Saturday, June 14, 2025
Friday, June 13, 2025
Michigan House GOP Targets Universities with Endowment Penalties, DEI Bans, and Political Culture War Demands
Michigan’s Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee has introduced a higher education budget that dramatically reconfigures funding for the state’s public universities. Behind the numbers lies a sweeping attempt to reshape the role of public institutions, both fiscally and ideologically, with harsh penalties for elite universities, restrictions on diversity programming, and mandates that reflect the national right-wing culture war playbook.
At the center of the controversy are the University of Michigan and Michigan State University—flagship institutions with global reputations and sizable endowments. While these universities have contributed to Michigan’s prestige and research profile, critics—including Republicans in the legislature—accuse them of abandoning their public mission by favoring out-of-state and international students over Michigan residents. This shift, driven in part by the pursuit of higher tuition revenues, has fueled resentment in communities that see their tax dollars supporting institutions that are increasingly inaccessible to their own children.
The proposed budget slashes operational funding for universities by $828.1 million, while offering a modest 3.3% increase to the overall higher education budget through one-time funding. But those topline figures mask an aggressive redistribution of funds and a punitive new framework targeting institutions based on their financial assets and adherence to partisan values.
The University of Michigan, with an endowment exceeding $10 billion, would see a 75% reduction in state appropriations under the new formula. Michigan State University, with an endowment between $1 billion and $5 billion, would face a 50% cut. House Republicans argue that these universities have received more than their fair share for too long and that the money should be redirected to the state’s 13 other public universities. State Rep. Gregg Markkanen (R-Hancock), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education and Community Colleges, said the plan was about fairness—"trimming the fat" from elite campuses and investing in institutions that serve more Michigan students.
But the budget goes further than just redistributing funds. It imposes a maze of ideological requirements on public universities, with financial penalties tied to compliance. Schools that allow transgender women to participate in women’s sports would forfeit 5% of their investment funds. Institutions that host events or provide campus spaces limited by sex or race would be similarly penalized. Universities would also be required to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision banning race-conscious admissions policies—or risk losing 25% of their state funding—even though Michigan voters banned affirmative action in 2006.
Additional boilerplate language requires universities to submit detailed data to the state, including information about the number and citizenship status of international students, the residency status of all enrollees, and the contact information for undocumented students. The budget also enforces a cap on tuition increases and investment fund growth, effectively restricting financial flexibility even as institutions face rising costs.
While some Republicans have framed these measures as a way to support in-state students and force elite universities to serve the public more equitably, critics see a Trojan horse for ideological control. State Rep. Matt Maddock (R-Milford) openly celebrated the plan as a means of cutting off “woke” universities and rewarding “non-woke” ones.
Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, expressed deep concern about the unpredictability of the proposed funding structure and its long-term viability. The reliance on one-time funding, coupled with sweeping operational restrictions, raises serious questions about how universities will be able to maintain programming, faculty, and student support services. “We need to have a much better understanding of what the thinking is, what the plan is to maintain a healthy, vibrant public university ecosystem,” Hurley said.
The budget also appears to stand on shaky legal ground. Provisions targeting transgender students and undocumented individuals may violate Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. But when asked about these contradictions, Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton), chair of the Appropriations Committee, brushed aside concerns, instead reiterating culture war talking points. “We don’t want to see boys in girls’ sports,” she said. “That’s universal.”
Bollin also defended the endowment penalties and cuts to DEI programming by saying universities should “mind their budgets just like the rest of us.” Yet universities operate at a far different scale and purpose—serving tens of thousands of students, conducting state-funded research, training medical professionals, and contributing billions to Michigan’s economy. Demanding they operate like small businesses ignores these fundamental differences.
Underlying all of this is a deepening divide over the mission of public universities. Are they to be engines of opportunity for in-state students, regardless of background? Or should they serve as prestige institutions chasing out-of-state dollars and global rankings? In recent decades, both the University of Michigan and Michigan State have increased their enrollment of non-resident and international students, often to compensate for decades of stagnant or declining state funding. That trend has made them less accessible to working-class Michigan families—one of the very grievances now being weaponized in the House GOP’s budget.
But rather than increasing support for access or reducing tuition, the budget offers a punitive and highly politicized approach that undermines the autonomy and inclusive mission of higher education. With negotiations now moving to the Michigan Senate and the governor’s office, public universities face an uncertain future—not only in terms of funding, but in how deeply political agendas will be allowed to infiltrate academic life.
If passed in its current form, the budget may not just reshape Michigan’s higher education system—it could become a model for similar efforts in other states. The fight in Michigan, in other words, is not just about dollars. It’s about who public universities are for—and who gets to decide.
The American Dream Deferred: Asian Students Reconsider US Higher Education Amid Trump-Era Visa Crackdown
A recent investigative report from the South China Morning Post has brought international attention to a growing crisis in American higher education—one that many U.S. colleges and universities have been reluctant to confront publicly. Amid a second Trump administration and an escalating crackdown on immigration, thousands of Asian students are rethinking or abandoning their long-held dreams of a U.S. education.
For decades, the promise of an American degree symbolized more than academic excellence. It represented freedom, opportunity, and a foothold into a more prosperous life. That promise is now being eroded—not because of tuition hikes or student debt, but due to political hostility, administrative unpredictability, and nativist policies that treat international students more as geopolitical pawns than valued contributors.
As reported by Kimberly Lim, Nicole Cheah, Biman Mukherji, and Hadi Azmi for the SCMP, students from countries like Myanmar, China, Singapore, and Malaysia are finding themselves in an increasingly precarious position. Student visa interviews are being suspended. University programs, including those at Harvard, have had their certification revoked and later reinstated only under pressure. Students are being warned that travel abroad could mean forfeiting their education permanently.
The Trump administration’s targeting of Chinese nationals—who comprise nearly a quarter of all international students in the U.S.—is part of a broader xenophobic wave. From digital surveillance of visa applicants’ social media accounts to travel bans that now include nations like Myanmar, the message is unmistakable: “You are not welcome here.”
While U.S. institutions still top global rankings—with Harvard, MIT, and Stanford dominating the QS World University Rankings—reputation alone may no longer be enough. As one student in Singapore told SCMP, “Uncertainty has costs.” Students are not just questioning whether they can complete their education—they’re wondering if they’ll be deported mid-semester, or whether their parents’ financial sacrifices will be wasted.
Alternative destinations are gaining traction. Singapore, the UK, Australia, Canada, and even countries like China and Japan are offering pathways that don’t involve the same risks. Malaysia’s Majlis Amanah Rakyat has already redirected its indigenous scholarship students away from the U.S. toward less volatile environments.
U.S. higher education has long depended on the tuition and intellectual contributions of international students. In 2023–24 alone, they added $43.8 billion to the American economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. The sector's economic value aside, these students enrich classrooms, expand cross-cultural understanding, and bolster the country’s soft power. But these gains are being squandered by political short-sightedness and strategic cruelty.
The Higher Education Inquirer has previously reported on the structural rot in U.S. higher education—skyrocketing tuition, exploitative labor practices, administrative bloat—but this emerging international student crisis underscores a moral and strategic failing at the national level. We are watching in real time as the U.S. forfeits its role as a global education leader.
Yes, as some education consultants told the SCMP, the appeal of U.S. credentials will likely survive this political moment. But the long-term damage may be harder to repair. Trust, once broken, is not easily restored.
The Trump administration has made its vision of higher education and international exchange abundantly clear: exclusion over inclusion, suspicion over scholarship, nationalism over knowledge.
If this is what “America First” looks like in the classroom, students around the world are wisely deciding it may not be worth the risk.
—
The Higher Education Inquirer continues to monitor and report on how authoritarian and neoliberal forces are reshaping global education systems, with consequences that extend far beyond the campus gates.
The Newest Need for Underground College Newspapers
In an era dominated by social media noise, shrinking professional newsrooms, and increasing institutional secrecy, the revival and reinvention of college and university newspapers may be more necessary than ever. While many campus publications have suffered cutbacks or collapsed entirely due to budget constraints, digital overload, and administrative pressure, the need for independent student journalism remains urgent—perhaps even existential.
A Vanishing Watchdog
Over the last two decades, local news in the United States has been gutted. College towns, often reliant on regional papers, have lost a critical layer of scrutiny. In parallel, many campus newspapers—once robust training grounds for journalists and fierce watchdogs of university governance—have withered. Some have been absorbed into PR arms of institutions, with student journalists pressured or co-opted into serving administrative narratives.
Yet as colleges and universities face profound challenges—rising tuition, falling enrollment, mounting debt, labor unrest, and political scrutiny—the lack of independent, on-the-ground reporting has created an information vacuum. In this environment, truth becomes malleable, accountability erodes, and institutional failures are too often buried in silence.
A New Generation, A New Role
Despite setbacks, a growing number of student journalists are pushing back. At the University of Southern California, The Daily Trojan exposed administrative mismanagement related to sexual assault. At Northwestern, The Daily Northwestern has tackled controversies involving faculty conduct and institutional transparency. And at Columbia University, The Columbia Daily Spectator has taken on the university’s relationship with gentrification in Harlem.
What distinguishes these publications isn't just their resilience—it's their refusal to accept a narrow definition of campus journalism. Today’s best student reporters are not only covering student government meetings or campus events—they're digging into real estate deals, institutional investments, labor practices, and even international connections, from Chinese academic partnerships to private equity control of online education.
The Decline and Co-optation
However, these examples are exceptions. Across the country, hundreds of student newspapers have been diminished or dissolved. Many that survive are chronically underfunded or rely on the goodwill of the same administrations they should be scrutinizing. Others have been folded into university communication departments, effectively becoming tools of branding and enrollment marketing.
Some student journalists now face soft censorship: the pressure not to publish controversial stories that could harm a university’s reputation or donor relations. Others deal with harder forms—budget threats, advisor firings, or limited access to information. In some cases, entire newspapers have been shuttered without consultation with students or faculty.
Why They Matter Now More Than Ever
Today’s higher education system is in flux. Tuition costs and student debt are under scrutiny. Title IX enforcement, labor rights for adjuncts and graduate workers, and diversity policies are politically weaponized. Public confidence in higher ed is declining, while financial mismanagement and administrative bloat continue largely unchecked.
Who will report on these issues if not the students on the ground?
Student newspapers offer more than just training—they’re democratic institutions. They give voice to marginalized students, expose inequities, and hold those in power accountable. In some communities, they’re the only media outlet asking tough questions. They also play a critical role in informing not just students but alumni, faculty, staff, and policymakers.
What Must Be Done
The revival of college newspapers requires real support—not just from universities, but from alumni, independent media, philanthropic organizations, and readers. This support must come without strings attached. Autonomy is the bedrock of journalism.
Foundations that support civic engagement and press freedom should consider earmarking funds specifically for independent campus journalism. Public universities should be held accountable for supporting—rather than stifling—student voices. Faculty allies can advocate for journalism programs and protect the academic freedom of student reporters.
In this new media age, campus newspapers must also evolve: adopting hybrid revenue models, building investigative teams, collaborating with local and national outlets, and using digital tools to reach broader audiences.
Preserving Democracy on and Off Campus
The new need for college and university newspapers is not simply about preserving an academic tradition. It’s about preserving democratic infrastructure in an increasingly privatized and opaque sector of American life. If students are told that higher education is meant to prepare them to lead and serve in a democratic society, then empowering them to investigate, critique, and question their institutions is not optional—it is essential.
The Higher Education Inquirer stands with those student journalists who refuse to be silenced, and who still believe that the truth—even on campus—is worth fighting for.
Harvard and Yale Selling Off Private Equity Stakes
Harvard and Yale—titans of American higher education and longtime bellwethers of endowment strategy—are quietly offloading billions in private equity holdings. These moves, confirmed through multiple reports and market insiders, signal a significant shift in institutional investing, with potential ripple effects across the higher ed landscape and beyond.
The two Ivies, boasting the largest university endowments in the world ($50.7 billion for Harvard, $40.7 billion for Yale as of 2024), have long championed the “Yale model” of endowment investing: high allocations to illiquid assets such as private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, and real assets like timberland and oil. But the bloom is off the rose.
From Darling to Dilemma
Private equity once promised high returns, portfolio diversification, and access to elite deals not available to public investors. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, as traditional markets stagnated, institutions doubled down on alternative investments. For years, this strategy paid off—at least on paper.
But cracks have been forming.
Private equity valuations have come under scrutiny as deal activity has slowed, interest rates have risen, and exits through IPOs and acquisitions have dried up. Many private equity funds are now sitting on aging portfolios—so-called "zombie funds"—that have not returned capital in years. Meanwhile, limited partners like universities are increasingly liquidity-constrained, especially as operating costs rise and tuition-dependent revenues remain fragile.
Harvard Management Company and Yale’s Investment Office, once aggressive buyers, are now sellers on the secondary market. Reports indicate both institutions are using intermediaries to quietly market stakes in private equity funds—often at discounts of 10% to 20%, or more, below net asset value.
A Broader Retreat?
This retreat isn’t just about balance sheet management. It’s a broader reassessment of what endowments should be doing—and what risks they should be bearing.
Universities face mounting scrutiny over their massive, tax-advantaged endowments and their relationships with Wall Street. Critics question why institutions with social missions are entangled in opaque, leveraged, and sometimes predatory industries. Private equity firms, after all, have been deeply involved in sectors like healthcare, housing, for-profit education, and prison services—areas where returns often come at the cost of public welfare.
Moreover, the mismatch between the long lock-up periods of private equity investments and the growing need for financial flexibility is becoming more apparent. University administrators now must navigate volatile geopolitical conditions, student protests over divestment, and uncertain federal funding. Liquidity matters more than it did a decade ago.
The End of the Yale Model?
David Swensen, Yale’s late investment chief, revolutionized university finance with his embrace of illiquid alternatives. But times have changed. While the strategy made Yale’s endowment a model for copycats, today it may represent an outdated orthodoxy.
Harvard and Yale’s pivot may be the beginning of the end for the “Yale model” as we know it. Other institutions—especially smaller endowments that tried to mimic the Ivies—may find themselves stuck with toxic assets, unable to unload them without taking steep losses.
In fact, some mid-tier and small colleges may have to choose between covering operational costs and holding on to underperforming private equity positions. For those with limited financial cushions, the fallout could be existential.
Higher Ed’s Reckoning with Risk
The endowment shift also raises a philosophical question: What is the purpose of university wealth?
As elite schools back away from the riskier corners of Wall Street, perhaps it's time for a broader reckoning—about not just how universities invest, but why. Should institutions built on ideals of knowledge, access, and social progress be hand-in-glove with industries known for wage suppression, regulatory arbitrage, and asset stripping?
Harvard and Yale may be late to that moral realization. But their financial pivot is a sign that even the most powerful players can’t ignore reality forever.
In the age of growing student debt, declining public trust, and ballooning inequality, selling off a few private equity funds is a small move. But it could be the start of a larger shift—one where higher education finally begins to question whether its financial strategies align with its educational mission.
—
If you have insights into university endowment strategies or are a whistleblower inside the private equity world, contact us confidentially at Higher Education Inquirer.
Thursday, June 12, 2025
Navigating the Storm: Existential Questions for Higher Education and the Nation
“Who are we? Where are we going? Where do we come from?” These existential questions are not luxuries in times of crisis—they are necessities. And as the storms of political, social, and environmental upheaval grow darker, they demand our full attention.
For many in the United States, especially younger generations, the future feels bleak. Student loan debt weighs down tens of millions. Meaningless, low-wage, precarious employment—what anthropologist David Graeber called “bullsh*t jobs”—dominates the landscape, even for the college educated. Higher education, once touted as the great equalizer, has increasingly functioned as a sorting mechanism that reinforces class division rather than dismantling it.
This is not accidental. It is the consequence of more than a half century of growing inequality, fueled by tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, union busting, and the privatization of public goods. Since the 1970s, wages for working people have stagnated, while the top one percent has consolidated unimaginable wealth and power. Higher education has both suffered from and contributed to this shift: as public funding declined, universities increasingly turned to corporate partnerships, tuition hikes, student loans, and contingent labor to survive. In doing so, they have often replicated the very inequalities they claim to challenge.
Instead of building an informed and empowered citizenry, the modern university too often churns out debt-saddled consumers, precarious workers, and disillusioned graduates. The idea of education as a public good has been replaced by the logic of the market—branding, metrics, debt financing, and labor flexibility.
Meanwhile, U.S. politics offers little solace. We are caught between the reactionary authoritarianism of Trumpism and the managerial neoliberalism of the Democratic establishment. Both forces have proven inadequate in confronting systemic inequality, environmental collapse, and imperial overreach. Instead, they compete to maintain the illusion of normalcy while conditions deteriorate.
Internationally, the collapse of moral leadership is most evident in the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Backed by billions in U.S. aid and political cover, the Israeli military has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and displaced countless more. Hospitals, schools, and entire neighborhoods have been leveled. On college campuses across the U.S., students and faculty who dare to speak out against this atrocity have faced surveillance, censorship, arrests, and administrative repression. At a moment when moral clarity should be the minimum, too many institutions of higher learning have chosen complicity.
This convergence of global injustice and domestic repression raises urgent questions for academia. What is the role of the university in a world marked by war, inequality, and ecological collapse? What values will guide us through the storm?
The answer begins with honesty. We must recognize that higher education is not separate from society’s failures—it is entangled in them. But that also means it can be part of the solution. Colleges and universities can serve as spaces of resistance, reflection, and regeneration—but only if they reject their alignment with empire, capital, and white supremacy.
Where do we come from? From resistance: from student uprisings, civil rights sit-ins, anti-apartheid divestment, labor organizing, and community building. From people who believed—and still believe—that education should serve justice, not profit.
Where are we going? That depends on whether we are willing to confront power, abandon illusions, and build institutions that are democratic, transparent, and rooted in the needs of the many rather than the few.
The future is uncertain. The storm is here. But history is not finished. A more humane and equitable society remains possible—if we have the courage to demand it.
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Ambow Education's Latest Move Raises Red Flags—A Second Warning to Colorado State University
On June 11, Ambow Education Holding Ltd. (NYSE American: AMBO) announced the appointment of James Bartholomew as its new president, emphasizing his leadership experience at DeVry University and Adtalem Global Education. While this move is being framed as part of a bold pivot toward global expansion through its hybrid learning platform, HybriU, the deeper reality of Ambow’s operations suggests that institutions like Colorado State University (CSU) should proceed with extreme caution.
Ambow Education is no stranger to controversy. In May 2022, The Higher Education Inquirer began investigating the company after credible tips about its mismanagement of Bay State College in Boston. The Massachusetts Attorney General had already fined the school in 2020 for misleading students. By August 2023, Bay State College closed abruptly, leaving behind a mess for students and staff. Throughout this time, Ambow operated with an alarming level of opacity, raising concerns among journalists, regulators, and public officials—including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Ayanna Pressley.
Ambow’s financial practices and leadership structure have remained elusive, with lingering ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The company sold its PRC-based assets in 2022 and relocated to a small office in Cupertino, California, but its auditor remains based in China, and it has expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners. The proverb about fishing in murky waters aptly describes how Ambow has operated in both Chinese and American markets.
Now, Ambow is promoting HybriU, a “phygital” platform it claims is revolutionizing education and corporate communication. Marketed heavily at events like CES and ASU-GSV, HybriU has been linked to a $1.3 million contract with a small firm in Singapore, but no major U.S. clients have been named. Visuals from the company’s website include stock images, and there’s no publicly available evidence that HybriU is delivering measurable results in any real-world education setting. The platform’s “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology was first introduced in China in 2021, but it has yet to prove itself in American classrooms.
James Bartholomew’s appointment appears to be aimed at lending credibility to the HybriU initiative. However, his background warrants a closer look. DeVry University, where Bartholomew previously served as CEO, was embroiled in a long list of scandals, including a $100 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission in 2016 for deceptive advertising practices. These included inflated job placement claims and misleading earnings expectations for graduates. The Department of Education also scrutinized DeVry for poor student loan repayment metrics and aggressive recruiting tactics.
At Adtalem Global Education—DeVry’s former parent company—similar concerns persisted. Offshore medical schools under Adtalem’s umbrella, such as Ross University and American University of the Caribbean, were criticized for high tuition, student debt, and low U.S. residency placement rates. The company spent years lobbying against federal gainful employment regulations that were designed to protect students from predatory institutions. While Bartholomew may not have initiated these practices, he held leadership roles during a time when the institutions were navigating declining trust, financial turbulence, and increasing regulatory scrutiny.
Against this backdrop, reports have emerged that Colorado State University is considering a partnership with Ambow to implement the HybriU platform. On the surface, this might seem like a step toward innovation and flexibility in digital learning. But such a partnership could expose CSU to national security and data privacy risks, regulatory backlash, reputational damage, and questionable academic outcomes.
Given Ambow’s historical ties to the PRC, questions have been raised about the possibility of exposing sensitive university data to foreign surveillance or influence. CSU is a major research university with partnerships across science, defense, and technology. Even the perception that its digital infrastructure could be compromised could undermine public trust and jeopardize government grants and contracts.
The regulatory landscape is also increasingly cautious when it comes to foreign influence, particularly from China, in American higher education. Federal agencies have warned about the risks of partnerships that could compromise institutional independence or data integrity. Entering into a relationship with a firm like Ambow could place CSU under increased scrutiny or spark political backlash.
From a pedagogical perspective, HybriU is unproven. It has yet to demonstrate any significant results in U.S. education settings, and its claims are not substantiated by independent data. Adopting a platform without a strong record could endanger CSU’s teaching mission and student learning experiences at a time when the credibility of online education remains fragile.
Historically, investors and institutions have backed away from Ambow. The company was delisted from the NYSE in 2014 following accounting fraud allegations and shareholder lawsuits. It has struggled to maintain financial health and transparency. Its last remaining U.S. college, NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego, has just 280 students and is currently under Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM2) by the U.S. Department of Education. Lawsuits in San Diego allege non-payment of rent and unpaid compensation to the school’s former president.
Meanwhile, Ambow has commissioned favorable research reports—like one from Argus Research—even though its spending on research and development remains remarkably low, at only $100,000 per quarter. Its current auditor, Prouden CPA, is new to the company’s books and based in China. Whether Ambow’s next annual report will bring clarity or further confusion remains to be seen.
For these reasons, The Higher Education Inquirer urges the leadership of Colorado State University to approach Ambow with skepticism and perform exhaustive due diligence. The CSU community deserves full transparency regarding Ambow’s ownership, financial practices, and data handling policies. Decisions should be made in consultation with cybersecurity experts, faculty, IT professionals, and government advisors. Alternative domestic edtech providers should be considered—especially those that are accountable, proven, and aligned with CSU’s mission.
At a time when public trust in higher education is strained and geopolitical tensions are high, it is not enough to adopt flashy technology for the sake of appearance. Colorado State University—and the taxpayers who support it—deserve better than an experiment based on unproven claims and a troubling history. CSU should reconsider any move forward with Ambow, before it finds itself entangled in another education debacle disguised as innovation.
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (Department of Education Partnership Grants)
Documents from Education Department |
Matching Documents Education DepartmentNoticesApplications for New Awards:Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (Partnership Grants); CorrectionGaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (State Grants); Correction |
Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District, Part 2 (LACCD Whistleblower)
[Editor's note: The first installment of Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District is here.]
“HR has been weaponized against our faculty for speaking out and complaining about discrimination.” This was a public comment made by Los Angeles Community College District Academic Senate President Angela Echeverri at the March 2025 Meeting of the LACCD Board of Trustees.
Echeverri’s remarks were not isolated either and were echoed by Deborah Harrington (California Community Colleges’ Success Network Executive Director), “Our HR leadership is not living up to the standards that we deserve. Our members remain quite frustrated.” More reporting can be read in Pierce College student newspaper ‘The RoundUp’ and LACCD Youtube Live-Streamed meetings.
These accusations come three years after longtime administrator Annie G. Reed (Annie Goldman Reed) left her position as Omsbudsman/Associate Dean of Students at Los Angeles Valley College was promoted to Interim Dean of Employee and Labor Relations collecting an annual salary of $284,935.00 in pay and benefits in 2022 according to Transparent California last year of reporting.
A survey of public records including news articles, lawsuits, accreditation complaints, and emails to show that Annie G. Reed has a long history of this sort of behavior across multiple LACCD campuses – going back to the 2000s.
In an October 27, 2010 article ‘Grade Grievances Give Students Voice’ by Lucas Thompson in ‘The Los Angeles Valley Star’ Annie G. Reed is quoted as cautioning students against using their rights to challenge unfair grades stating, “It’s worthwhile if a student really thinks they have the proof to forward with the process . . . It’s their right to, [but] we don’t encourage frivolous [cases], because that’s a waste of college resources.”
The article further quoted disgraced ex-College President Sue Carleo who left the institution in 2013, with the College finances in the red and on Warning Status with the Accreditation Commission of Junior and Community Colleges. Carleo warned that students should simply view mis-grading as “Human Error.” (https://archive.org/details/cavgchm_002210/mode/2up? q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)
When the ACJCC placed Los Angeles Valley College on Accreditation Warning it cited multiple standards violations and specifically;
College Recommendation 5:
To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that records of complaints are routinely maintained as required by the Policy on Student and Public Complaints Against Institutions (Standards II.B.2, II.B.2.c, II.B.3.a, II.B.4)
This came after Annie G. Reed failed to have student records or complaints available for inspection to the visiting Accreditation Team.
Three years later Reed was again in hot water when a student filed an Accreditation Complaint in June 2016, specifically documenting multiple faculty members in the Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department engaging in fraud and deceptive practices – supported by sixty pages of documentation.
The complaint further stated that Reed refused to facilitate student complaints as was her role and threatened action for ‘disrupting the peace of the campus’ by making complaints. This was followed by a second accreditation complaint by another student regarding the same issues and a student Facebook Group discussing issues.
Reed’s response was to suspend the first student running a smear campaign that he was potential active shooter citing the complaints he brought, suspend a thirty-year old single mother in the Facebook Group for Academic dishonesty after she forgot to have a college transcript from when she was eighteen-years old sent to LAVC, and then threatened the second student who brought an Accreditation Complaint for vandalizing school property.
[Below: Text exchange between LACCD students alleging that administrator Annie Reed created a smear campaign against them.]
Student 1 was suspended for a year (though not expelled by the Board of Trustees after investigation) a semester short of graduating. Student 1 would have earned six associate degrees and eight occupational certificates. Student 2, was ordered to pay a substantial amount of financial aid back to the college as “restitution.” Several months later, she was subjected to a reversal of hours by LAVC Grant Director Dan Watanabe in the Media Arts Department, for a campus job she worked and ordered to pay back several thousand dollars. Student 3 ended up going to Los Angeles City College to take final classes needed to graduate and was nearly refused graduation by Department Chair Eric Swelstad.
These actions also happened right before and after LAVC Media Arts Faculty Eric Swelstad, Chad Sustin, Adrian Castillo, Dan Watanabe, and LAVC President Erika Endrijonas lobbied the LACCD Board of Trustees to approve construction of a new Media Arts Building that was later reported by The Los Angeles Times to be a massive racketeering scheme – Aug 4, 2022, Teresa Watanabe, ‘Corruption and fraud beset long-delayed L.A. Valley college theater project, lawsuit alleges.’ (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-04/corruption-alleged-in-long delayed-la-valley-college-theater-project)
These actions mirrored the treatment of a student who sued LAVC’s Media Arts Department in 2009, alleging the same type of fraud and misconduct by nearly all the same Department Faculty.
Enrique Caraveo vs Los Angeles Valley College, Eric Swelstad, Joseph D’Accurso, Arantxia Rodriguez, Dennis J. Reed among others. Filing Date: 05/18/2009 (https://unicourt.com/case/ca la2-enrique-caraveo-vs-los-angeles-valley-college-et-al-621337)
In that case, Caraveo stated:
46. When plaintiff complained about the above referenced matters, Swelstad and other Valley College officials retaliated against plaintiff by refusing to grant him a Certificate and creating a hostile learning environment for him in class.
47. On or around June 2007 plaintiff satisfied the requirements to get a Cinema Arts Production Certificate (“Certificate”) at Valley College.
54. On or about October 2008, Swelstad denied plaintiff the certificate via a letter even though plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements to get the Certificate.
55. On or about October 13, 2008, plaintiff notified Delahoussaye and Reed that plaintiff had fulfilled all requirements for the Certificate and that they should take care of the matter as soon as possible. On or about October 13, 2008, Yasmin Delahoussaye and Dennis Reed denied request.”
Dennis Reed, was at the time the Dean over the Media Arts Department and the husband of Annie G. Reed. Dennis Reed was later profiled in LAist Magazine on April 27, 2016 article ‘Jerk Driver Who Ran Cyclists Off Glendale Road Charged With Assault, Lying To Police’ (https:// laist.com/news/justice-delivered-almost)
More to the point – Dennis Reed also oversaw a grant program at Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department known as IDEAS – Institute for Developing Entertainment Arts and Studies at LAVC. The Grant was run by Dan Watanabe. (https://archive.org/details/ cavgchm_002241/mode/2up?q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)
Watanabe was also named in the Accreditation Complaint for Wage Theft, Improper use of funds and fraud in the successor grant ICT Doing What Matters, due to the college receiving Grant Money but immediately eliminating the curriculum the grant application said they would provide and like Caraveo’s complaint not providing in class training or labs. The complaints to Accreditation and the LACCD Personnel Commission by students also questioned the legitimacy of a number of professional experts, including Robert Reber – who was listed as both a ‘student worker’ and ‘professional expert’ in 2008. Student 1 further provided evidence to both that Dan Watanabe had asked him to falsify his resume claiming fictitious jobs and cited an employee in the LAVC Payroll office as being behind it (that employee immediately denied it and Student 1 refused).
Dennis Reed had also spent years lobbying for the approval of the VACC building – unsuccessfully.
In short, Annie G. Reed’s retaliation and cover-up in 2016, may have been to help realize her husband’s failed building project as well as preemptively shutdown any investigations or audits that might trigger further scrutiny regarding how the IDEAS Grant was administered under his time as area Dean.
Reed’s behavior of covering up abusive behavior towards members of the LACCD Community was also not limited to retaliation against students.
In 2017, then LACCD Board President Andra Hoffman accused former Board President Scott Svonkin of abusive behavior and demanded sanctions. According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily News, ‘LA Community College board postpones sanction hearing vote against former 4 president’ August 28, 2017, Annie G. Reed again inserted herself into the matter to cover-up for Svonkin.
“The allegations do not strike me as related to governing and seem best suited for mediation,” said Annie Reed, a district employee for 22 years and a representative of Teamsters Local 911. “I don’t ever recall a time, or a place, where he has treated his colleagues poorly.”
Others disagreed, including two former women board members who did not speak at the downtown meeting.
They said Hoffman’s critics — who they said weren’t present during the abuse — had a tendency to blame the victim, while ignoring Svonkin’s allegedly brusque treatment of employees.” (https://www.dailynews.com/2017/07/13/la-community-college-board-postpones-sanction hearing-vote-against-former-president/)
Her behavior is further documented in a series of lawsuits against the LACCD District.
Filed October 03, 2024 Dr. Christiana Baskaran (Plaintiff), Linda Silva; Dr. Ruth Dela Cruz, Dr. Adriana Portugal, vs LACCD (including defendant Annie Reed). (https://trellis.law/doc/ 219882998/complaint-filed-by-dr-christiana-baskaran-plaintiff-linda-silva-plaintiff-dr-ruth-dela cruz-plaintiff-et-al-as-to-los-angeles-community-college-district-defendant-board-trustees-los angeles-community-college-district-defendant-los-angeles-c)
“[other defendants] Annie Reed to discriminate against female faculty and staff, refused to investigate immediately or to take preventative action. Then Defendants and EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFFS and others to try and prevent them from complaining to authorities. When PLAINTIFFS opposed these illegal practices, they continued to retaliate against them.”
24. As set forth herein, ALL Defendants were officers, agents. Defendants and directly or indirectly used or attempt to use their official authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command PLAINTIFF and others for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to disclose to an official agent matters within the scope of this article. EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS aided and abetted MARY GALLAGHER, ARMANDO RIVERA-FIGUEROA, ANN HAMILTON, JAMES LANCASTER, JOCELYN SIMPSON, JIM LANCASTER, ANNIE REED and Victoria Friedman District Complaince Officer, Genie-Sarceda-Magruder Interim Director Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Rick Von Kolen to violate this statute.
28. . . .Dr Hamilton admitted to other illegal activity such as planting drugs on employees to destroy their reputation and get them fired. Dr Silva filed a grievance against Dean Hamilton to try and get her to stop the illegal activity, the union did nothing.
32. Ms. Silva complained to Human Resources filed a title IX complaint, made a report to the police and was retaliated against.
Filed October 19, 2023 Sara Adams, An Individual VS California Institute of Technology, California Corporation. (https://trellis.law/case/23stcv25556/sara-adams-an-individual-vs california-institute-technology-california-corporation)
“21. On April 7, 2023, Mr. Wu continued to report the pay disparity to Annie Reed, Upon information and belief, Annie Reed is Caltech’s Employee and Organizational Development Consultant (Human Resources Department).
22. Annie Reed spoke about the report of pay disparity to Ofelia Velazquez-Perez, Caltech’s Senior Director, Total Rewards and Director of Employee and Organizational Development (Employee Relations).”
Filed March 08, 2021, Mitra Hoshiar, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles Community College District, (https://trellis.law/case/21stcv08950/mitra-hoshiar-vs-los-angeles-community college-district-an-unknown-entity)
“28. On December 3, 2015, PLAINTIFF then filed a discrimination complaint against Sheri Berger (“Berger”), VP of Academic Affairs, and Fernando Oleas (“Oleas”), Pierce Union President. During PLAINTIFF meeting with Dean Barbara Anderson (“Anderson”) at Anderson’s office on June 10, 2015, Berger and Oleas stopped by and started making remarks of PLAINTIFF’s accent for reading the graduates’ names on the ceremony with a non-American accent.
29. Thereafter, On December 11, 2015, in meeting with Dean Annie Reed in conjunction with the non-collegiality investigation Walsh, Union Grievance Rep and Oleas stopped by at PLAINTIFF’s office in order to prevent PLAINTIFF from Union Representation. They made PLAINTIFF to Barbara Anderson, whom was PLANTIFF’s chosen union rep and request for Anderson to not join the meeting because Walsh and Oleas had to choose who could be the union representation in the meeting.
30. Based on what had transpired on December 11, 2015, on December 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Whistleblower/Retaliation Complaint at the District’s Complaint at the District’s Compliance Office against Walsh, Oleas, and McKeever (department and union delegate), and other members of her department. No action was taken by the Compliance Office.
Annie G. Reed’s, current interim Dean of Labor and Employee Relations, has been involved in covering up wrongdoing in the Los Angeles Community College District for decades. Her targets have involved employees, students, faculty, and even a trustee. And so far has never been held accountable.
Multiple stories were published on newswire IndyBay, the news outlet branch of the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center between 2023 and 2024. They were then scrubbed (along with other stories) over the weekend of May 18, 2025.
Recently, newly appointed Chancellor, Dr. Alberto J. Roman has been alerted to Ms. Reed’s disturbing history – it remains to be seen whether he will take corrective action, or continue to 6 keep around the same problematic individuals that resulted in his predecessor’s resignation after a vote of no-confidence by the LACCD Academic Senate.
(To be continued...)
What do the University of Phoenix and Risepoint have in common? The answer is a compelling story of greed and politics.
In the increasingly commodified world of higher education, the University of Phoenix and Risepoint (formerly Academic Partnerships) represent parallel tales of how private equity, political influence, and deceptive practices have shaped the online college landscape. While their paths have diverged in branding and institutional affiliation, the underlying motives and outcomes share disturbing similarities.
The University of Phoenix: A Legacy of Legal and Ethical Trouble
The University of Phoenix (UOP) has been a central player in the for-profit college boom, particularly during and after the 2000s. Under the ownership of Apollo Education Group, and later the Vistria Group, UOP has faced a relentless stream of lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, and public outrage.
In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a $191 million settlement with UOP over allegations of deceptive advertising. UOP falsely claimed partnerships with major corporations like Microsoft, AT&T, and Twitter to entice students. The result was $50 million in restitution and $141 million in student debt relief.
But the legal troubles didn’t stop there. In 2022 and 2023, the U.S. Department of Education included UOP in a broader class action that granted $37 million in borrower defense discharges. These claims stemmed from deceptive marketing and predatory recruitment practices.
Meanwhile, in 2024, the California Attorney General settled with UOP for $4.5 million over allegations of illegally targeting military service members between 2012 and 2015. The university’s controversial relationship with the military community also led to a temporary VA suspension of GI Bill enrollments in 2020.
The legal history includes False Claims Act suits brought by whistleblowers, including former employees alleging falsified records, incentive-based recruiter pay, and exaggerated graduation and job placement statistics. In 2019, Apollo Education settled a securities fraud lawsuit for $7.4 million.
More recently, UOP has been embroiled in political controversy in Idaho. In 2023 and 2024, the Idaho Attorney General challenged the state's attempt to acquire UOP, citing Open Meetings Act violations and lack of transparency. Though a federal judge initially dismissed the suit, Idaho’s Supreme Court allowed an appeal to proceed.
Through all of this, Vistria Group—UOP’s private equity owner since 2017—has reaped massive profits. Vistria was co-founded by Marty Nesbitt, a close confidant of Barack Obama, underscoring the bipartisan political protection that shields for-profit education from lasting accountability.
Risepoint and the Online Program Management Model
Risepoint, formerly Academic Partnerships (AP), tells a similarly troubling story, albeit from the Online Program Manager (OPM) side of the education-industrial complex. Founded in 2007 by Randy Best, a well-connected Republican donor with ties to Jeb Bush, AP helped universities build online degree programs in exchange for a significant cut of tuition—sometimes up to 50%.
This tuition-share model, though legal, has raised ethical red flags. Critics argue it diverts millions in public education dollars into private hands, inflates student debt, and incentivizes aggressive, misleading recruitment. The most infamous case was the University of Texas-Arlington, which paid AP more than $178 million over five years. President Vistasp Karbhari resigned in 2020 after it was revealed he had taken international trips funded by AP.
Risepoint was acquired by Vistria Group in 2019, placing it in the same portfolio as the University of Phoenix and other education businesses. The firm’s growing influence in higher education—fueled by Democratic-aligned private equity—reflects a deeper entanglement of politics, policy, and profiteering.
In 2024, Minnesota became the first state to ban new tuition-share agreements with OPMs like Risepoint. This legislative action followed backlash from a controversial deal between Risepoint and St. Cloud State University, where critics accused the firm of extracting excessive revenue while offering questionable value.
Further pressure came from the federal level. In 2024, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Tina Smith issued letters to major OPMs demanding transparency about recruitment tactics and tuition-share models. The Department of Education followed in January 2025 with new guidance restricting misleading marketing by OPMs, including impersonation of university staff.
Despite this, Risepoint continued expanding. In late 2023, the company purchased Wiley’s online program business for $150 million, signaling consolidation in a turbulent industry. Yet a 2024 report showed 147 OPM-university contracts had been terminated in 2023, and new contracts fell by over 50%.
What Ties Them Together: Vistria Group
Vistria Group sits at the center of both sagas. The Chicago-based private equity firm has made education—especially online and for-profit education—a core pillar of its investment strategy. With connections to both Democratic and Republican power brokers, Vistria has deftly navigated the regulatory landscape while profiting from public education dollars.
Its ownership of the University of Phoenix and Risepoint demonstrates a clear strategy: acquire distressed or controversial education companies, clean up their public image, and extract revenue while avoiding deep reforms. Through Vistria, private equity gains access to billions in federal student aid with minimal oversight and a bipartisan shield.
The result is a higher education ecosystem where political influence, corporate profit, and public exploitation collide. And whether through online degrees from the University of Phoenix or public-private partnerships with Risepoint, students are often the ones left bearing the cost.
As scrutiny intensifies and state and federal lawmakers demand reform, the futures of Risepoint and the University of Phoenix remain uncertain. But one thing is clear: their shared story reveals how higher education has become a battleground of greed, power, and politics.
Trading Down: What the Consumer Shift Among Wealthier Americans Means for Higher Education
As higher-income Americans increasingly turn to dollar stores and secondhand outlets in search of savings, a deeper economic shift is unfolding—one with direct and underappreciated implications for colleges and universities across the United States. What some call a “quest for value” is reshaping household spending habits, even among six-figure earners. But beyond retail, this behavioral change signals a broader financial anxiety that could impact how Americans think about the costs and benefits of higher education.
The Middle Class is Feeling the Pinch
Recent data from the National Retail Federation and Moody’s Ratings show a surge in wealthier consumers “trading down”—shifting from premium brands to generics, from specialty stores to Walmart and Dollar Tree. Retail leaders from Dollar General to Academy Sports report growing traffic from households earning over $100,000. These are not the stereotypical bargain shoppers. These are families who, until recently, may have sent their children to private schools, paid sticker price for college, and viewed elite institutions as a worthwhile investment.
Now, even they are economizing. That behavior shift is not just about inflation or tariffs—it’s about eroding consumer confidence and a reassessment of value.
What Does This Mean for Higher Ed?
Higher education has long positioned itself as a high-return investment. But when middle- and upper-middle-class Americans are rethinking $4 lattes and $50 jeans, what happens when they start looking more critically at $250,000 bachelor’s degrees?
-
Tuition Sensitivity Is Spreading Upmarket: Public and private colleges that once banked on full-pay students from affluent families are likely to see more pushback. Even families with significant income may seek “value” options—such as in-state public universities, community colleges, online programs, or skipping college altogether in favor of trade training or early employment.
-
Elite Branding May No Longer Be Enough: Brand-name colleges—especially mid-tier private institutions without Ivy League cachet—could face new skepticism from families demanding clear ROI. Prestige alone won’t justify escalating tuition in a time when even $100K+ earners are stretching budgets.
-
The Student Debt Backlash Will Grow: The federal student loan crisis has already decimated trust in the traditional college pathway. As middle- and upper-class families feel the economic squeeze, their tolerance for long-term debt may fall, increasing demand for clearer loan disclosures, more accountability, and perhaps even political action on tuition price controls.
-
Donors May Reevaluate Priorities: As financial unease trickles into wealthier brackets, it could also impact giving. University advancement offices may find it harder to raise unrestricted funds, particularly from alumni who now question whether their alma mater is part of the value problem.
The End of the “Education at Any Cost” Era?
What we’re seeing now in retail—an upper-middle class retrenchment—is likely to surface in higher education in the coming enrollment cycles. Already, enrollment at community colleges and online universities like Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University is growing. These institutions market themselves not just as affordable, but as practical and employment-focused—offering value in a way that resonates with a cost-conscious public.
Colleges that ignore this consumer mindset shift do so at their own peril. The new American shopper is pragmatic, anxious, and increasingly unwilling to pay for prestige or tradition without a guarantee of economic return. That mindset will follow them into every financial decision—including where and whether to send their children to college.
In an era of economic uncertainty, the question many families are asking isn’t “Where can I get in?” but “What’s really worth it?”
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate how economic shifts and consumer behavior are shaping the future of higher education—for students, families, workers, and society.
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v Cardona) hearing will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 2pm EST / 11am PST (r/BorrowerDefense)
The next episode of Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona), "THE CLOCK IS TICKING," will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025.
Judge Alsup is BACK. He wants updates. He wants answers. And he’s asking one thing — will the deadlines be met? Join in for the next drama episode in this six-year battle for justice!
Deets Below:
Sweet v. McMahon: The Clock Is Ticking
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM ET / 11:00 AM PT
Zoom Courtroom – (https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1605814655...
) Passcode: 791667
Cue Law & Order Theme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4-aEGvqQM
).
Borrowers are still waiting. Judge Alsup wants answers. The DOE is back in court. Will justice finally be delivered? Tune in. Speak up. This hearing will be fire!
#SweetJustice #LoanDischarge #TheClockIsTicking
Report issues for class/post-class members to sweet@ed.gov and CC PPSL at info@ppsl.org
The Misleading Myth of the College Premium
For decades, the so-called college premium—the idea that earning a college degree guarantees significantly higher lifetime earnings compared to a high school diploma—has been used to sell higher education to the American public. Politicians, economists, and university marketing teams alike have touted the promise of upward mobility through higher education. But this narrative is increasingly misleading, especially for working-class, first-generation, and marginalized students.
The College Premium: Averages vs. Reality
At its core, the college premium is based on averages. Federal and private data sources often claim that college graduates earn, on average, $1 million more over their lifetimes than those with only a high school diploma. But averages conceal enormous variation. They ignore who goes to college, where they go, what they study, and how much they borrow to get there.
That $1 million premium is skewed by high earners—doctors, lawyers, engineers, and business executives who often come from wealthier families and attend elite institutions. Meanwhile, a large and growing number of students graduate with low-paying degrees, insurmountable debt, and job prospects that resemble those of high school graduates from decades past.
Who Gets Misled—and Hurt
Students from working-class backgrounds often attend less selective colleges and universities—regional public schools, underfunded community colleges, or even predatory for-profit institutions. These students are more likely to work while enrolled, take longer to graduate, or drop out altogether. The result: little to no earnings gain, but significant debt burdens. For them, the college premium is often negative.
Systemic racism in the labor market erodes the supposed premium for Black and Latino graduates. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Black college graduates earn roughly 20% less than white peers with the same degrees. They also face higher unemployment rates, especially in economic downturns. When combined with higher average debt loads, the risk-to-reward ratio becomes starkly inequitable.
Not all degrees yield high returns. Many students major in education, social work, or the arts—not because these fields are unworthy, but because they are essential to society. Yet these professions are often undervalued and underpaid. Graduates may find themselves stuck with large student loans and salaries that barely cover basic living expenses. In these cases, the premium barely materializes.
Roughly 40% of college students in the U.S. fail to graduate within six years. These students take on debt but receive none of the (alleged) earnings boost associated with a degree. They are the most vulnerable population—often saddled with loans they can't discharge in bankruptcy and credentials that offer no labor market value.
A Shifting Landscape
The labor market has changed dramatically. Credential inflation means more jobs require degrees without necessarily offering higher pay. Meanwhile, automation, outsourcing, and gig work have made many once-stable jobs insecure. A bachelor’s degree is no longer the ticket to the middle class that it once was, especially for those without access to elite networks and institutions.
At the same time, the cost of college has skyrocketed. Student loan debt now tops $1.7 trillion, and repayment burdens are keeping young adults from buying homes, saving for retirement, or starting families. The financial risks of college now rival the benefits, especially for the very populations who are promised it will change their lives.
Toward a More Honest Conversation
Rather than clinging to the college premium as a universal truth, policymakers, educators, and the public must grapple with its limits. We need transparent data on outcomes by institution, major, race, and income. We must invest in alternative pathways, including apprenticeships, vocational training, and debt-free community college. We must hold bad actors accountable, including for-profit colleges and institutions with high debt-to-earnings ratios. And we must stop blaming individuals for “bad choices” when the system itself is rigged to benefit the privileged few.
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate and report on the disparities, disinformation, and systemic failures within U.S. higher education—because transparency and justice matter more than mythology.
Monday, June 9, 2025
Good Night and Good Luck
Two nights ago, a timely reprise of Good Night, and Good Luck—a play adapted from the 2005 film—was released online for the public to see. In any other moment, it might be viewed as a well-produced historical reflection. But in the context of Donald Trump’s second term in office, the play hits with renewed urgency, serving as both cautionary tale and call to action.
Originally centered on broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow’s confrontation with Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare, the story has now taken on fresh resonance. The lines between past and present blur as today's media, academics, and citizens face rising pressures that bear a troubling resemblance to the paranoia and suppression of the 1950s.
Journalism in the Crosshairs—Then and Now
Murrow’s fight was against lies, fear, and demagoguery. So too is the current struggle. But unlike the centralized media of Murrow’s era, today’s information ecosystem is splintered, algorithmically manipulated, and awash in disinformation. What hasn’t changed is the threat posed by leaders who thrive on division, target the press, and dismantle democratic norms.
Trump’s return to power has already brought promises of retribution. Journalists are again labeled “enemies of the people.” Government critics face surveillance and smear campaigns. The line between public service and propaganda is growing thinner by the day.
Universities Under Siege
Higher education is once more a battlefield for truth. In Trump’s second term, the attack on academic freedom is no longer abstract. Several states have already defunded DEI programs, imposed ideological restrictions on curricula, and punished faculty for publicly criticizing the administration.
Like the loyalty oaths of McCarthy’s time, today’s political litmus tests threaten tenure, chill speech, and strip universities of their role as safe havens for independent thought. Student journalists are documenting this unraveling in real time—often with limited institutional support and growing personal risk.
A Digital Murrow Moment?
The online version of Good Night, and Good Luck two days ago is more than an artistic statement; it’s a cultural intervention. The timing—early in Trump’s second term—is a deliberate challenge to journalists, educators, and citizens to recall their responsibilities. The message is clear: silence enables authoritarianism, and truth requires courage.
But the stakes are higher now. The 1950s did not contend with AI-generated misinformation, billionaire-backed disinformation machines, or governors turning public colleges into ideological laboratories. This is a different kind of war—but the tools of resistance remain: reporting, documenting, teaching, organizing.
As we confront the rising tide of fear and repression, we might remember the words of Cassius in Julius Caesar:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
The revival of Good Night, and Good Luck reminds us that we’ve been here before. And it asks: will we meet the moment again?
Edward R. Murrow once warned that a free press is only as strong as the people willing to defend it. In this reprise, it is not just the journalists who must rise to the challenge—but educators, students, artists, and anyone committed to keeping truth alive.
We urge readers to watch the movie online (the play is unavailable at this point). Let it stir your memory—and your conscience. Then speak out, before the lights go dim again.
Good night, and good luck.
700 US Marines in California ordered to assist in Los Angeles during protests (ABC News)
Seven-hundred Marines in California have been ordered to assist in Los Angeles and they’re expected to arrive over the next 24 hours, a U.S. official confirmed. The Marines are from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, whom U.S. Northern Command had said Sunday were on a "prepared to deploy status" if the Defense Department needed them.
University of Michigan paid firm to spy on activist students (News Nation)
Attorney Amir Makled joins "NewsNation Now" to discuss a report from The Guardian that the University of Michigan paid $800,000 to a private security firm to have undercover investigators surveil pro-Palestinian campus groups. Makled called the alleged conduct "really disturbing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)