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

The Dirty World of Billionaire Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein: Profits Over People

Leon Black, the billionaire co-founder and former chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management, maintained a financial relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that lasted for years and ultimately contributed to Black’s resignation from the firm. Why should HEI be covering this old story?  Because the theme, of profits over people, is a major theme in the dirty world of business that permeates US higher education. 

Profits Over People

Apollo Global Management, the firm Black co-founded, is one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers, with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management across private equity, credit, and real estate. In 2016, Apollo, along with the Vistria Group and Najafi Companies, acquired Apollo Education Group, the parent company of the University of Phoenix, for over $1.1 billion. The University of Phoenix remains under the control of these owners and continues to operate as a for-profit institution.

Critics of private equity and venture capital in education argue that such firms are driven by short-term profitability rather than long-term institutional quality. This can lead to aggressive marketing, high tuition, cuts to faculty and staff, and diminished student outcomes. In the case of Apollo Global Management’s ownership of the University of Phoenix, concerns have persisted about the potential for cost-cutting and profit-maximizing strategies to undermine the educational mission. For-profit colleges owned by large investment firms have been accused in the past of prioritizing shareholder returns over student success, adding another layer to the public scrutiny of both Apollo and the institutions it controls.

Ties Between Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein

Between 2012 and 2017, Black paid Jeffrey Epstein approximately $158 million for what he described as financial advice, including tax and estate planning services. A March 2025 report from the Senate Finance Committee revealed that the total amount transferred to Epstein was closer to $170 million, about $12 million more than previously disclosed. In 2023, Black agreed to pay $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to settle claims that some of his payments to Epstein were used to support Epstein’s illicit operations. Black has said publicly that his association with Epstein was a “horrible mistake” and has emphasized that had he known more about Epstein’s criminal activities, he would have cut ties sooner.

Although Black has described his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as limited, records show that Epstein became one of the original trustees of the Leon Black Family Foundation in 1997. Black also contributed a handwritten poem to a 2003 “50th birthday book” for Epstein, an item that included greetings from other prominent figures. In January 2021, following an independent review by the law firm Dechert LLP that detailed the payments to Epstein, Black announced that he would step down as CEO of Apollo Global Management.

Black has faced several legal challenges connected to allegations of sexual misconduct, many of which reference Epstein. In 2023, “Jane Doe” filed a lawsuit claiming she was assaulted by Black at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse; in April 2025, her lawyers sought to withdraw from the case. In another case, accuser Cheri Pierson alleged rape but withdrew her lawsuit in early 2024. A separate suit filed by Guzel Ganieva, which accused Black of abuse and coercion involving Epstein, was dismissed in 2023. Black has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Sources
Business Insider
The Daily Beast
ABC News
Wikipedia – Leon Black
Wikipedia – Apollo Global Management
EdSurge
Republic Report

Ketamine Is Not the Cure We Need

Ketamine is having a moment. Once used almost exclusively as an anesthetic and known on the street as “Special K,” it is now being hailed as a cutting-edge treatment for depression, PTSD, and anxiety. Private clinics are popping up in cities and suburbs alike, offering infusions, nasal sprays, and lozenges for a steep price.

But behind the hopeful marketing lies a troubling reality: ketamine’s rise is less about public health than it is about profit.

Follow the Money

In the past five years, venture capital and private equity have flooded into the ketamine space. Chains like Field Trip Health, Ketamine Wellness Centers, and Klarisana have been buying up smaller practices and opening new ones at breakneck speed. Telehealth startups—some born out of pandemic-era deregulation—now ship ketamine lozenges directly to patients’ doors, bypassing in-person medical oversight.

The business model is simple:

• Charge between $400 and $800 per infusion, often multiple times per month.

• Encourage ongoing “maintenance” treatments to sustain fleeting mood improvements.

• Package the drug in a spa-like environment to justify the premium price.

There is no insurance guarantee for most patients, making ketamine therapy a cash-based service—a dream scenario for investors who want high margins without dealing with insurers.

Science on Shaky Ground

While some studies show ketamine can offer rapid symptom relief, the effects often fade within days or weeks. The drug’s long-term safety for repeated psychiatric use remains poorly studied. Potential side effects include memory impairment, bladder issues, and dissociation.

Even the FDA has not approved ketamine for depression—it has only approved esketamine (a derivative, sold under the brand name Spravato) for limited use in treatment-resistant cases. Yet clinics aggressively market generic ketamine “off-label” to a far wider audience.

Selling a Chemical Band-Aid for a Social Wound

The deeper issue is not just that ketamine’s benefits are short-lived—it’s that the marketing of ketamine clinics conveniently sidesteps the structural roots of the mental health crisis.

The United States is facing rising rates of loneliness, economic insecurity, and chronic disease. People are working longer hours for less pay. Housing is unstable, communities are fragmented, and processed food dominates our diets. For-profit healthcare treats these conditions as secondary, focusing instead on profitable “treatments” for their symptoms.

Ketamine fits neatly into this paradigm: it promises quick relief without requiring systemic change. It turns social pain into a personal chemical problem, to be managed one expensive infusion at a time.

The Alternative We’re Not Funding

If we truly want to improve mental health, we need to invest in what actually works long-term:

• Connection: Strong, face-to-face social networks.

• Movement: Exercise as a cultural norm, not a luxury.

• Nutrition: Access to fresh, whole foods—not just cheap processed calories.

• Dignified Work: Jobs that pay living wages and offer stability.

These solutions don’t generate quarterly returns for shareholders. They don’t make headlines in glossy wellness magazines. But they build the kind of resilience no ketamine clinic can replicate.

The question is not whether ketamine can help some people in crisis—it can. The question is whether we are willing to accept a future in which our collective mental health depends on paying private companies to administer short-term chemical escapes, rather than creating a society where people don’t feel so broken in the first place.

---

Sources:

• Schatzberg, A.F. (2014). A word to the wise about ketamine. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(3), 262–264.

• Moncrieff, J., & Cooper, R.E. (2022). “Magic bullet” thinking in psychiatry: The case of ketamine. BJPsych Bulletin, 46(5), 285–288.

• CNBC. (2023). Ketamine therapy clinics see booming business, but experts urge caution.

• STAT News. (2024). Private equity eyes ketamine clinics as mental health crisis deepens.

The Rise of Ghost Students: AI-Fueled Fraud in Higher Education

Colleges across the United States are facing an alarming increase in "ghost students"—fraudulent applicants who infiltrate online enrollment systems, collect financial aid, and vanish before delivering any academic engagement. The problem, fueled by advances in artificial intelligence and weaknesses in identity verification processes, is undermining trust, misdirecting resources, and placing real students at risk.

What Is a Ghost Student?

A ghost student is not simply someone who drops out. These are fully fabricated identities—sometimes based on stolen personal information, sometimes entirely synthetic—created to fraudulently enroll in colleges. Fraudsters use AI tools to generate admissions essays, forge transcripts, and even produce deepfake images and videos for identity verification.

Once enrolled, ghost students typically sign up for online courses, complete minimal coursework to stay active long enough to qualify for financial aid, and then disappear once funds are disbursed.

Scope and Impact

The scale of the problem is significant and growing:

• California community colleges flagged approximately 460,000 suspicious applications in a single year—nearly 20% of the total—resulting in more than $11 million in fraudulent aid disbursements.

• The College of Southern Nevada reported losing $7.4 million to ghost student fraud in one semester.

• At Century College in Minnesota, instructors discovered that roughly 15% of students in a single course were fake enrollees.

• California's overall community college system reported over $13 million in financial aid losses in a single year due to such schemes—a 74% increase from the previous year.

The consequences extend beyond financial loss. Course seats are blocked from legitimate students. Faculty spend hours identifying and reporting ghost students. Institutional data becomes unreliable. Most importantly, public trust in higher education systems is eroded.

Why Now?

Several developments have enabled this rise in fraud:

1. The shift to online learning during the pandemic decreased opportunities for in-person identity verification.

2. AI tools—such as large language models, AI voice generators, and synthetic video platforms—allow fraudsters to create highly convincing fake identities at scale.

3. Open-access policies at many institutions, particularly community colleges, allow applications to be submitted with minimal verification.

4. Budget cuts and staff shortages have left many colleges without the resources to identify and remove fake students in a timely manner.

How Institutions Are Responding

Colleges and universities are implementing multiple strategies to fight back:

Identity Verification Tools
Some institutions now require government-issued IDs matched with biometric verification—such as real-time selfies with liveness detection—to confirm applicants' identities.

Faculty-Led Screening
Instructors are being encouraged to require early student engagement via Zoom, video introductions, or synchronous activities to confirm that enrolled students are real individuals.

Policy and Federal Support
The U.S. Department of Education will soon require live ID verification for flagged FAFSA applicants. Some states, such as California, are considering application fees or more robust identity checks at the enrollment stage.

AI-Driven Pattern Detection
Tools like LightLeap.AI and ID.me are helping institutions track unusual behaviors such as duplicate IP addresses, linguistic patterns, and inconsistent documentation to detect fraud attempts.

Recommendations for HEIs

To mitigate the risk of ghost student infiltration, higher education institutions should:

• Implement digital identity verification systems before enrollment or aid disbursement.

• Train faculty and staff to recognize and report suspicious activity early in the semester.

• Deploy AI tools to detect patterns in application and login data.

• Foster collaboration across institutions to share data on emerging fraud trends.

• Communicate transparently with students about new verification procedures and the reasons behind them.

Why It Matters

Ghost student fraud is more than a financial threat—it is a systemic risk to educational access, operational efficiency, and institutional credibility. With AI-enabled fraud growing in sophistication, higher education must act decisively to safeguard the integrity of enrollment, instruction, and student support systems.

---

Sources

• CrossHackers: https://www.crosshackers.com/fake-enrollments

• SF Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/community-college-financial-aid-fraud-20325192.php

• SFGate: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/ghost-students-creating-problem-calif-colleges-20311708.php

• Eye on Yavapai College: https://www.eyeonyavapaicollege.com/administration/fraudsters-attacking-colleges-using-ghost-online-enrollment-schemes

• Star Tribune: https://www.startribune.com/ghost-students-the-new-enrollment-fraud-scheme-minnesota-two-year-colleges-are-fighting/601329524

• Campus Reform: https://www.campusreform.org/article/ghost-students-invading-campuses-scamming-millions-of-dollars-away-and-blocking-out-real-undergrads/28295

• University Business: https://universitybusiness.com/what-can-institutions-do-about-the-rise-of-ghost-students

• JD Supra: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/steps-colleges-should-take-to-bust-3949980

• Get VerifiNow: https://www.getverifinow.com/the-ghost-student-problem

• Intellicheck: https://www.intellicheck.com/resource-library/the-rise-in-ghost-students-how-fraudsters-use-fake-identities

Alaska’s Colleges at the Meltdown’s Edge—Just as the Arctic Heats Up

Alaska’s higher-ed story is a preview of the national “College Meltdown,” only starker. The University of Alaska (UA) system—Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Southeast—has endured a decade of enrollment erosion and austerity politics, punctuated by a 2019 budget crisis that forced regents to declare financial exigency and consider consolidations. The immediate trigger was a proposed $130+ million state cut, later converted into a three-year reduction compact; the long tail is a weakened public research engine in the very state where climate change is moving fastest.

In 2025 the vise tightened again from Washington. UA’s president told regents that more than $50 million in grants had been frozen or canceled under the Trump administration, warning of staff cuts and program impacts if funds failed to materialize. Those freezes were part of a broader chill: federal agencies stepping back from research that even references climate change, just as the Arctic’s transformation accelerates.

This is not an abstract loss. Alaska is the frontline laboratory of global warming: thawing permafrost, vanishing sea ice, collapsing coastal bluffs. UA’s scientists have documented these trends in successive “Alaska’s Changing Environment” assessments; the 2024 update underscores rapid, measurable shifts across temperature, sea ice, wildfire, hydrology, and ecosystems. When the main public research institution loses people and projects, the United States loses the data and know-how it needs to respond.

Climate denial collides with national security

The contradiction at the heart of federal policy is glaring. On one hand, the Trump administration has proposed opening vast swaths of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to drilling and reversing environmental protections—signaling a bet on fossil expansion in a region already warming at double the global rate. On the other hand, the same administration is curtailing climate and Arctic science, even as military planners warn that the Arctic is becoming a contested theater. You can’t secure what you refuse to measure.

The security stakes are real. Russia has spent the past decade refurbishing Soviet-era bases, deploying ice-capable vessels, and leveraging energy projects along the Northern Sea Route (NSR). China has declared itself a “near-Arctic” power and partnered with Moscow on patrols and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the U.S. remains short on icebreakers and Arctic domain awareness—even as traffic through high-latitude passages grows more plausible in low-ice summers. Analysts project that a meaningful share of global shipping could shift north by mid-century, and recent reporting shows the region is already a strategic flashpoint.

That makes UA’s expertise more than a local asset; it’s a pillar of U.S. national security. The University of Alaska Fairbanks hosts the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (CASR) and degree pathways that fuse climate, emergency management, and security studies—exactly the interdisciplinary skill set defense, Coast Guard, and civil authorities will need as sea lanes open and storms, fires, and thaw-related failures multiply. Undercut these programs, and you undercut America’s ability to see, interpret, and act in the Arctic.

The costs of disinvestment

The 2019 state-level cuts did immediate damage—hiring freezes, program reviews, and fears of accreditation changes—but their larger effect was to signal instability to students, faculty, and funders. Austerity invites a spiral: as programs and personnel disappear, grant competitiveness slips; as labs lose continuity, agencies look elsewhere; as uncertainty grows, students choose out-of-state options. UA leadership has tried to reverse course—prioritizing enrollment, retention, and workforce alignment in recent budgets—but it’s difficult to rebuild a research reputation once the pipeline of projects and people is disrupted.

The 2025 federal freezes amplify that spiral by hitting precisely the projects that matter most: those with “climate” in the title. Researchers report program cancellations and re-scoped solicitations across agencies. That kind of ideological filter doesn’t just reduce funding—it distorts the evidence base that communities, tribal governments, and emergency planners depend on for everything from permafrost-safe housing to coastal relocation plans. It also weakens U.S. credibility in Arctic diplomacy at a time when the Arctic Council is strained and cooperation with Russia is largely stalled.

Why this matters beyond Alaska

Think of UA as America’s northern early-warning system. Its glaciologists, sea-ice modelers, fire scientists, and social scientists collect the longitudinal datasets that turn anecdotes into policy-relevant knowledge. Lose continuity, and you lose the ability to detect regime shifts—abrupt ecosystem changes, cascading infrastructure failures from thaw, new navigation windows that alter shipping economics and risk. Those changes feed directly into maritime safety, domain awareness, and the rules-of-the-road that will govern the NSR and other passages.

Meanwhile, federal moves to expand Arctic drilling create additional operational burdens for emergency response and environmental monitoring—burdens that fall on the same universities being told to do more with less. Opening the door to long-lived oil projects while throttling climate and environmental research is a recipe for higher spill risk, poorer oversight, and costlier disasters.

A pragmatic way forward

Three steps could stabilize UA and, by extension, America’s Arctic posture:

1. Firewall climate science from political interference. Agencies should fund Arctic research on merit, not language policing. Reinstating paused grants and re-issuing climate-related solicitations would immediately restore capacity in labs and field stations.

2. Treat UA as critical national infrastructure. Just as the U.S. is racing to modernize radar and add icebreakers, it should invest in Arctic science and workforce pipelines at UA—scholarships tied to Coast Guard and NOAA service, ship time for sea-ice and fisheries research, and support for Indigenous knowledge partnerships that improve on-the-ground resilience.

3. Align energy decisions with security reality. Every new Arctic extraction project increases environmental and emergency-response exposure in a region where capacity is thin. If policymakers proceed, they owe UA and Alaska communities the monitoring, baseline studies, and response investments that only a healthy public research university can sustain.

The paradox of the College Meltdown is that it hits hardest where public knowledge is most needed. In the Lower 48, that might mean fewer nurses or teachers. In Alaska, it means flying blind in a rapidly changing theater where Russia and China are already maneuvering and where coastlines, sea ice, and permafrost are literally moving under our feet. The University of Alaska is not a nice-to-have. It is how the United States knows what is happening in the Arctic—and how it prepares for what’s next. Weakening it in the name of budget discipline or culture-war messaging is not just shortsighted. It’s a security risk.

---

Sources

• University of Alaska Office of the President, FY2020 budget overview (state veto and reductions).

• University of Alaska Public Affairs timeline (2019 exigency and consolidation actions).

• Alaska Department of Administration, Dunleavy–UA three-year compact (2019).

• Anchorage Daily News, “$50M in grants frozen under Trump administration” (May 28, 2025).

• The Guardian, “Outcry as Trump withdraws support for research that mentions ‘climate’” (Feb. 21, 2025).

• UA/ACCAP, Alaska’s Changing Environment 2.0 (2024 update).

• UAF Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (programs and mission).

• Empower Alaska: UA Arctic expertise overview.

• Wall Street Journal, Russia/China Arctic power projection and U.S. capability gaps (Feb. 2025).

• The Arctic Institute, shipping projections for the Northern Sea Route.

• Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vulnerabilities and governance challenges on the NSR.

• The Guardian, rollback of protections in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (Aug. 2025).

• Alaska Public Media, uneven cuts to Arctic research under Trump (Apr. 2025).

Some Conservatives May Be Right About Immigration and Labor: A Closer Look at a Shared Problem

Immigration debates often feature the refrain that new arrivals are “more American than us” and the advice that struggling workers should “just learn to code.” While these narratives may offer comfort, they obscure deeper realities shaping the American labor market—and on this issue, some conservatives’ frustrations reflect real challenges.

It’s important to remember that Native Americans and African Americans have faced centuries of systemic discrimination and continue to endure economic and social inequities. This article does not minimize that history but focuses on the current frustrations of working-class white Americans who feel left behind.

For decades, both the political Right and neoliberal forces have contributed to the erosion of good-paying jobs across sectors, including higher education. Universities have increasingly relied on foreign labor programs, such as the H-1B visa, to hire international faculty and staff. This practice helps institutions keep labor costs down by paying lower wages compared to American workers, and it allows universities greater control—since many foreign employees’ immigration status depends on their employer, making it harder for them to challenge poor working conditions or demand better pay.

At the same time, higher education has seen a dramatic rise in adjunct and contingent faculty positions, often paid poorly and lacking job security or collective bargaining power. These labor strategies reflect a broader neoliberal trend toward weakening worker protections and maximizing institutional flexibility and control.

In the tech sector, companies like Amazon and Microsoft have filed tens of thousands of visa applications for entry- and mid-level positions paid below prevailing wages, further intensifying job competition. Employers are not legally required to demonstrate that qualified Americans are unavailable before hiring foreign workers—a key fact often overlooked.

This combination of labor importation, job cuts, and anti-labor policies fuels economic anxiety among working-class Americans, especially younger voters. Recent polls show a notable shift toward Republicans driven in part by concerns about immigration and job security.

Yet politicians and the media largely avoid scrutinizing these practices, unwilling to challenge corporate and institutional interests that benefit from them. The quiet growth of foreign labor programs and the erosion of worker rights receive far less attention than federal workforce reductions, which are framed as threats to American values.

This is not a critique of immigration or immigrants’ contributions. Instead, it calls for honest discussion about how bipartisan policies and institutional practices—including in higher education—have reshaped the labor market to the detriment of many Americans.

Meaningful solutions will require rebuilding worker protections, enforcing fair hiring practices, and creating economic opportunities for all. Acknowledging the shared frustrations across political lines can open pathways for progress.

---

Sources:

• The Hill, "Visa Bonds Pilot Program and Corporate Use of H-1B Visas," 2025

• Labor Department Office of Foreign Labor Certification Data, 2025

• Interview with Howard University Professor Ron Hira, H-1B expert

• Yale Youth Poll, 2025

• Statements from Microsoft, Amazon, and other corporations, 2025

• Higher Education labor reports on adjunct faculty, foreign labor, and collective bargaining, 2024–25

The Weight of a Gift: Phil and Penny Knight’s $2 Billion to Cancer Research—and What It Reveals About Power in Higher Ed and Medicine

On August 14, 2025, Nike co-founder Phil Knight and his wife Penny Knight pledged an extraordinary $2 billion to the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU)—the largest single gift ever to a U.S. university-affiliated health center, surpassing Michael Bloomberg’s $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University.

Transformational Impact—or Power Play?

This gift aims to double the Institute’s capacity, expand research and treatment infrastructure, and bolster holistic patient services—including psychological, financial, nutritional, and survivorship support. A new governance structure—the Knight Cancer Group—will operate autonomously within OHSU, led by Dr. Brian Druker, renowned for his work on Gleevec.

At a time when public funding for scientific research is shrinking, the Knights emphasize their vision for a “patient-centered cancer center of global impact.” The gift promises to accelerate innovation and potentially save thousands of lives.

---

The Double-Edged Sword of Mega-Philanthropy

Wealth Dictates Direction

With more than $4 billion donated across Oregon universities and institutions—including the Knight Cancer Challenge and the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact—the Knights wield significant influence over institutional priorities, culture, and governance.

Inequality and Access

A Higher Education Inquirer exposé, "The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers" (March 2025), warns that elite medical institutions often deliver world-class care while perpetuating inequities—through historical exploitation, systemic bias, and exclusion of marginalized communities. Without safeguards, even philanthropic efforts can reinforce structural disparities.

Public Dependency and Private Control

As public funding erodes, institutions increasingly rely on mega-donors. The creation of the Knight Cancer Group with autonomous authority inside OHSU is a stark example of donor-driven governance in what is nominally a public institution.

---

Critical Context: Nike’s Controversies

While Phil Knight’s philanthropic legacy is significant, Nike—the company he co-founded—has a long history of controversies that color public perception of his influence:

• Labor Practices: For decades, Nike has faced accusations of using overseas sweatshops with poor working conditions, low pay, and child labor. More recently, it was linked to pandemic-era wage theft at a Thai supplier factory.

• Gender Discrimination: Nike settled a major sexual discrimination lawsuit in 2025 after years of allegations from former employees. Unsealed court records revealed nearly two dozen harassment claims against senior staff.

• Athlete Treatment: The Nike Oregon Project faced abuse allegations from runners like Mary Cain, who accused coaches of dangerous training practices and body shaming.

• Product and Marketing Controversies: The company drew backlash for designing revealing Olympic women’s uniforms and was accused by an indie filmmaker of copying her work for a Nike ad.

• Legal Challenges: Nike faces a class-action lawsuit over selling NFTs alleged to be unregistered securities.

• Performance-Enhancing Technology: Its Vaporfly running shoes sparked debates about “mechanical doping” in competitive athletics.

These issues underscore the complex interplay between Knight’s philanthropic image and the practices of the corporation tied to his wealth.

---

Navigating Philanthropy Through a Nuanced Lens

Phil Knight’s $2 billion gift offers enormous potential for advancing cancer research and treatment. Yet it also highlights the risks of relying on private wealth to shape public institutions. Mega-donations can spur breakthroughs—but they can also centralize influence, limit democratic oversight, and entrench inequalities.

If the future of higher education and medicine increasingly depends on billionaire philanthropy, society must ensure that governance, accountability, and equity remain at the forefront—so the benefits reach all, not just the privileged few.

---

Sources

• Associated Press, Nike co-founder Phil Knight and wife pledge record $2B to Oregon cancer center (Aug. 14, 2025)

• Wall Street Journal, Phil Knight Gives $2 Billion to Oregon Health & Science University (Aug. 14, 2025)

• Town & Country, Phil Knight’s $2 Billion Cancer Center Gift (Aug. 14, 2025)

• Becker’s Hospital Review, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute receives $2B gift (Aug. 14, 2025)

• Higher Education Inquirer, The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers (Mar. 2025)

• Oregon Capital Insider, Phil Knight’s Big Ticket Donations Surpass $2 Billion (Apr. 25, 2023)

• Cupertino Times, Labor Practices Controversy: How Nike Faced Its Sweatshop Scandal (Nov. 23, 2024)

• Times of Innovation, Nike Told to Compensate Workers in High-Profile Labour Controversy (Dec. 2024)

• Forbes, Nike To Settle Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit Hanging Over Its Head Since 2018 (Apr. 1, 2025)

• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Unsealed Court Records Reveal New Details About Nike Sex Discrimination Case (2025)

• Glamour, Nike Gets Backlash from Athletes Over ‘Sexist’ Track and Field Uniforms (Apr. 17, 2024)

• Times of India, Indie Filmmaker Tells Nike Their Ad… Shockingly Similar to Her Work (May 2025)

• Wikipedia, Nike Vaporfly and Tokyo 2020 Olympics Controversy (2025)

• Wikipedia, Nike Oregon Project (2025)

• The Verge, Nike Faces Class Action Over RTFKT NFT Project (2025)

Back to School Fall 2025 Poster

We're looking forward to covering US higher education this fall, whether it's college closings. strikes, protests on and off campus, or stealing the rival school's mascot. We encourage folks to have good clean fun. And by all means do everything peacefully. 

P.S. Download this image and post it in dorms and around campuses!  

EANGUS: Nonprofit Shill for University of Phoenix

The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), which claims to advocate for enlisted National Guard members, has long presented itself as a supporter of military families and career advancement. However, its ongoing partnership with for-profit institutions like the University of Phoenix raises serious questions about whose interests the organization truly serves.

On August 13, the University of Phoenix announced the winners of the 2025 EANGUS Future Phoenix Scholarship, which awards full tuition for bachelor’s or master’s programs to current enlisted National Guard servicemembers and their immediate family members. The winners—Nitasa Freund, Isabella Hunsicker, and John Wellington—were celebrated in press materials that emphasized the school’s commitment to veteran students.

University of Phoenix framed the scholarships as a way to “empower our members to turn their service-driven experience into academic achievement,” while EANGUS Executive Director John Gipe described the partnership as helping military members “step forward not just for the individual, but for the communities they continue to serve.”

But the reality behind these programs is far less altruistic. University of Phoenix, owned by the for-profit Apollo Global Management, has a long history of predatory recruitment practices targeting military and veteran populations. The school has faced multiple federal investigations and lawsuits over deceptive marketing, inflated job placement claims, and aggressive enrollment tactics that funnel servicemembers into costly, high-debt programs.

EANGUS’s role in promoting scholarships to the University of Phoenix illustrates how military associations can be co-opted by for-profit educational interests. By lending credibility and direct access to servicemembers, EANGUS effectively functions as a shill, steering military personnel and their families toward programs that often prioritize corporate profit over educational quality or genuine career outcomes.

Scholarship recipients’ stories, highlighted in University of Phoenix press materials, are framed as evidence of success. Nitasa Freund, a National Guard Staff Sergeant, is pursuing a master’s in criminal justice; John Wellington, a 101st Signal Battalion Company First Sergeant, is returning to higher education after decades of service; and Isabella Hunsicker is studying psychology. These narratives, while compelling, mask the broader systemic risks associated with enrolling in high-cost for-profit programs that may saddle veterans with unmanageable debt.

For an organization that claims to represent the interests of enlisted service members, EANGUS’s alignment with a for-profit education juggernaut raises ethical concerns. Military families seeking higher education deserve advocacy that prioritizes transparency, quality, and long-term outcomes—not promotion of institutions with a documented history of exploiting the very population they claim to serve.

As for-profit colleges continue to target veterans and military families, it is incumbent on military associations, watchdogs, and policymakers to scrutinize partnerships that appear charitable on the surface but may perpetuate financial harm behind the scenes. EANGUS’s ongoing collaboration with University of Phoenix is a stark reminder that even well-intentioned organizations can become complicit in corporate profiteering when oversight and accountability are lacking.

Sources:

• University of Phoenix Press Release, August 13, 2025

• EANGUS Official Website

• Apollo Global Management, University of Phoenix corporate information

• Government Accountability Office and Department of Education reports on for-profit colleges

Jin Huang, Higher Education’s Harry Houdini

Ambow CEO Has Repeatedly Slipped Through the Fingers of Shareholders and Regulators

In the opaque world of for-profit higher education, few figures have evoked the mixture of fascination and alarm generated by Jin Huang, CEO—and at times interim CFO and Board Chair—of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. Huang has repeatedly navigated financial crises, regulatory scrutiny, and institutional collapse with a Houdini-like flair. Yet the institutions under her control—most notably Bay State College and NewSchool of Architecture & Design—tell a far more troubling story.

---

Ambow’s Financial Labyrinth

Ambow, headquartered in the Cayman Islands with historic ties to Beijing (former address: No. 11 Xinyuanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China), has endured years of financial instability. As early as 2010, the company pursued ambitious acquisitions in the U.S. education market, including NewSchool and eventually Bay State College, often relying on opaque financing and cross-border investments.

By 2013, allegations of sham transactions and kickbacks forced Ambow into liquidation and reorganization. Yet the company repeatedly avoided delisting and collapse. Financial reports reveal a recurring pattern: near-catastrophe followed by minimal recovery. In 2023, net revenue fell 37.8% to $9.2 million with a $4.3 million operating loss. By 2024, Ambow reported a modest $0.3 million net income, narrowly avoiding another financial crisis. 

---

Early Years: 2010–2015

From 2010 to 2015, Ambow aggressively pursued U.S. acquisitions and technology projects while expanding its presence in China. The company leveraged offshore corporate structures and relied heavily on PRC-linked investors. Huang’s leadership style during this period prioritized expansion and publicity over sustainable governance, leaving institutions financially vulnerable.

Despite claims of educational innovation, Ambow’s track record in these years included multiple warnings from U.S. regulators and questionable accounting practices that would later contribute to shareholder lawsuits and delisting from the NYSE in 2014.

---

Bay State College: Closed Doors, Open Wounds

Acquired in 2017, Bay State College in Boston once enrolled over 1,200 students. By 2021, enrollment had collapsed, despite millions in federal COVID-era relief. In 2022, the Massachusetts Attorney General secured a $1.1 million settlement over misleading marketing, telemarketing violations, and inflated job-placement claims.

Accreditation probation followed, culminating in NECHE’s withdrawal of accreditation in January 2023. Eviction proceedings for over $720,000 in unpaid rent preceded the college’s permanent closure in August 2023. Bay State’s demise exemplifies the consequences of Ambow’s pattern: the CEO escapes, the institution collapses, and students and faculty are left in the lurch.

---

NewSchool of Architecture & Design: Stabilization in San Diego

NewSchool, Ambow’s other U.S. acquisition, has faced persistent challenges. Enrollment has dropped below 300 students, and the school remains on the U.S. Department of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring list. Leadership instability has been chronic: five presidents since 2020, with resignations reportedly tied to unpaid salaries and operational dysfunction.

As of 2025, lawsuits with Art Block Investors, LLC have been settled, and NewSchool is now housed in three floors of the WeWork building in downtown San Diego. Despite receiving a Notice of Concern from regional accreditor WSCUC, the college remains operational but financially precarious.

---

Questionable Credentials and Leadership Transparency

Huang has claimed to hold a PhD from the University of California, but investigation reveals no record of degree completion. This raises further concerns about leadership credibility and transparency. Ambow’s consolidated executive structure—Huang serving simultaneously as CEO, CFO, and Board Chair—exacerbates governance risks.

While headquartered in Cupertino, California, Ambow continues to operate with ties to Chinese interests. SEC filings from the PRC era acknowledged that the Chinese government exerted significant influence on the company’s business operations. Ambow has also expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners.

---

HybriU and the EdTech Hype

In 2024, Ambow launched HybriU, a hybrid learning platform promoted at CES and the ASU+GSV conference. Marketing materials claim a 5-in-1 AI-integrated solution for teaching, learning, connectivity, recording, and management, including immersive 3D classroom projections.

Yet there is no verifiable evidence of HybriU’s use in actual classrooms. A $1.3 million licensing deal with a recently formed Singapore company, Inspiring Futures, is the only reported commercial transaction. Photos on the platform’s website have been traced to stock images, and the “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology introduced in China in 2021 has not demonstrated measurable results in U.S. education settings.

Reports suggest that Ambow may be in preliminary talks with Colorado State University (CSU) to implement HybriU. HEI has not confirmed any formal partnership, and CSU has not publicly acknowledged engagement with the platform. Any potential relationship remains unverified, raising questions about the legitimacy and scope of Ambow’s outreach to U.S. universities.

Ambow’s 2025 press release promotes HybriU as a transformative global learning network, but HEI’s review finds no verified partnerships with accredited U.S. universities, no independent validation, and continued opacity regarding student outcomes or data security.

---

Financial Oversight and Auditor Concerns

Ambow commissioned a favorable report from Argus Research, but its research and development spending remains minimal—$100,000 per quarter. Prouden CPA, the current auditor based in China, is new to the company’s books and has limited experience auditing U.S. education operations. This raises questions about the reliability of Ambow’s financial reporting and governance practices.

---

The Illusion of Rescue

Jin Huang’s repeated escapes from regulatory and financial peril have earned her a reputation akin to Harry Houdini. But the cost of each act is borne not by the CEO, but by institutions, faculty, and students. Bay State College is closed. NewSchool remains operational in a WeWork facility but teeters on financial fragility. HybriU promises innovation but offers no proof.

Ambow’s trajectory demonstrates that a company can survive on hype, foreign influence, and minimal governance, while leaving the real consequences behind. Any unconfirmed talks with CSU highlight the ongoing risks for U.S. institutions considering engagement with Ambow. For regulators, students, and higher education stakeholders, Huang’s Houdini act is less a marvel than a warning.

---

Sources

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education Facing NYSE Delisting.” May 2022.

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education and NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” October 2023.

• Higher Education Inquirer. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design Lawsuits.” March 2025.

• Boston Globe. “Bay State College Faces Uncertain Future.” January 3, 2023.

• Inside Higher Ed. “Two Colleges Flounder Under Opaque For-Profit Owners.” October 18, 2022.

• Inside Higher Ed. “Bay State College Loses Accreditation Appeal.” March 21, 2023.

• GlobeNewswire. “Ambow Education Announces Full-Year 2024 Results.” March 28, 2025.

• Ambow Education Press Releases and SEC Filings

• Wikipedia. “Bay State College.” Accessed August 2025.

• Wikipedia. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” Accessed August 2025.

Americans Who Tell The Truth

Support AWTT With a Donation Artsapalooza! August 27 5:30- 8:00 At Bagaduce Music  A fun-filled evening for individuals and families to create art and music Get tickets here Come join us at 5:30 p.m. on August 27, 2025, for an evening filled with creativity and music at Bagaduce Music in Blue Hill, Maine! Whether you’re into making portraits, activism, listening to live music, or singing along, there’s something for everyone at this event. Get ready to be inspired and have a great time surrounded by fellow activists and art enthusiasts. Bagaduce Music’s Bennett Konesni will bring a collection of “Songs For What Feels Important In This World,” featuring his own list of originals and classics that are great for singing along, including sea-shanties calling out tyrannical captains, meditative chants, good-food hollers, and songs for marching and organizing.  Try out your artistic talents and create a self or family portrait with guidance from AWTT founding artist Rob Shetterly Food and shaved ice will be available for purchase. Don’t miss out on this exciting opportunity to learn more and support Americans Who Tell the Truth and Bagaduce Music, and fund exciting scholarship opportunities for both organizations! Get tickets here   Outdoor Installation of Truth Tellers   The John Brown Lives! The organization is hosting an outdoor exhibit of AWTT portrait reprints from July 17 through October 31, 2025, at the John Brown Farm State Historic Site in Lake Placid, New York. The portraits feature abolitionist John Brown and Congressman John Lewis. The exhibit's kick-off event took place on the nationwide “Good Trouble Lives On” day of action, commemorating the fifth anniversary of Lewis’s death. Other portraits include #MeToo movement founder Tarana Burke, anti-war activist Rachel Corrie, environmentalist Bill McKibben, Albany-based community activist Dr. Alice P. Green, and organizer Rev. Lennox Yearwood. Read more here. Listen to David Escobar interview AWTT portrait artist Robert Shetterly for the Adirondack Explorer. The interview also aired on North Country Public Radio   Buy Your Courage is Contagious Protest Wear Today! Buy Now Rob's Blog On Being Woke The justification for erasing America’s historic injustices, claiming that knowing them causes kids to feel guilt or shame, is a high priority for our current right wing government. Trump and his ilk make this sound like a noble cause—protecting kids from carrying the factual and emotional burdens of history. Think how much more uncomplicated and gentle—easy to bear—our history would be if slavery and indigenous genocide, Jim Crow, misogyny, and corporate malfeasance never happened. They call knowing and teaching this true history being “woke.” Woke is a synonym for simply being aware. And don’t we all know that being aware is a bad thing? Or, am I the only one who remembers that the primary function of education is to make kids aware, keep them awake to truth and reality? In classrooms that protect students from the dangers of wokeness, teachers will give gold stars for falling asleep. And Teachers of the Year will be selected for how thoroughly they erase the history of injustice, canceled climate science, and denied the effectiveness of vaccines. Are the proponents of censoring history doing that for all kids—or particularly white kids? Kids of color might experience the woke curriculum as being seen, knowing the truth of the origins of racism: this is what was done, this is why it was wrong, this is how we moved forward. It’s the moving forward, grappling with injustice, having the courage to confront that dragon in his cave, that turns what could be guilt and shame into inspiration and heroism. The lesson of history is not that it unfairly defines white people as cruel, racist demons; the lesson is that many refused to be cruel and racist and insisted that all people be treated equally. It teaches us the only way we maintain ideals is if people have the courage to demand and enact them. Read More     Host AWTT Portraits in your Community Americans Who Tell the Truth (AWTT) portraits can be combined to illuminate a vast array of themes in both sophisticated and humble exhibit venues. Community engagement programs combine exhibits with public events that stimulate interdisciplinary dialogue around citizenship, democracy, education, and activism. (Learn more)

Visit Americans Who Tell The Truth's online store . Shop AWTT products – prints, t-shirts, mugs, and more – to support education and community programming for Americans Who Tell the Truth. With your purchase, know that you are helping inspire citizenship, activism, and work for the common good. Learn More Donate Now Please consider donating on our website or sending a check to support AWTT’s efforts to Americans Who Tell the Truth, 46 Bridge Rd., Brooksville, ME 04617.  All gifts to AWTT are tax deductible to the full extent of the law. If you have any questions, please contact Director of Strategic Engagement Kristie Gonzalez Kristie@americanswhotellthetruth.org