A Month After the Education Department's 'Call to Action,' Most Colleges Are Still Waiting

One Month After the Department's 'Call to Action,' Most Colleges Have Stayed Quiet

It has been a month since the U.S. Department of Education sent a public letter titled “A National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards” to college leaders. The department asked colleges to answer questions in seven broad categories, with responses due by the end of the year. So far, most institutions have not responded. The visible exceptions are the public college systems in Florida and North Carolina, which have both submitted detailed written replies.

Florida's response was the first and most comprehensive: a 30-page document signed by the presidents of all public two- and four-year colleges in the state. It argued that recently passed Florida laws already meet the federal goals, including allowing students to record lectures to prevent indoctrination and using post-tenure review to maintain ideological diversity. The University of North Carolina system followed with a letter signed by system president Peter Hans and board chair Kellie Hunt Blue, covering admissions, post-tenure review, public posting of syllabi, and artificial-intelligence use. A Chronicle analysis found that three AI detectors flagged parts of the UNC letter as likely written by AI; a system spokesperson said administrators used AI to compile materials in a way that is “typical of administrative tasks” and denied any hypocrisy in not initially disclosing it.

Education Department spokesperson Ellen Keast said the department is encouraged that prominent institutional leaders have welcomed the call for reforms, and she pointed to two social-media posts from Education Secretary Linda McMahon praising Florida's response. Elsewhere, many presidents are waiting. Some said they wanted to consult campus communities once people returned for the 2026-27 academic year, which is only now happening. The mood is far different from last year, when the department's earlier “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” prompted swift, high-profile rejections. MIT's president declined to sign nine days after receiving it, and ultimately only a few small colleges showed interest. The new letter contains no explicit financial carrots or sticks, names no specific recipients, and gives a long deadline, making the choice feel less urgent for many institutions.

Still, a senior department official has warned that silence will not be ignored. Jonathan Pidluzny, deputy chief of staff for strategy and implementation, said “the silence would speak volumes.” After last year's compact, relatively swift negative answers effectively killed the effort, according to higher-education researcher Brendan Cantwell. In the current quiet, the fate of the “National Call to Action” is far more uncertain.

Why Florida and North Carolina Answered First, and What the Silence Elsewhere Means

Florida and North Carolina Are Aligned Outliers, Not a Consensus

The early, detailed responses reflect state political alignment more than broad acceptance across higher education. Michigan State University professor Brendan Cantwell noted that both systems' higher-ed boards are known to be partisan, with strong Republican influence. Florida's 30-page filing maps state laws passed in recent years to the federal letter's priorities, while UNC offers system-level policies rather than individual institutional commitments. A system-level answer provides “political cover” so no single campus president has to stand alone, Cantwell said. That reduces pressure on individual leaders who might otherwise face conflict with faculty members opposed to cooperating with the department.

The New Letter Is Deliberately Softer Than Last Year's Compact

The previous compact was prescriptive, suggested specific policies, and threatened financial repercussions for colleges that did not comply. It also offered preferential funding to institutions that signed. That structure produced swift, public rejections, including MIT's refusal after nine days. The August 3 letter has no carrots or sticks written into it, only asks for answers in seven broad categories, and gives colleges until the end of the year. Cantwell said the long deadline and lack of specific recipients make presidents feel less compelled to answer. In that sense, the department has traded the force of the earlier compact for a lower-stakes request that is easier for institutions to ignore.

The North Carolina AI Disclosure Fight Is a Secondary but Telling Risk

Even a cooperative response can create a separate reputational problem. Three AI detectors flagged parts of the UNC system's letter as likely AI-written. A system spokesperson defended the use of AI to compile materials as typical of administrative work and said there was nothing hypocritical about not initially disclosing it. But the episode shows that faculty and outside observers are watching the style and process of responses, not just their substance. For an issue already charged with concerns about academic independence, an undisclosed AI-assisted filing can become a story of its own.

Silence Now Carries an Unspecified but Significant Signal

Jonathan Pidluzny's warning that silence would speak volumes indicates that the department will interpret non-response as a lack of engagement. Yet the letter itself contains no explicit enforcement mechanism. Last year, swift negative answers killed the compact effort, but this year's quiet leaves the department without clear evidence of either support or rejection. The result is a waiting game in which the department wants visible institutional buy-in but has limited formal leverage to force it.

What College Leaders Can Actually Weigh Before the December Deadline

The December deadline leaves colleges with a choice rather than a legally mandated obligation. The following considerations are tied to what has already happened publicly:

• Treat silence as a decision the department says it will notice. A senior official said a lack of response “would speak volumes,” even though the letter contains no explicit penalty. Governing boards should decide deliberately, not let the deadline lapse by default.
• Weigh a system-level reply if individual campuses want distance. Florida and North Carolina's approach gives political cover to individual institutions, but it also puts the system board — not faculty or campus leadership — in the public position.
• Disclose AI use before it becomes a story. North Carolina's response was flagged by three detectors, creating a secondary controversy. If AI is used to compile answers, the disclosure should come in the filing, not after reporters ask.
• Time the decision around the 2026-27 return. Several presidents said they would consult campus communities once people returned; that moment is now. Waiting longer risks making the consultation look performative.
• Separate factual answers from endorsement. The current letter asks about seven broad areas rather than prescribing policies, so colleges can answer accurately without signing onto last year's more prescriptive compact.