every department has access, different language goes up, different beliefs start start to come out. So I I guess uh Peter, let me turn to you. It is if if in that situation, you taking stuff some down, maybe stepping back on some of that communication, making it a little more felt till you figure out what's where you need to go.
SPEAKER_00:Well, I it Matt, I was chewing on everything that was said, and I think one of the big challenges right now is a challenge is to authenticity. So we could be consistent, we could be clear, but people will challenge our authenticity. They'll think, are are you living your talk or are you simply saying these things? Are these authentic in some ways? And I think what that's leading a lot of institutions to do is to look at various terms and phrases and images and look at them through the lens of someone who might not necessarily be looking at an institution with love, care, and concern, but might be looking for trouble in some way. You know, I can I being raised Catholic, I'd say, you know, you have to almost think what would the devil think if they read or saw this? Would they think that you're walking, talking, living it? And I think this has this this comes up, and and it it's sad in some ways because I think some traditions are not likely to push out their their authenticity for fear of not appearing humble. And you know, you want to be chewing on that issue. That there's I suppose the thing that's the biggest challenge today in higher ed is that we're all media entities now, whether we want to be or not, we're we're in the reality TV show that's called higher education. And we now have an audience that's very larger and different than the audiences that we may have had in the past, and they're likely to look at what we're doing through the lens of you know, a media activity almost. And I and again, I would imagine a lot of schools would think, well, gosh, you know, that's that's not our tradition. We're, you know, sort of doing our work. It's not always in the public view, but believe me, in today's higher education environment, everyone and anyone can be the latest star in a media moment. And that's I one of the things I keep pushing now. Again, I'll go back to what David said. This shouldn't push boards and leaders to push a panic button. It should just lead to conversations about what it looks like to posture ourselves in this new higher education reality where that level of scrutiny or perhaps praise for our work could occur, because that's the other thing is that you could become a media darling just as much as a pariah. So I I know I'm running on a couple different themes, but I just want to make sure we get those thoughts out there.
SPEAKER_02:I appreciate that. I appreciate that. So, what I'm hearing is authenticity and and consideration about how we're appearing in terms of our own authenticity. We've talked about values and where we are, we've talked about consistency in terms of the messaging of who we are. Um, I want to turn a little bit because there's a lot in the news about things that may, may, may not may or may not happen. We know this is speculative, but there's certainly discussion about an endowment tax going up. There's discussion about what Title IV, Title IX, certainly discussion about what Title IX might look like. Uh, questions as well about what happens to accreditation and how that impacts a school or doesn't with uh whatever happens with the education department. So um let's start the conversation, David. Again, given your experience, uh I'd be curious to know that if you were sitting in a president's seat right now, where do you start with that conversation? Or is this just a bulleted point list that you're gonna walk through and talk about with the board?
SPEAKER_01:I think I would um I lived in Louisiana for um uh a long time. And uh, you know, you worry about the alligators closest to the boat. Right. And so you try to identify the alligator closest to the boat. And I I would um, you know, say that that one thing might be is you you want to avoid the big, bright, shiny objects. There's a lot of things in the media right now. I mean, the Columbia, you know, the all most of our schools don't manage that much research funding. I mean, so there are things that can get you nervous about the sector, right? That uh e even even if you're embedded in a larger research university, the trickle-down effect on a theology school for some of these big headlines that we're seeing right now are probably pretty minimal, right? But I would I would try to assess the things that that could affect us a little bit more. And so there are schools out there with larger enrollments and larger endowments. And, you know, the I think it's important to pay attention to what the conversation is around the endowment tax because there are moves to lower the threshold of that. So they they might be aiming at the Ivies, but they might actually uh hit a school that's uh not as large as Harvard, but their endowment per student might be um, you know, impressive on its own. And so I think that's not a conversation. It's not policy, not law yet, but just pay attention to what's what's going on um there. And then um, you know, do you pay attention to what's what's going on in terms of the the interpretation of the um kind of civil rights provisions, the the Title IX language. I I I think that it this is Max Weber's um church sect typology is probably helpful here, that uh denominations that have defined themselves as over and against or different from societal values, right, um, have long, you know, had to think about how are we different than the the general society. But we have a number of um, you know, particularly in the mainline Protestant denominations, um, more churchy type denominations that are more uh in line with the societal values. And so as the societal values, at least as they're represented by the government, begin to shift, you know, the those that felt more contiguous with social norms might feel a little bit more sectarian now, might might feel like they're they're thinking about how they're defined against the prevailing laws or norms. Sure. And those that might have been kind of feeling separated from the prevailing norms, you know, a few years ago, um, might actually have something to teach uh the ones whose whose norms are not necessarily in favor now. And thinking about how going back to Peter's word, you live out authentically what your mission is, what your faith is, and how that is uh manifest in institutional form.
SPEAKER_02:Peter, what are your thoughts on that? What are you thinking that um I love that analogy of the the alligators close to the boat? I also love the idea of of being being careful about the shiny things. Um, what are you hearing? What are you thinking in terms of that? What should what should a president and board start to you know hit on their checklist?
SPEAKER_00:Sure. Well, I'll I'll be really sort of technical just for a half second here. Yeah, please. One thing that's gonna change, I think, is who the people are that are commanding us may shift in a way that's a little confusing. So we may see health and human services show up or the Justice Department, and getting used to the new set of players could be a little bewildering. Um I think we're facing big changes with the Department of Education as our primary point of contact, potential elimination of that department. But even if not, the downsizing of it will be relatively dramatic, I think, for a lot of folks.
SPEAKER_02:Yes.
SPEAKER_00:And and I'm gonna go back to what I said before too, which I think is emphasized in David's comments, is that this sector, if it is negatively impacted, it's it's probably going to be unintended collateral damage. In other words, this this is this is the sector that's most protected, I think, under law to do what it wants to do going forward, because not only the commitment the Supreme Court's made, but I think even the Trump administration itself's um, you know, real interest in theological education. I think you're you're likely to see that. Um so you again, I think we want to be careful not to think that what happened at, as David pointed out, at Columbia or what's going to happen at Harvard is somehow reflective of what's going to happen in this sector. You have to process through it and say, you know, yes, it could have implications. I am a little concerned about accreditation model changes. Um that could, again, depending on how your institution is situated, particularly if it's located with another entity that has, you know, a fairly traditional accreditation approach, uh, that could have some significant impacts. Again, not necessarily intended on the sector, but it could be the collateral impact of uh what's occurring on the more uh shiny object sector that's out there. And I'll I'll go back and say it again. I think, you know, if you're a large public, if you are a sectarian private, um, you are definitely in a different place than a sectarian education, particularly sectarian graduate education. Uh I think it's it's it's a different sector with different dynamics, but there are overlaps. And I think the one thing could be the confusion of who's running the show. You know, I see a lot of people wearing captains' hats and who's who's got the helm of the boat.
SPEAKER_02:Well, that's a that's a great question, is I think David, back to you and question of which alligator is closest to the boat right now. We're we're not quite sure where the next step is coming from. Um and so it, I mean, let me lead back to again, if I'm a board member of a school and I'm reading these things about Columbia and what's happening there or Harvard or wherever. I mean, certainly um most theological schools are not going to see, you know, the big grant money come down. Embedded schools may see some effect just by being sharing the space. Um, but how are you talking to a board right now if you're the president, or what do you want the board to be to be thinking, other than maybe to be breathing into a paper bag or to uh you know drinking chamomile tea or whatever that may be?
SPEAKER_01:So one of the things uh, you know, is generally principle of good governance is for the board to remember that you um think independently but act collectively. And uh you can get into trouble if you uh think collectively and act independently. And so you really want to uh try to burnish off your really your good governance uh habits right now, or burnish your good governance habits right now, so that you know that you are coming together and acting collectively as a board uh in cooperation with the president right now. This is not a time for um board members to kind of weigh in individually and independently in the administration of the institution or into policy matters. It's a time for really um good deliberation, I think, at the board level. It's also not a time for board members to independently go advocate to politicians or to others about what's going on. It's really not a great time to be drawing attention to yourself at all. But um, and I think it is the board's job to to set the mission, the vision, the values, and the strategy for the institution. And so I think it, you know, while you're you're recognizing that the storm is gathering, it is um important to kind of just check and make sure you know who you are, because you know you're getting ready to move forward through some very turbulent times. And if you're gonna move forward through some turbulent times, or if somebody's really gonna threaten you, make sure they're they're threatening you for who you who you authentically are. And so I I mean, I think it's a good time to to touch base with your denominational identity or your religious tradition identity. Um, sometimes seminaries have a chance to um get into a different place than where their religious tradition is. But I think what Peter was implying earlier is that, you know, this is a time where theological schools can can lean into that part of the constitution on religious liberty, religious expression. And and uh that but you need to make sure that that that the reasons you're doing things are really tied to your faith commitments and not necessarily to some um socially constructed uh commitments that the institution has had over um the last 20 years or so and can't locate it in a religious tradition.
SPEAKER_02:Right, right. Peter, are there other things that we haven't talked about right now that you think schools ought to be taking into consideration or discussions that they ought to be having?
SPEAKER_00:Well, I mean, I think this is, you know, sector inclusive outside this particular group that we're speaking to, but I think particularly relevant here, and I'll talk about shared governance, um, working with faculty and even to some extent the students to make sure that the house is well ordered and appropriately arranged. Uh what is happening out there is as people attack some institutions, they poke holes in the collaborative relationships that have traditionally been strong on campus in the past. So if a faculty is grumpy with a board, um, watch that become a place to light a match to make it more difficult for everyone to move forward. And so I think this is a particularly good time to shore up um shared governance in whatever form that you have it. And again, there's going to be quite a wide variation on this, but uh I would certainly want to be hearing a lot from what the faculty are experiencing in the classroom with their students and the kinds of conversations that are percolating at that level so that you get a good sense of what the challenges might be if they they do come along. Um, you know, I know, for example, one set of schools I worked with was having a lot of issues with pronouns, and they weren't consistent with the religious tradition to expand beyond a certain type of pronoun. And there was some real stuff going on with the teachers and the students sort of challenging traditions, and that's a conversation I'd want to be in front of now and not catching up to because that's where the the spark starts if you don't want to do it. And I love David's point is the book I keep recommending everyone these days is All Quiet on the Western Front, is keep your head down till the war is over. And just there's no reason to stand up and say, you know, I'm over here, I'm a target. And I think that's what worries me about a panic mode or a leadership that's overly risk-averse, is there would be a tendency to actually do something that could backfire, that you'd be so concerned of not getting in trouble that you actually would draw attention to yourselves in a way that would then lead to the problem that it wouldn't have been there if you hadn't done that. So I think good, even-handed leadership is more important than ever.
SPEAKER_02:That's a great point of this internal stress that happens in in times like this, and staying on top of that. I think as we wrap up, David, let me uh turn back to you. As a president, I mean, there's there seems to be on the flip side, let me turn this into a positive, perhaps, a real time of clarity, a real time of potentially unity if you can navigate this to figure out who you are and how you want to move forward in in what's what's clearly a historic moment.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, this is great. Is it's it's you know, every president I think that's ever served thinks that they served as president at the most challenging time to be a president. Um, I think the ones that are serving as president now probably will um have uh have a little bit more claim to that than than maybe some of us who served in prior eras. But the um it it is gonna take very, very strong adaptive leadership skills to navigate this and to, as Peter said, attend to um some things that you might have let go in the past, but you this might be a time to To not let go and really kind of lean in and make sure that you have that the house in order. I also want to say it's it's probably a good time to think about uh there's a lot been talk about public statements about what presidents should say publicly and do publicly. And just remember that no matter how much you try to give voice to the institution's values, right? Which, you know, I'm wondering if institutions can really have values or if the people within the institution have values. You've got a lot of folks you're trying to represent when you do that, um, that you might really want to try to use as your guide. What's missionally relevant right now? What's really going to help me educate the students better? And it could be it could be dealing with uncertainty, it could be dealing with uh some some sort of um difficult decision that a court makes. You know, that I mean there's educationally relevant content in the headlines, but you don't necessarily have to speak into the headlines qua headlines, um, and and just think about what's the what's the educationally relevant, what's the faith formation relevance of whatever I'm gonna do and say in public and how do we stay trained on that mission.
SPEAKER_02:I think that's a uh the great way to wrap this up. This has been an incredible conversation. I hope this is the first of a few, because I think throughout the uh the next few years we're gonna have more of these conversations. And I've truly appreciated the the insight and expertise you both brought. David, thank you so much. Peter, thank you. Um, and I'm gonna ask the listeners too to respond to this. You can send an email to editors, editor s at intrust.org, and uh let us know what you're thinking. So for the next conversation, we can include you in that. Gentlemen, thanks so much for being part of this conversation. Thank you for listening to the Intrust Center's Good Governance Podcast. For more information about this podcast, other episodes, and additional resources, visit intrust.org.