Veritas, My Ass (Mark Twain*)

“The pleasure we experience in seeing a beautiful cathedral reminds us to admire the church’s architect. How much more should viewing the universe’s infinite variety stir us to praise the Beauty of its Creator. Consider, for a moment, the whole of creation. The splendor of the starry skies, the various flowers in a flower garden, the stately majesty of a cluster of trees, the melodious songs of birds, the variations of creatures in the animal kingdom, the sense and intellectual faculties of a human person, are like so many voices that praise the Beauty of their Author. Words fail us in our effort to describe adequately what the beauty of the universe tells us of the Divine Artist’s Beauty. Does triumphant music come closer to expressing God’s Beauty?”  Bruce Ashford quoting Saint Augustine’s reflection on Psalm 26

Throughout human history, our ancestors have tried to make sense of our being in the universe by focusing on things transcendent.   The basis of this inquiry really led to the formal inquiry which would soon become philosophy and theology - and the basis of the modern university.    It is our concern with these four transcendental values – the Good, the True, the Just, and the Beautiful that have given us the pillars on which to build a more enlightened community.    It is the second Transcendental, Veritas (Truth) that I wish to turn my attention to today.

You cannot walk 10 steps at Harvard University across the Charles without coming upon its logo proudly proclaiming its worthy mission in a single word.   Veritas.   That leap of faith not only is the guiding principle for all who are fortunate to have professional life there, it is the promise that it makes throughout the centuries to continue the proud habits of being concerned with things transcendental.

Veritas – the truth – always seems filled with multiple paradoxes.   In order to base your entire reason for being and professional life on such a belief, one must first accept that We can actually know truth.   That said, we tacitly understand that the most important truths are sometimes unknown and unknowable.   We still try.   The efforts that we put into discovering truth remind us how important they are when we find them.   Harvard was first established because the act of knowing truth (Veritas) is a way of coming to know the mind of our Creator (Harvard was established to allow young farm boys to become ministers). 

Sometimes, we know that we are close to the truth because of a visceral resonance that “moves” us.   It shakes our soul.   It is the sensation that the Nobel Laureate, Romaine Rolland called the sensation of the Oceanic.   This is an altogether different feeling than the savage raw animal emotion we have become all too fond of, like the roar of the crowd at a professional wrestling match.   Here, we are well aware that the whole spectacle is simply an act - a staged falsehood (how ironic that our Education Secretary was once in charge of this spectacle).

When we replace this raw emotion as a fake substitute of the moments that truly move us, we become less human and cease searching for the mind of our Creator.   This is the tragedy that essayist Neil Postman alludes to in his brilliant “Amusing Ourselves to Death” (he also warned us of the same urges in his “End of Education”).

For Christians, our Guide is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (These are all capital to remind us of the transcendental).   We know how difficult these are because the founder of our religion had to suffer and die, largely because he made so many angry by hearing Truths (Veritas) they never wanted to heal.   Veritas is not only difficult to attain but once attained often makes the teller of it a target.   We need to remind ourselves that this Veritas exists outside what the common belief is.   Ask Galileo.   What we think, and whether we like what we hear has no bearing on the Truth of things.  Veritas.

Scientists know that they are getting closer to the truth of things, the mind of the Creator, when they try to prove themselves wrong and have a more difficult time doing so with each attempt.   The reason for these attempts at falsification (and the eyes of keen editors) is to keep scientists from appearing foolish for advocating claims not resonant with the truth.   Just because some can convince a third of her fellows of a false claim, the claim remains false and they remain a fool (or worse, a liar).

When a university capitulates to a fool and does not defend Veritas, it ceases to live up to its centuries old tradition of searching for Truth (as best we can).  No wonder people no longer take universities seriously.   Absent this commitment to single-mindedly fight for Veritas, there is no reason for the university to exist.  There are far less expensive ways to train for a job.

I challenge those inside the university to redouble their commitment to Veritas.  This is why tenure is such a serious and sacred privilege.   Scholars understand that some Truths are so difficult for the masses to accept that those whose life it is to discover these inconvenient and sometimes dangerous Truths can risk personal dangers.   Therefore, if you have been honored by the recognition of tenure, investigate truths dangerous enough to enjoy that Privilege.  And remind all around you why the word is on every building and letterhead.   It is a sacred duty and a protection from those fools who believe they know all and should not be challenged by facts. 

*Mark Twain is the pen name of a well-respected friend of the Higher Education Inquirer

College Meltdown Fall 2025

The Fall 2025 semester begins under intensifying pressure in U.S. higher education. Institutions are responding to long-term changes in enrollment, public funding, demographics, technology, and labor markets. The result is a gradual disassembly of parts of the postsecondary system, with ongoing layoffs, program cuts, and institutional restructuring across both public and private sectors.

The Destruction of ED

In a stunning turn, the U.S. Department of Education has undergone a massive downsizing, slashing nearly half its workforce as part of the Trump administration’s push to dismantle the agency entirely. Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the move as a “final mission” to restore state control and eliminate federal bureaucracy, but critics warn of chaos for vulnerable students and families who rely on federal programs. With responsibilities like student loans, Pell Grants, and civil rights enforcement now in limbo, Higher Education Institutions face a volatile landscape. The absence of centralized oversight has accelerated the fragmentation of standards, funding, and accountability—leaving colleges scrambling to navigate a patchwork of state policies and shrinking federal support.

AI Disruption: Academic Integrity and Graduate Employment 

Artificial Intelligence has rapidly reshaped higher education, introducing both powerful tools and profound challenges. On campus, AI-driven platforms like ChatGPT have become ubiquitous—92% of students now use them, and 88% admit to deploying AI for graded assignments. This surge has triggered a spike in academic misconduct, with detection systems struggling to keep pace and disproportionately flagging non-native English speakers Meanwhile, the job market for graduates is undergoing a seismic shift. Entry-level roles in tech, finance, and consulting are vanishing as companies automate routine tasks once reserved for junior staff. AI-driven layoffs have already claimed over 10,000 jobs in 2025 alone, and some experts predict that up to half of all white-collar entry-level positions could be eliminated within five years. For recent grads, this means navigating a landscape where degrees may hold less weight, and adaptability, AI fluency, and human-centered skills are more critical than ever.

Unsustainable Student Loan Debt and Federal Funding 

A recent report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) highlights the depth of the crisis: more than 1,000 colleges could lose access to federal student aid based on current student loan repayment rates—if existing rules were fully enforced. The findings expose systemic failures in accountability and student outcomes. Many of these colleges enroll high numbers of low-income students but leave them with unsustainable debt and limited job prospects.

Institutional Cuts and Layoffs Across the Country

Job losses and cost reductions are increasing across a range of universities.

Stanford University is cutting staff due to a projected $200 million budget shortfall.
University of Oregon has announced budget reductions and academic restructuring.
Michigan State University is implementing layoffs and reorganizing departments.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center is eliminating positions to manage healthcare operating costs.
Harvard Kennedy School is reducing programs and offering early retirement.
Brown University is freezing hiring and reviewing academic offerings.
Penn State University System is closing three Commonwealth Campuses.
Indiana public colleges are merging administrative functions and reviewing low-enrollment programs.

These actions affect not only employees and students but also local communities and regional labor markets.

Enrollment Decline and Demographic Change

Undergraduate enrollment has fallen 14.6% since Fall 2019, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Community colleges have experienced the largest losses, with some regions seeing more than 20% declines.

The “demographic cliff” tied to declining birth rates is now reflected in enrollment trends. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) projects a 15% decline in high school graduates between 2025 and 2037 in parts of the Midwest and Northeast.

Aging Population and Shifts in Public Spending

The U.S. population is aging. By 2030, all baby boomers will be over 65. The number of Americans aged 80 and older is expected to rise from 13 million in 2020 to nearly 20 million by 2035. Public resources are being redirected toward Social Security, Medicare, and elder care, placing higher education in direct competition for limited federal and state funds.

State-Level Cuts to Higher Education Budgets

According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), 28 states saw a decline in inflation-adjusted funding per student in FY2024.

The California State University system faces a $400 million structural deficit.
West Virginia has reduced academic programs in favor of workforce-focused realignment.
Indiana has ordered cost-cutting measures across public campuses.

These reductions are leading to fewer courses, increased workloads, and, in some cases, higher tuition.

Closures and Mergers Continue

Since 2020, more than 100 campuses have closed or merged, based on Education Dive and HEI data. In 2025, Penn State began closing three Commonwealth Campuses. A number of small private colleges—especially those with enrollments under 1,000 and limited endowments—are seeking mergers or shutting down entirely.

International Enrollment Faces Obstacles

The Institute of International Education (IIE) reports a 12% decline in new international student enrollment in Fall 2024. Contributing factors include visa delays and tighter immigration rules. Students from India, Nigeria, and Iran have experienced longer wait times and increased rejection rates. Graduate programs in STEM and business are particularly affected.

Increased Surveillance and Restrictions on Campus Speech

Data from FIRE and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) show increased use of surveillance tools on campuses since 2023. At least 15 public universities now use facial recognition, social media monitoring, or geofencing. State laws in Florida, Texas, and Georgia have introduced new restrictions on protests and diversity programs.

Automated Education Expands

Online Program Managers (OPMs) such as 2U, Kaplan, and Coursera are running over 500 online degree programs at more than 200 institutions, enrolling more than 1.5 million students. These programs often rely on AI-generated content and automated grading systems, with minimal instructor interaction.

Research from the Century Foundation shows that undergraduate programs operated by OPMs have completion rates below 35%, while charging tuition comparable to in-person degrees. Regulatory efforts to improve transparency and accountability remain stalled.

Oversight Gaps Remain

Accrediting agencies continue to approve closures, mergers, and new credential programs with limited transparency. Institutions are increasingly expanding short-term credential offerings and corporate partnerships with minimal external review.

Cost Shifts to Students, Faculty, and Communities

The ongoing restructuring of higher education is shifting costs and risks onto students, employees, and communities. Students face rising tuition, fewer available courses, and increased reliance on loans. Faculty and staff encounter job insecurity and heavier workloads. Outside the ivory tower, communities will lose access to educational services, cultural events, and local employment opportunities tied to campuses.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to report on the structural changes in U.S. higher education—grounded in data, public records, and the lived experiences of those directly affected.

Sources:
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), U.S. Census Bureau, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), Institute of International Education (IIE), Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Government Accountability Office (GAO), The Century Foundation, Stanford University, University of Oregon, Penn State University System, Harvard Kennedy School, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Education Dive Higher Ed Closures Tracker, American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Applauding a Brave Stand for Academic Freedom at the Harvard Crimson

In a moment when academic institutions often yield to external pressure, The Harvard Crimson recently delivered a vital reminder of what true scholarly integrity looks like. Its coverage of the open letter signed by more than 360 academics worldwide—demanding accountability from the Harvard Education Publishing Group (HEPG) for its abrupt cancellation of a special issue on Palestine and education—deserves high praise.

A Stand Against Scholasticide

The canceled issue, initially slated for release following a full editorial process, was pulled two months prior to publication under the pretext of “copy-editing issues” and editorial misalignment. Yet scholars and editors viewed this as censorship—what some have called “scholasticide”—undermining both academic freedom and HEPG’s mission. The Harvard Educational Review (HER) student editorial board publicly denounced the move, describing it as inconsistent with the journal’s nearly century-long legacy.

Global Solidarity and Moral Clarity

The open letter drew signatures from professors across more than 55 institutions worldwide—an extraordinary act of scholarly solidarity. Signatories demanded HEPG acknowledge its decision as discriminatory, reverse the cancellation, and safeguard editorial independence from political interference. In doing so, they upheld academic freedom not simply as institutional rhetoric, but as a moral imperative.

Why The Harvard Crimson Coverage Matters

The Crimson’s reporting illuminated an issue too often buried in bureaucratic opacity. It traced the timeline of a late-stage “legal risk assessment” that derailed the issue and documented the dismay of editors and authors. More importantly, it framed the cancellation as a threat not only to scholarship on Palestine, but to academic freedom more broadly.

By bringing this story to light, The Crimson demonstrated what real student journalism can achieve: holding power to account, amplifying marginalized voices, and ensuring that critical debates remain visible.

In Defense of Ideas, Especially Contested Ones

In polarized times, academic freedom can feel precarious—especially when certain topics trigger political sensitivities. The cancellation of a Palestine-focused issue raises alarms that should not be ignored. What The Crimson provided was more than reporting; it was a rallying moment, a reminder that student journalists and scholars worldwide can resist institutional silence.

Academic Freedom Must Be Defended

The Harvard Crimson’s coverage is a model for higher education journalism—courageous, unflinching, and morally clear. By spotlighting both the injustice of the cancellation and the global academic response, The Crimson affirmed that when institutions retreat, journalism can still advance the cause of truth.

May this moment remind us: academic freedom is never guaranteed. It must be defended—and applauded—when it is under threat.

---

Sources

• The Harvard Crimson, “Over 360 Academics Sign Letter Condemning Harvard Education Publishing Group’s Cancellation of Palestine Issue” (Aug. 15, 2025)

• The Harvard Crimson, “Harvard Educational Review Cancels Special Issue on Palestine” (July 24, 2025)

• Wikipedia, Harvard Educational Review entry

• Open letter from international scholars to HEPG (2025)

• American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure

• Joan Wallach Scott, Knowledge, Power, and Academic Freedom (2019)

• Matthew Hedges, Repression and Academic Freedom in the Middle East (2021)

• Steven Salaita, Uncivil Rites: Palestine and the Limits of Academic Freedom (2015)

American Sororities: Class, Race, Gender, and the Return of "Tradition"

At flagship universities across the United States, predominantly white sororities remain popular institutions. They offer young women a ready-made community, social capital, and access to alumni networks. But behind this appeal lies a system that reinforces race, class, and gender hierarchies—at a time when women’s rights are being rolled back nationally.

Race and Class Tradition: Who Belongs, Who Does Not

Sororities are not only racially homogeneous but also heavily skewed by class. Recruitment practices, legacy ties, and financial obligations ensure that sorority life remains a domain for the affluent.

At Princeton University, 77% of sorority members are white, compared with 47% of the student body overall.

Socioeconomic trends are even starker. In 1999, 31% of Greek-affiliated students at Princeton identified as middle-class, but by 2024 that number had dropped to 14%. Over the same period, those identifying as upper-class doubled from 14% to 28%.

At the University of Mississippi, 48% of high school graduates in the state were Black in 2021, but only 8% of first-year students at Ole Miss were Black. White-dominated Greek life continues to thrive in this climate of underrepresentation.

A multi-campus study found 72% of Greek members identified as middle- or upper-middle class, compared with just 6% from low-income families.

These figures reveal how sororities work to reproduce the advantages of affluent white families. Membership offers exclusive networking, internships, and social connections—often denied to working-class students, students of color, and first-generation college students.

Gender Tradition

Sororities also sustain a vision of femininity rooted in conformity, beauty standards, and heteronormativity. Social events are structured around fraternities, placing men as hosts and leaders, while sorority women serve as companions or supporters.

While some sororities claim empowerment through philanthropy and sisterhood, the cultural framework continues to emphasize women’s value through appearance and deference, not leadership. This pattern reflects broader societal pressures to restore traditional gender roles.

The Broader Context: The Right to Choose Lost

The Supreme Court’s 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade has had profound consequences for women in the U.S.

More than 25 million women of reproductive age now live in states with abortion bans or severe restrictions.

States with the most restrictive abortion laws show a 7% increase in maternal mortality overall, and 51% higher rates where laws require procedures only from licensed physicians.

The loss of Roe’s protections especially harms women of color and low-income women, who already face barriers to healthcare and mobility.

Against this backdrop, sororities’ popularity at flagship universities is revealing. These organizations celebrate conformity to class privilege and traditional gender expectations, while millions of women outside those circles see their reproductive freedoms curtailed. The alignment of sorority culture with conservative visions of femininity makes them more than relics of tradition—they become cultural reinforcers of the very inequalities deepening in U.S. society.

Why Class Matters

Social class is at the heart of the issue. Sororities provide access to powerful networks that translate into internships, job placements, and lifelong advantages. These networks overwhelmingly serve the wealthy and exclude those already disadvantaged by race, class, and gender.

At a time when women’s bodily autonomy is under political attack, the popularity of predominantly white sororities signals how elite spaces continue to consolidate privilege for a narrow group of women—while the majority face shrinking freedoms and growing precarity.

Sources

Princeton Greek life demographics (tcf.org)

Princeton Class of 2024 socioeconomic trends (dailyprincetonian.com)

University of Mississippi racial disparities (hechingerreport.org)

National Greek life class survey (vox.com)

Women under abortion bans: 25 million affected (americanprogress.org)

Abortion bans and maternal mortality (sph.tulane.edu

Trump’s “Manhattan Project” for AI Chips: U.S. Scrambles as China Reaps Neoliberal Legacy

The Trump administration is reportedly considering an extraordinary intervention in the private sector: partially nationalizing Intel Corp., one of America’s leading semiconductor manufacturers. Sources say the government is exploring a stake in the company—a move experts liken to the Manhattan Project or the early space race.

MIT AI computer scientist Dave Blundin described the effort on a podcast with MIT engineer Peter Diamandis as “every bit as important as the space race was, as the nuclear arms race was. Actually, it’s more important.” Intel’s advanced semiconductor capabilities could reduce U.S. dependence on foreign fabrication plants, particularly in Taiwan, which controls more than 60 percent of global chip production.

Decades of Missteps

Yet the urgency behind the move is rooted not in technological inevitability, but in decades of strategic missteps. Neoliberal policies pursued by U.S. administrations and corporate elites deliberately outsourced manufacturing and critical technology to China to cut labor costs. Over time, this strategy handed Beijing a decisive advantage in semiconductors, AI, and advanced technology, leaving the United States reactive and vulnerable.

The potential nationalization of Intel—a step usually reserved for wartime or extreme crises—signals a dramatic departure from free-market principles. By directly involving the federal government in a major private firm, the administration privileges corporate elites, bypassing both market competition and public accountability. Intel declined to comment on the discussions but emphasized its commitment to supporting the administration’s technology and manufacturing priorities.

China and Taiwan

Blundin warned the move puts the industry on a “war footing,” likening it to a mobilization for conflict, with supply chains and fabs as the battlefield. Analysts stress urgency: China may attempt to take over Taiwan sooner rather than later. Unlike the United States, China operates under a coordinated, authoritarian system that fuses government strategy and industrial capacity to dominate global technology—a stark structural advantage over the fragmented, elite-driven U.S. approach.

Recent deals highlight the U.S.’s reactive posture. Last week, Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) agreed to hand over 15 percent of their chip sales revenue in China to the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses. Experts warn that while these arrangements provide short-term financial gains, they also strengthen China’s AI and military capabilities. Liza Tobin, former China director at the National Security Council, called the deal “an own goal” likely to incentivize Beijing to escalate its technology development and demand further concessions.

Trump has also threatened a 100 percent tariff on imports unless chips are manufactured domestically. If Intel is partially nationalized, it would mark one of the most significant government interventions in U.S. industry in decades—demonstrating both a departure from free-market capitalism and a concentration of power in the hands of elites.

The U.S.’s current scramble illustrates a deeper crisis. Decades of neoliberal policies, elite capture, and weakening democratic institutions have left the nation ill-prepared to compete against a strategically unified authoritarian China. Semiconductor leadership is no longer just an economic or technological matter—it is a test of whether the United States can reclaim strategic sovereignty while defending democracy and free-market principles, or whether it will continue to lose ground to authoritarian advantage.

Sources: Bloomberg, Financial Times, The New York Times, MIT Podcast with Dave Blundin & Peter Diamandis

Higher Education Inquirer: Transparency, Accountability, and Value

Our vision for the Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has been to increase transparency, accountability, and value for consumers of higher education, workers in higher education, and student loan debtors.  Your insights, your stories, and yes, your critiques, are the lifeblood of this endeavor.

We remain committed to staying ahead of the learned herd, challenging orthodoxies, and asking the uncomfortable questions that others often ignore. But to continue on this path, we need your support. One of the most immediate ways you can contribute is by commenting on our articles—anonymously if you prefer—and sharing them widely. Every comment, every share, strengthens our community and amplifies the work we do.

With your continued input, we will persist in our investigative efforts: analyzing hidden data, exposing malfeasance, interviewing experts, and speaking to whistleblowers who trust us to tell stories that matter. Our goal is not merely to inform but to propose solutions. We seek to highlight best practices and showcase promising alternatives to the status quo—whether they arise from within classrooms or boardrooms, or beyond them entirely.

We also welcome collaborations. If you know of individuals or organizations that bring meaningful insight to higher education’s most pressing issues, please let us know. The Inquirer thrives on the collective intelligence and diversity of its contributors.

In the coming year, we intend to deepen our focus on several core areas of concern:

Mental Health Support: We will examine the quality and accessibility of mental health services for both students and campus employees. From long wait times to underfunded counseling centers, from financial barriers to the unseen toll of psychological distress, we will explore how these challenges intersect with academic success and retention.

Financial Literacy: Colleges often promise to prepare students for life beyond graduation, yet too many fall short in equipping them with the tools for financial independence. We will investigate how institutions teach (or fail to teach) personal finance, and how that connects to the broader burden of student debt and financial anxiety.

Economic Inequality: As higher education grapples with its own complicity in deepening socioeconomic divides, we aim to uncover how colleges and universities either exacerbate or alleviate inequality. Our reporting will examine affordability, access, and the real economic value of a college degree, especially for first-generation and low-income students.

Civic Engagement: In a time of political polarization, the role of higher education in cultivating civic responsibility has never been more urgent. We will explore campus-based initiatives aimed at encouraging informed, active citizenship—and assess whether they are rising to the challenge.

Sustainable Living: With climate concerns mounting, we will investigate how institutions are responding. Are they merely "greenwashing" or making measurable progress in reducing their environmental footprint? We will also explore how sustainability is integrated into both operations and curricula.

Reimagining Education: Finally, we will look to the future of learning itself. From innovative teaching models to the ethical use of AI, from lifelong learning to digital classrooms, our reporting will spotlight the possibilities and perils of reimagining education for a rapidly changing world.

This is a pivotal time for higher education—and for those of us committed to examining it critically and constructively. We invite you to walk with us, challenge us, and contribute to the stories that need to be told. Together, we can create a more just, transparent, and thoughtful academic landscape.

Wikipedia on US Higher Education Nearly Abandoned

The Wikipedia article “Higher education in the United States” shows its age. It still uses 2022 enrollment figures—18.6 million students—but glosses over critical trends like ongoing decline and demographic shifts.

At a glance:

• Enrollment peaked around 2010–11 at just over 21 million students and has since declined, a trend that has reshaped colleges nationwide.

• Federal projections suggest continuing stagnation or decline in the next two decades, yet the entry treats these as side notes.

Meanwhile, the Issues in higher education in the United States article lists challenges like grade inflation, financial pressures, and lowered academic standards, but these issues are not integrated into the main overview. The result is a fragmented and outdated picture.

---

Why This Page Is Falling Behind

1. Volunteer Labor Isn’t Enough
Wikipedia relies entirely on volunteer editors. That independence keeps it free of corporate ownership and advertising, but it also means entire subject areas are neglected. Complex, politically charged topics like U.S. higher education demand attention from contributors with both knowledge and time. Many volunteers understandably focus on tech, pop culture, or history, leaving higher education under-updated.

This mirrors higher education itself, where adjunct faculty and unpaid interns are asked to sustain institutions without adequate compensation. Noble ideals, but little support.

2. Critical Issues Are Fragmented
The main page does not incorporate systemic problems like accreditation reform, federal funding battles, declining public trust, or backlash against elite universities. These issues exist on separate Wikipedia entries, but the lack of synthesis makes the main article misleading.

---

Why It Matters

Wikipedia is the first reference point for millions of students, journalists, policymakers, and members of the public. If its coverage of higher education is outdated, so is much of the discussion about the system that shapes millions of lives and drives trillions in economic activity.

---

Wikipedia’s Imperfections and Value

Wikipedia is not perfect. Its open-edit model makes it vulnerable to bias, uneven coverage, and gaps in accuracy. Corporate or political interests sometimes attempt to shape entries in their favor. But it remains one of the few large-scale sources of freely available knowledge in the world.

At a moment when AI systems are flooding the internet with synthetic content—often scraped from Wikipedia itself—it is even more important to sustain a platform built on transparency and human oversight. Wikipedia should be critiqued, improved, and supported—not discarded.

---

What Readers Can Do

Donate Time

• Update the Higher education in the United States article with current data, policy changes, and pressing issues.

• Even new editors can contribute with guidance from Wikipedia’s editing tutorials.

Donate Money

• The Wikimedia Foundation depends on donations to maintain the servers, security, and tools that keep Wikipedia online and ad-free.

• Contributions also support outreach to expert editors who can keep complex articles like this one current.

Knowledge for All

Wikipedia was founded on the principle of free knowledge for all. That principle is worth defending, but it requires ongoing labor and resources. If higher education matters to you, consider giving your time as an editor—or your money as a donor—to ensure this story is told accurately.

---

Sources

• Wikipedia: Higher education in the United States

• Wikipedia: Issues in higher education in the United States

• Wikimedia Foundation – Participate

• Donate to Wikipedia

• Wired, Wikipedia’s inequality problem: who gets to edit for free? (2023)

Tattoo Regret

For millions of Americans, tattoos were meant to be personal landmarks—bold, permanent declarations of identity. For college students, the decision to get one often happens in the whirlwind of new freedom, campus culture, and peer influence. But as years pass and the ink fades, many find themselves with more than just a physical reminder—they face a costly, time-consuming process of erasure.

The scale of regret is hard to ignore. Surveys suggest that about one in four Americans with tattoos regret at least one of them. That’s roughly 20 million people, and among those aged 18 to 30—prime college years—the number climbs closer to one in three. A dermatology study found that 26 percent of tattooed patients expressed regret, with over 40 percent of them seeking removal or cover-ups. Regret is especially common when tattoos are obtained in late adolescence, when judgment is less mature, or when they are done cheaply, hastily, or in highly visible areas like the forearms, neck, or face.

The economic fallout is familiar to anyone who has studied the for-profit college industry. Just as private lenders profit from the desperation of indebted graduates, the tattoo removal industry thrives on the emotional and professional consequences of youthful decisions. In 2024, the global tattoo removal market was worth more than $1.1 billion and is projected to triple by 2032. In the U.S., the market has ballooned from $65.9 million in 2023 to a forecast of more than $400 million by 2033. Clinics report surges in demand, with some chains—like Removery—expanding to over 150 locations worldwide. Their marketing often mirrors higher education’s own slogans of transformation and reinvention.

The drivers of removal are telling. A tattoo might commemorate a relationship that ended badly, reflect a political or cultural affiliation that’s become toxic, or simply be a relic of a passing trend. Others are driven to removal for professional survival. While tattoos have become more acceptable in creative fields and service work, they can still derail opportunities in education, law, finance, healthcare, and parts of the military. For some, removal is less about a paycheck and more about reclaiming a sense of self from a younger, more impulsive version of themselves.

What higher education often fails to admit is that it plays a role in this cycle. Universities spend heavily on branding campaigns that tell students to “make their mark,” “be fearless,” or “define your identity.” In campus environments where these messages blend with alcohol, peer pressure, and instant access to tattoo parlors, the permanence of a decision is rarely emphasized. Just as with signing loan papers, the cost comes later—often at a time when money is tight and options are few.

The irony is that both industries—higher education and tattoo removal—present themselves as pathways to a better self. One promises the power to transform your future; the other promises to erase your past. And in both cases, it is the young, the inexperienced, and the financially vulnerable who pay the highest price.

Tattoos are not inherently mistakes. They can be art, heritage, or deeply personal affirmations. But when permanence meets the fluid identity of early adulthood, the risk of regret is real. If universities truly see themselves as guiding students toward informed choices, they might start by being honest about the permanence—not just of ink, but of all life decisions made in the shadow of campus marketing campaigns.

Sources:
Fortune Business Insights, Tattoo Removal Market Size, Share, Trends (2024)
GQ, “Why Is Everyone Getting Their Tattoos Removed?” (2024)
WiFi Talents, Tattoo Regret Statistics (2024)
ZipDo, Tattoo Regret Statistics (2024)
NCBI, “Tattoo Removal and Regret: A Cross-Sectional Analysis” (2023)
Allied Market Research, Tattoo Removal Market (2024)
IMARC Group, Tattoo Removal Market Report (2024)
The Times (UK), “Confessions of the Tattoo Removers” (2024)
Herald Sun, “Why Tattoo Removal Is Soaring” (2024)

As the Market Soars, Main Street Feels the Pinch: Dollar Tree and the Rising Cost of Survival

While Wall Street celebrates record highs, Main Street grapples with rising costs that strain household budgets. Dollar Tree, once synonymous with affordability, has seen its pricing structure evolve significantly. In 2021, the company increased its baseline price from $1 to $1.25, and by 2025, introduced items priced up to $10 in select stores.

For residents in food deserts—areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food—stores like Dollar Tree serve as essential sources for groceries. However, these stores often stock predominantly ultra-processed foods, contributing to dietary challenges. A study by Tufts, Harvard, and the USDA found that while dollar store food purchases scored low on the Healthy Eating Index, households shopping there didn’t significantly differ in overall diet quality from those shopping primarily at grocery stores.

The expansion of dollar stores in low-income communities has been linked to exacerbating food insecurity. These stores often lack fresh produce and healthy staples, leading to diets high in processed foods. Research indicates that small food retailers are less likely than supermarkets to sell healthy staple foods, further entrenching food insecurity in these areas.

Despite the financial gains reflected in the stock market, the affordability gap widens for working-class families. Economic gains at the top do not trickle down to the communities that need them most. As investment portfolios swell, the affordability gap grows, and the promise of basic necessities remains increasingly out of reach. For working-class families and those living in under-resourced neighborhoods, the soaring market feels less like a sign of prosperity and more like a reminder of growing inequality.

In addition to rising costs, recent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are further impacting low-income households. A new law backed by the Trump administration and signed in July 2025 is set to reduce SNAP benefits for 2.4 million Americans by expanding work requirements to additional groups, including parents of children aged 14 and up, adults aged 55–64, veterans, former foster youth, and homeless individuals. The legislation requires these groups to work, volunteer, or participate in job training for at least 80 hours per month to qualify. This expansion is expected to shift more costs to states and redistribute resources, increasing income for middle- and high-income households while reducing benefits for low-income households.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes that people in food-insecure households spend roughly 45% more on medical care annually than those in food-secure households. SNAP participation has been linked to improved health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. For instance, early access to SNAP among pregnant mothers and in early childhood improved birth outcomes and long-term health as adults. Elderly SNAP participants are less likely than similar non-participants to forgo their full prescribed dosage of medicine due to cost.

The reduction or loss of SNAP benefits can lead to increased food insecurity and poorer health outcomes. A study published in Health Affairs found that the loss of SNAP benefits was associated with food insecurity and poor health in working families with young children. The study indicated that reduced benefits were associated with greater odds of fair or poor caregiver and child health.

As the affordability gap widens and access to essential resources becomes more challenging, the combination of rising costs and reduced support systems underscores the growing inequality faced by working-class families and communities in need.

---

Sources:

• Money Digest: Dollar Tree Chain Increasing Prices

• New York Post: Dollar Tree lifts price cap to $7

• Eating Well: Dollar Store Grocery Shopping Study

• Planet Forward: Dollar Stores and Food Security

• USDA Economic Research Service: Food Access Research Atlas

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer Price Index 2024 in Review

• DQYDJ: Average, Median, Top 1% Household Income Percentiles

• U.S. Census Bureau: Income in the United States: 2023

• The Guardian: Trump Law Will Cut Food Stamps for 2.4 Million People

• CBPP: SNAP Is Linked With Improved Health Outcomes and Lower Health Care Costs

• Health Affairs: Loss Of SNAP Is Associated With Food Insecurity And Poor Health In Working Families With Young Children

Scam Alert: American Financial Solutions and Borrower Defense to Repayment

[Editor's Note: The Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a Freedom of Information Request F-2025-02034 for any Federal Trade Commission consumer complaints against American Financial Solutions. We expect student loan relief scams to grow over the next few years as federal government oversight is reduced.]

American Financial Solutions (AFS) positions itself in social media as a lifeline for student loan borrowers, offering help with programs like Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR), PSLF, closed-school discharge, teacher loan forgiveness, and income-driven repayment. They advertise a “95 percent success rate,” more than $25 million in loans discharged, and over 10,000 clients helped. AFS promotes a three-step approach: a free consultation, documentation collection, and federal application submission—with implied guarantees of approval. They even suggest that discharges can occur in as little as 12 to 36 months.

Behind this polished marketing is a disturbing reality. When contacted directly, AFS quoted a $1,500 fee to file a Borrower Defense claim. The Department of Education provides this service for free, which makes the fee an unnecessary financial burden on people already struggling with debt. Worse still, AFS representatives falsely claimed that approval would be “guaranteed” because the borrower’s school was named in the Sweet v. Cardona settlement. That is not how the Sweet settlement worked, and no private company can guarantee outcomes in federal relief programs.

AFS also collects a troubling amount of data from borrowers. According to its own disclosures, the company asks for names, contact information, educational histories, student loan details, financial information, and documentation of borrowers’ school experiences. It also stores communications and any additional information provided. Beyond that, the company automatically harvests website usage data, including IP addresses, device and operating system information, pages visited, time spent on the site, referring websites, and even search terms. This means that vulnerable borrowers are not only charged excessive fees but also exposed to unnecessary risks regarding their personal and financial data.

While AFS presents itself as a nonprofit credit counseling agency with A+ BBB accreditation, consumer complaints suggest a lack of transparency and responsiveness. One unresolved 2024 complaint alleged billing issues, with the consumer insisting they were not liable for a debt and had no contract, while the company failed to respond. Independent review platforms show a mix of praise and criticism, with some clients reporting successful debt management experiences, but others raising questions about hidden costs, communication problems, and misleading claims.

The bigger problem is that AFS fits a well-documented pattern of predatory practices in the student loan relief industry. Over the past decade, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have repeatedly shut down companies that charged for free government services, misrepresented their powers, and lied about forgiveness guarantees. In one case, the CFPB shut down Student Aid Institute, only to see its operator resurface under a new name and steal more than $240,000 from borrowers. In another, Monster Loans and its associates were sued for defrauding over 23,000 borrowers. The FTC has also acted against multiple operations that bilked millions of dollars from borrowers by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. Even Navient, a major loan servicer, agreed in 2024 to pay $120 million after deceiving borrowers about repayment options.

The risks to borrowers are increasing as federal oversight weakens. In 2025, reports revealed that the CFPB planned to scale back enforcement of student loan cases, leaving state regulators—who often lack resources—to fill the gap. Critics warned this would create “open season” for scammers. Against that backdrop, companies like AFS are free to charge high fees, collect sensitive data, and make deceptive promises while vulnerable borrowers remain unprotected.

American Financial Solutions is not a solution. It is part of the problem, a business model that profits by charging people for free services, misrepresenting the law, and exposing them to new risks. Unless stronger oversight and enforcement are restored, borrowers will continue to be victimized first by predatory schools and then by predatory “relief” companies cashing in on their desperation.

---

Sources

American Financial Solutions marketing claims. amerifisolutions.com
AFS data collection disclosure (website policy provided by user)
Better Business Bureau profile. bbb.org
BBB consumer complaint (2024). bbb.org
Trustpilot reviews. trustpilot.com
ConsumerAffairs reviews. consumeraffairs.com
BestCompany review. bestcompany.com
CuraDebt expert analysis. curadebt.com
Federal Trade Commission. “American Financial Benefits Center Refunds.” ftc.gov
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Seeks Ban Against Operator of Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Reboot.” consumerfinance.gov
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Takes Action Against Operators of an Unlawful Student Loan Debt Relief Scheme.” consumerfinance.gov
Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Acts to Stop Scheme that Bilked Millions out of Student Loan Borrowers.” ftc.gov, December 2024
Federal Trade Commission. “Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Operators Agree to be Permanently Banned.” ftc.gov, May 2025
Time Magazine. “Navient Settlement: Student Loan Borrowers to Receive Payments.” time.com, 2024
The Guardian. “Brad Lander: CFPB Cuts Create Open Season for Fraudsters.” theguardian.com, May 2025

College Prospects, College Targets

In the old American dreambook, a “college prospect” was a young person with ambition and promise—a student looking for a campus where they could grow intellectually, socially, and economically. But in today’s reality, “prospect” is an industry term, a sales category. In enrollment management suites across the country, prospective students aren’t just applicants; they’re targets.

[Image from Brown University, August 2025]

Higher education—whether elite, public, or for-profit—now runs on sophisticated marketing pipelines. The same predictive analytics used by corporations, political campaigns, and even law enforcement are deployed to track, segment, and convert students into paying customers. Colleges buy and sell student data from standardized test companies, online lead generators, and high school surveys. They follow “prospects” through their clicks, their campus visits, their FAFSA submissions—nudging them toward a deposit with personalized emails, algorithmically timed text messages, and calculated financial aid offers.

This is not about education first. It’s about yield rates, tuition revenue, and net tuition per student. For working-class families, first-generation students, and those from marginalized backgrounds, this targeting can be especially dangerous. The glossy brochures and “student success” slogans conceal the hard realities: inflated tuition, debt burdens that can last decades, and career outcomes far less rosy than advertised.

The for-profit sector perfected this playbook. Schools like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and the Art Institutes honed high-pressure recruiting scripts, built massive lead databases, and saturated social media feeds with ads promising quick career training and big paydays. When many of these institutions collapsed under federal scrutiny, their tactics didn’t disappear—they spread. Today, public universities and elite private schools use their own version of the same system, dressed up in more respectable branding.

At the top end of the prestige ladder, “targets” have a different profile. Elite schools scout “development prospects”—wealthy families whose applications are accompanied by the potential for multimillion-dollar gifts. The student is both a potential enrollee and a future donor pipeline. Recruitment here is less about financial aid and more about legacy admissions, networking dinners, and quiet tours with the president.

What all this targeting has in common is an imbalance of information. Colleges know almost everything about their prospects—income bands, likely majors, ability to pay—while students and families often have only the marketing copy and a sticker price. In this environment, independent, transparent information is a rare form of defense.

That’s where tools like TuitionFit and the CollegeViability app come in—not as recruitment aids, but as counterintelligence for families.

• TuitionFit collects and shares real financial aid offers from students across the country. This allows families to see what schools are actually charging students with similar academic and financial profiles—not just the “average” cost schools advertise. By revealing the hidden discounting game, TuitionFit helps families avoid overpaying and resist the psychological pressure of “limited-time offers” from admissions officers.

• The CollegeViability app compiles public financial data from the U.S. Department of Education and other sources to create an at-a-glance picture of an institution’s fiscal health. It tracks enrollment trends, tuition dependency, debt loads, and other risk factors—warning signs that a college might be on the verge of closing or slashing programs. Families who use it can see trouble coming long before the next headline about a sudden campus shutdown.

These are not small benefits. Every year, thousands of students are lured into institutions that overpromise and underdeliver. Some are blindsided by mid-program closures. Others graduate into underemployment with six figures of debt. Without tools like TuitionFit and CollegeViability, many would walk into these situations blind.

The troubling truth is that higher education’s recruitment machine treats students the same way a corporate sales funnel treats customers—and sometimes the way a military intelligence operation treats enemy assets. Prospects are acquired, qualified, engaged, and converted. They are ranked by “propensity to enroll,” courted by carefully timed contact, and celebrated in quarterly revenue reports.

The people making the targeting decisions rarely bear the costs of a bad outcome. If a student drops out with debt and no degree, it’s a personal tragedy, not a liability on the college’s balance sheet. If a school shutters with no warning, students and their families are left scrambling while administrators move on to new posts elsewhere.

College should be more than a precision-marketed capture. It should be a transparent, good-faith exchange where both sides have access to the same essential facts. Right now, that balance doesn’t exist—and the gap is being exploited.

Families who want to survive the recruitment gauntlet must treat it for what it is: a sales process backed by data analytics, designed to maximize institutional revenue, not student outcomes. That means using every independent resource available, asking hard questions, and refusing to be rushed into decisions.

In the end, the difference between being a college prospect and a college target might be whether you’re armed with real information—or just hope.

Sources:

• The Century Foundation, College Admissions and the Business of Enrollment Management

• U.S. Senate HELP Committee, For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success

• The Hechinger Report, How Colleges Use Big Data to Target Students

• TuitionFit, About

• CollegeViability, Institutional Health Indicators

Investor Frenzy and Higher Education: Why a P/E Ratio of 30 Matters Beyond Wall Street

The U.S. stock market is approaching a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 30, a threshold that has historically signaled overvaluation and preceded major downturns, including the dot-com crash. For investors, this is cause for caution. For higher education, the implications are far more immediate and tangible.

Howard Marks, co-chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, warns that while the “Magnificent Seven” tech giants—Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Nvidia, and Tesla—remain grounded in strong fundamentals, the broader market is overextended. The remaining S&P 500 companies average a P/E ratio of 22, well above historical norms and potentially driven more by speculative enthusiasm than solid economic performance. Similarly, Erik Gordon, a professor of financial markets and technology, cautions that the financial fallout from the current AI boom could exceed the damage of the early 2000s dot-com crash. He points to dramatic stock drops in firms like CoreWeave, which lost $24 billion in valuation in just two days, as evidence of the speculative excesses pervading the market.

These market dynamics have profound consequences for higher education. Many universities, particularly elite institutions, rely on endowment returns to fund scholarships, research programs, and faculty salaries. A sudden market correction could sharply reduce these funds, forcing universities to cut programs, delay research, or freeze hiring—decisions that directly affect students, faculty, and staff. Economic instability also threatens student loan repayment and could pressure universities to raise tuition, placing additional burdens on graduates already navigating high debt.

Furthermore, corporate influence on campus—through research funding, partnerships, and internship pipelines—becomes more precarious when heavily invested tech and AI companies are overvalued and vulnerable to downturns. Cuts in this funding can reduce research opportunities and career pathways for students. Beyond the campus, economic shocks disproportionately impact lower-income and marginalized students, adjunct faculty, and other contingent workers, revealing how speculative market bubbles ripple through higher education, shaping access, equity, and the future of an educated workforce.

As the market approaches the 30 P/E ratio mark, reminiscent of levels that preceded the dot-com crash, HEI readers must understand that this is more than a finance story. It is a warning that economic speculation, institutional priorities, and the fragility of endowment-dependent universities are deeply interconnected, affecting both the opportunities available to students and the stability of higher education itself.

Sources:

• MarketWatch: One of America's most respected investors says the 'Magnificent Seven' isn't overvalued—the rest of the market is

• Business Insider: Tech guru Erik Gordon says investors will 'suffer' far more from the AI boom than the dot-com crash

• The Australian: AusSuper and UniSuper slash Wall Street tech holdings as Howard Marks issues valuations warning

Tea App: When the Women Started Talking

Women have reclaimed control over their dating narratives by adopting anonymous platforms where they can warn each other about manipulative or dangerous men. These spaces have grown from whispered one-on-one warnings into public, searchable conversations that protect potential targets and hold harmful behavior up to the light.

Tea, a women-only safety app, allows users to share anonymous reports, run background checks, verify identities using reverse-image searches, and access public records. Millions have joined, building a digital sisterhood that offers vigilance where formal systems fall short. Facebook’s “Are We Dating the Same Guy?” groups operate with similar goals, connecting women in local networks to share and verify red flags.

Private groups and apps like these have exposed serial cheaters, romance scammers, and men with histories of violence—sometimes before anyone else suffers harm. Women find relief in learning they are not alone, that their concerns are valid, and that others have seen the same troubling patterns. Trust emerges from collective vigilance rather than blind optimism.

Critics raise concerns about defamation, privacy, and the absence of independent verification. Some warn that these platforms shift responsibility for safety onto women while allowing dating companies and law enforcement to avoid systemic fixes. Others point to the potential for false accusations and lasting reputational harm.

These criticisms matter, but the stakes for women are far higher. Physical safety, emotional well-being, and sometimes even their lives can hinge on early warnings. In an environment where official channels fail to act quickly—or at all—these networks provide immediate, actionable protection.

Efforts to address legitimate concerns have already begun. Platforms are introducing stronger moderation, verification processes, and mechanisms for individuals to request removal with proof. These measures aim to preserve the protective value of the networks while reducing their legal and ethical risks.

When the women started talking, they built more than an online forum. They created a living system of safety, trust, and solidarity that institutions have failed to deliver.

Trump Sends West Virginia National Guard to D.C. Without Consulting Mayor Bowser

President Donald Trump has doubled down on his federal intervention in Washington, D.C., calling in reinforcements from West Virginia’s National Guard. The decision, announced August 16, marks an intensification of Trump’s so-called “Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful” campaign, a project already criticized for its political theater and disregard for local autonomy.

The deployment—300 to 400 West Virginia Guard troops—comes just days after Trump invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act to seize temporary control of the District’s police. This was the first time any president has used that provision. Combined with D.C.’s own Guard, the new arrivals bring the total number of federally-controlled troops patrolling the capital to more than 800.

The move was made without the consent of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has called the intervention “unsettling and unprecedented.” Attorney General Brian Schwalb has already filed suit to block Trump’s attempt to install a federally appointed “emergency police commissioner.” Both argue the administration has violated the spirit, if not the letter, of Home Rule.

---

A Manufactured Emergency—And a Convenient Distraction

The federal escalation follows the sensationalized “Big Balls” assault—an incident Trump quickly used to justify invoking sweeping emergency powers. As Higher Education Inquirer previously reported, Trump has leaned heavily on this case to stir fear and project strength, despite the fact that violent crime in D.C. is currently at a 30-year low.

But there’s another layer: the timing. Trump’s deployment of out-of-state Guard troops comes as media scrutiny of the Epstein case intensifies, including renewed focus on how elite institutions enabled and benefited from Epstein’s money. Harvard, MIT, and other universities took his donations, gave him influence, and in some cases provided a veneer of legitimacy to a man whose connections to Trump and other powerful figures remain politically toxic.

The “crime emergency” narrative serves not only as a pretext for overriding D.C.’s fragile autonomy—it also provides the administration with a diversionary spectacle, drowning out scandals that link Trump to Epstein and, by extension, to the culture of impunity within higher education and elite philanthropy.

---

Projection of Strength at Home, Weakness Abroad

Trump’s militarized display in the capital also serves as a contrast to his failure with Vladimir Putin over Alaska’s northern shipping lanes. As climate change opens new Arctic passages, Russia has aggressively asserted control. Trump’s administration has made bold promises to defend U.S. interests, but negotiations with Putin have yielded little. Instead, Russia continues to expand its military and commercial footprint while the U.S. presence stagnates.

Unable to project strength against Putin in the Arctic, Trump has turned to the symbolic occupation of Washington, D.C., where he can choreograph troops and police on American streets. It is authoritarian theater at home to mask diplomatic impotence abroad.

---

State Militias in the Capital

West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey framed the troop deployment as an act of patriotism, fulfilling a request from the Trump White House. But for many in D.C., the symbolism is chilling: a president calling on a neighboring state’s militia to police residents of a city that already lacks voting representation in Congress.

This arrangement underscores the fragility of D.C.’s democratic status. Residents now face not just local disenfranchisement, but the visible presence of outsiders in military fatigues patrolling their neighborhoods—all while national attention is steered away from elite corruption and foreign policy failure.

---

The Bigger Picture

Trump’s willingness to override the District’s autonomy fits neatly into a broader pattern of authoritarian spectacle. The militarized presence on D.C.’s streets may reassure his supporters, but it raises grave questions about precedent. If a president can federalize a city’s police and import out-of-state Guard troops in a moment of historically low crime, what is to stop him from doing so elsewhere?

And just as important: how many of these “emergencies” are staged diversions to shield him from accountability—not only for his political record, but for his ties to Epstein and his inability to stand up to Putin in Alaska?

For HEI, this story is not just about Washington. It is about how crisis politics and higher education’s complicity in elite networks of power intersect to protect the wealthy and connected, while ordinary citizens and students are left with militarized streets, unpayable debts, and shrinking democratic rights.

---

Sources

• Reuters: West Virginia governor to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. capital

• Politico: West Virginia deploys hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington

• Washington Post: D.C. to see more federal troops as Trump pushes to extend emergency

• Time: White House backs off ‘hostile takeover’ of D.C. police after lawsuit

• HEI: Trump Exploits the ‘Big Balls’ Assault