BY DANIEL SPARKS

Federal and state policy landscapes are changing rapidly in higher education. In July 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes a “do no economic harm” accountability provision limiting all colleges’ access to Title IV loans if programs fail to meet state earnings thresholds as determined by the Department of Education. In April 2026, the department proposed a rule to implement this accountability framework by extending it to all colleges, not just for-profits, despite the fact that few nonprofit college programs are likely to be impacted and lose access to Title IV loans. This extension to all colleges is problematic for two main reasons: (1) Earnings is not an appropriate outcome for impacted programs at nonprofit colleges and (2) this extension provides cover to states in wresting control over institutional program offerings and decision-making.

First, nonprofit college programs in the liberal arts and humanities that lead to careers with high social value are most likely to be impacted. Preliminary analysis shows that human development and family studies and design and applied arts programs have the highest projected earnings threshold failure rates at two-year colleges, as does fine and studio arts at four-year colleges and mental and social health service programs in master’s programs. These programs include credentials leading to socially valuable but chronically underpaid careers in early childhood education and social work. To assess these programs on earnings alone is to miss the mark on what these programs are trying to achieve. Moreover, while many for-profit colleges have been known to engage in predatory recruitment practices that leave students with high debt and low completion rates, the same cannot be said for most public college programs in the arts or that lead to careers in public service. We all want students to complete programs at high rates with low debt and have promising labor market prospects, but focusing on earnings alone is not the best way to ensure these goals are met at public and nonprofit colleges.

Second, the extension of earnings accountability for all colleges has already contributed to bad-faith efforts at the state level to cut programs and reduce institutional autonomy. At least four states have already introduced or passed earnings accountability policies tied to federal do-no-harm earnings thresholds. West Virginia House Bill 4587 was introduced in the House and is currently in markup discussion. Programs that would lose funding include Fairmont State University’s history program, West Virginia University’s fine and studio arts program, and Bridge Valley Community and Technical College’s mental and social health services program. Indiana’s SB 199 was introduced in the House in January 2026 and became law in March 2026. SB 199 goes the furthest among states in requiring public colleges to eliminate programs and any associated costs if they fail to meet earnings thresholds benchmarked to the federal do-no-harm provision. Programs that will be eliminated pending waivers from the Commission for Higher Education include Indiana Wesleyan University at Marion and Ivy Tech’s associate degrees in teacher education, Indiana University’s bachelor’s degree in music, Ball State’s bachelor’s degree in dance, and Purdue University–Northwest’s bachelor’s degree in English language and literature. Nebraska introduced LB 1196 in January 2026, and though it has yet to pass as of writing this piece, it prohibits state or local funds for low-earning programs, including student financial aid and operational and instructional spending. Thirteen programs would lose access to state and local funds, including Southeast Community College and Wayne State College’s human development and family studies programs. Lastly, New Hampshire’s HB 1774 prohibits state aid for any low-earning program at in-state colleges. Legislation passed in the House in March 2026 but has yet to pass in the Senate as of writing. University of New Hampshire’s bachelor’s degree programs in anthropology and American Sign Language are among those that would lose access to state funds.

These policies come at a time when many states have simultaneously sought to wrest control from universities through tenure reform, governance reform, curriculum requirements, and DEI restrictions. Even if the ultimate number of programs impacted by state-level do-no-harm policies is relatively low, it nonetheless helps to establish state governments as arbiters of programmatic decision-making rather than institutions, who have historically held on to this role.

Accountability policies are important but should align with institutional missions and program purpose. We should be focused on ways to increase college participation while keeping costs low. Do-no-harm provisions and recent state policies will accomplish neither. Instead, these policies offer justification for more homogenous program offerings and cuts to degrees in the humanities and liberal arts and programs leading to careers with high social value at public colleges. This exacerbates the orientation of higher education as serving strictly vocational ends while minimizing its contributions to student learning and the public good. Until we have better measures that capture program quality at public and nonprofit colleges through a nonpecuniary lens of actual student learning and satisfaction, we are holding institutions accountable for the wrong outcomes.

Daniel Sparks is assistant professor of higher education at the University of Arkansas. His research focuses on the economics of education, with an emphasis on higher education finance and policy.