As National Institutes of Health funding cuts loom over research institutions and the overarching outlook for the system of higher education falters under the Trump administration, industry leaders are attempting to raise alarm and steady the sector’s footing.
Marty Meehan, president of the University of Massachusetts system, is on the ground trying to explain to all who will listen — from Massachusetts Democrats, to out-of-state university leaders, to congressional Republicans — how he believes cuts to federal higher ed funding jeopardize health research, the economy and education access. The UMass network of more than 70,000 students serves as the state’s third-largest employer and includes the flagship UMass Amherst campus, which is the largest public research university in New England.
A former congressman, Meehan spent 14 years representing Massachusetts’s 5th Congressional District as a Democrat before he left to become chancellor of his alma mater, UMass Lowell. In 2015, Meehan became the first former graduate of a UMass school to take over as president of the system.
In a recent conversation with the News Service, Meehan discussed what’s at stake for higher education during a historically uncertain time for the sector, how he’s approaching conversations with Democrats and Republicans about those threats, and how politics have shifted since he served in Congress.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.
Q: The UMass system’s reputation has evolved over time in large part due to an emphasis on research. Some of your campuses have had to implement different tactics to address federal funding cuts impacting that research. How threatened do you feel the UMass system is by Trump administration actions?
A: It is a very uncertain time for all of higher education, whether you’re private or public. Just take in February, when the NIH announced that they would cap indirect costs — which, honestly, they shouldn’t be called indirect costs, I call them facilities and administrative costs. But they were capped at 15% regardless of the previously negotiated rates. And there are many instances, I’ll give you an example. At UMass (Chan) Medical School, we built a $350 million research building that we borrowed $350 million to build, and it relies on facilities costs associated with the research. This change alone would result in a loss of more than $60 million to UMass, and not to mention the inability to sustain life-saving research that’s taking place on all of our campuses, but specifically in this case, the medical school. UMass as an institution, we get nearly a billion dollars in federal funding. [Over $500] million of that is in research, but there’s also another $425 million in federal student financial aid.
Q: UMass is set to start an initiative in the fall giving free tuition for in-staters whose families make $75,000 or less. Does the federal landscape have the potential to impact that?
A: It certainly would. Since I’ve become president, I have guided a more than 79% increase in financial aid, so that we’re putting $422 million into financial aid. [An increase in the] MASSGrant Plus expansion program allowed us to do that. But it also assumes that the federal government would maintain what they do in Pell grants and what they do in student loans. And I can’t believe that any Democrat, Republican, or anything else would not think student financial aid was critically important. I can’t imagine that they would cut that. But the reason I have all this data out is because that’s what I’m saying to members of Congress. That’s what I’m saying to other university presidents.
Q: How are you approaching these conversations with your chancellors, with students whose financial aid is at risk? What’s your strategy?
A: We’re communicating with the other chancellors on a daily basis. In addition to that, we had a meeting with all of our chancellors [and] with the Massachusetts congressional delegation. I’m part of something called the National Association for Public & Land Grant Universities, and we’ve been in meetings with other university presidents from around the country. I have met and talked with many of the private institution leaders. We had a meeting with the governor a few weeks ago — the president of MIT was there, Tufts, Boston University, all of the major hospitals. We’re looking to assess what the damage is going to be and how this is going to play out.
Q: You left Congress in 2007. How have politics changed since you served?
A: [They’ve] changed a lot, and I haven’t been out of Congress that long. I think it’s more partisan than it’s ever been. I can tell you my own experience. When I got to Washington, I met most of the major Republicans in Washington at Ted Kennedy’s house, at receptions. Senator Kennedy would have people like Bob Dole at his house, he’d have people like Orrin Hatch, John McCain — there was a lot more dialogue across the aisle when I served in the Congress. When you are dialoguing, it requires compromise. The job of being a member of Congress, whether it’s the House or the Senate, is almost by definition compromising, because to get a consensus, it requires compromise.
Q: Some Massachusetts Democrats have been calling on the state’s congressional delegation to speak up more. The congressional delegation says they’re doing everything they can. Having been in their shoes, what do you see as the path forward for the party? What do you think about the way congressional Democrats have been responding to GOP threats?
A: I’ve talked to most members of the Massachusetts delegation, and they are fighting. I talked to Senator Markey about his discussions with other Republican senators, and this is something that I think the delegation is working hard on. I mean, just last week — the disruption of higher education is so significant that Moody’s issued an advisory downgrading the outlook of the entire sector from from stable to negative. That outlook is applicable to universities in red states as well as in blue states. It could impact the bond ratings, not just to the University of Massachusetts, but to every university in the country, and that affects the bottom line in a dramatic way.
Q: How do you get that point across to GOP leaders?
A: As has been the customary way, I think it’s important for universities, no matter where they’re located, to talk to their congressional delegations about the importance of a research university, whether it’s private or public, to the economy. I look at this loss of federal funding that we’re talking about at UMass — it doesn’t just threaten the University of Massachusetts, it threatens to weaken Massachusetts’s global leadership in scientific research and discovery. It’s not just jobs in higher education and health care that are at stake. It’s jobs in many industries, the defense industry, climate tech.
Q: Do you think Massachusetts itself has the kind of Republican contacts it needs in Washington to influence policy the GOP might move forward on this front?
A: I’ve been talking to Republican members of the Congress, and I’m going to be going to Washington in a couple of weeks and continue to talk to folks. I talked to a former Republican member of Congress yesterday about strategies for dealing with how higher education is impacted. And as I said, in addition to Massachusetts, these cuts across the board, these are cuts that would impact every state. That’s why it’s important for those of us who are leaders of colleges and universities of Massachusetts to reach out to our colleagues who come from states that have Republican senators and congressmen and make sure that they’re speaking up, just the way that we are.
Q: Are those university leaders in red states speaking up to the extent necessary?
A: I would say they’re doing it in a quiet kind of way, and hoping that getting the data and getting the information will result in ultimately making sure some of these policies don’t go into effect. It’s difficult to say. It’s not like this is a set-in-stone strategy, it seems to me to be kind of a willy-nilly, every day there’s something else happening.