At the Higher Education Inquirer, we often ask: what is the purpose of education? Beyond workforce preparation, should our colleges and universities play a greater role in preparing students to be thoughtful, engaged citizens? And if so, what courses ought to be considered essential for that mission?
We want to open this conversation with four starting points—World Geography, World Religions, Philosophy, and Logic.
Why geography? Because in an interconnected world, understanding where people live, the resources they rely on, and the political boundaries that shape conflict and cooperation is fundamental. Without a sense of place, it’s easy to fall into provincialism and manipulation by those who would rather citizens not ask questions about global inequality, migration, or climate change.
Why religions? Because belief systems shape billions of lives across the globe. A class in World Religions offers more than a survey of faith traditions—it cultivates respect, empathy, and historical understanding. It challenges stereotypes, highlights shared values, and prepares students to navigate a pluralistic society.
Why philosophy? Because citizens should be able to ask questions about justice, democracy, ethics, and the human condition. Philosophy helps students think critically about values and institutions, rather than simply accepting them as given.
And why logic? Because the ability to evaluate arguments, spot fallacies, and separate truth from deception is indispensable in a world awash in propaganda, misinformation, and political spin. Logic provides tools for clarity of thought—tools that every citizen should have.
But are these four enough? Probably not. Civic literacy requires more than maps, scriptures, and reasoning skills. Should we also expect every citizen to study U.S. History, not as hagiography but as an honest reckoning with slavery, Indigenous displacement, labor struggles, and civil rights movements? Should Sociology be required, to examine inequality, race, and class? What about Economics, not just in its neoliberal form, but with an eye toward how capital and labor actually shape daily life?
Universities once argued that their general education requirements cultivated citizens, not just workers. Yet over the last half-century, as higher education has been reshaped by market forces, these aspirations have been diluted. Courses in the humanities and social sciences have been cut back, while students shoulder greater debt and are pressured into narrowly vocational programs.
So we turn the question back to you, our readers:
What humanities and social science classes should be essential for preparing people to be responsible, thoughtful citizens?
Is it time to revive a core curriculum of citizenship in an age of polarization, misinformation, and growing authoritarianism? Or has that ship sailed?
Send us your thoughts. The conversation begins with World Geography, World Religions, Philosophy, and Logic—but it won’t end there.
The second Trump administration has unleashed a coordinated assault on reality itself—an effort that extends far beyond policy disagreements into the realm of deliberate gaslighting. Agency by agency, Trump’s lieutenants are reshaping facts, science, and language to consolidate power. Many of these figures, despite their populist rhetoric, come from elite universities, corporate boardrooms, or dynastic wealth. Their campaign is not just about dismantling government—it’s about erasing the ground truth that ordinary people rely on.
Department of State → Department of War
One of the starkest shifts has been renaming the State Department the “Department of War.” This rhetorical change signals the administration’s embrace of permanent conflict as strategy. Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Princeton graduate and former hedge fund executive, embodies the contradiction: Ivy League polish combined with cable-news bravado. Under his watch, diplomacy is downgraded, alliances undermined, and propaganda elevated to policy.
Department of Defense
The Pentagon has been retooled into a megaphone for Trump’s narrative that America is perpetually under siege. Despite the promise of “America First,” decisions consistently empower China and Russia by destabilizing traditional alliances. The irony: many of the architects of this policy cut their teeth at elite think tanks funded by the same defense contractors now profiting from chaos.
Department of Education
Trump’s appointees have doubled down on dismantling federal oversight, echoing the administration’s hostility to “woke indoctrination.” Yet the leaders spearheading this push often come from private prep schools and elite universities themselves. They know the value of credentialism for their own children, while stripping protections and opportunities from working families.
Department of Justice
Justice has been weaponized into a tool of disinformation. Elite law school alumni now run campaigns against “deep state” prosecutors, while simultaneously eroding safeguards against corruption. The result is a justice system where truth is malleable, determined not by evidence but by loyalty.
Department of Health and Human Services
Public health has been subsumed into culture war theatrics. Scientific consensus on climate, vaccines, and long-term health research is dismissed as partisan propaganda. Yet many of the leaders driving this narrative hail from institutions like Harvard and Stanford, where they once benefited from cutting-edge science, they now ridicule.
Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA has become the Environmental Pollution Agency, rolling back rules while gaslighting the public with claims of “cleaner air than ever.” Appointees often come directly from corporate law firms representing Big Oil and Big Coal, cloaking extractive capitalism in the language of freedom.
Department of Labor
Workers are told they are winning even as wages stagnate and union protections collapse. The elites orchestrating this rollback frequently hold MBAs from Wharton or Harvard Business School. They speak the language of “opportunity” while overseeing the erosion of worker rights and benefits.
Department of Homeland Security
Reality itself is policed here, where dissent is rebranded as domestic extremism. Elite operatives with ties to intelligence contractors enforce surveillance on ordinary Americans, while elite families enjoy immunity from scrutiny.
The Elite Architecture of Gaslighting
What unites these agencies is not just Trump’s directives, but the pedigree of the people carrying them out. Far from being the populist outsiders they claim to be, many hail from Ivy League schools, white-shoe law firms, or Fortune 500 boardrooms. They weaponize their privilege to convince the public that up is down, war is peace and lies are truth.
The war on reality is not a sideshow—it is the central project of this administration. For elites, it is a way to entrench their power. For the rest of us, it means living in a hall of mirrors where truth is constantly rewritten, and democracy itself hangs in the balance.
Sources
New York Times, Trump’s Cabinet and Their Elite Connections
Washington Post, How Trump Loyalists Are Reshaping Federal Agencies
Politico, The Ivy League Populists of Trump’s Inner Circle
ProPublica, Trump Administration’s Conflicts of Interest
Brookings Institution, Trump’s Assault on the Administrative State
Center for American Progress, Gaslighting the Public: Trump’s War on Facts
The Higher Education Inquirer is calling on both the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to explain the suspension of the Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium, the largest concussion study in U.S. history. Since 2014, CARE has sought to illuminate the effects of concussion and repetitive head impact exposure (HIE) on student-athletes and military service members.
A Decade of Groundbreaking Work
Funded through an initial $30 million “Grand Alliance,” CARE enrolled more than 53,000 athletes and cadets and tracked over 5,500 diagnosed concussions across more than two dozen universities and four service academies. Its successive phases—CARE 1.0 (acute effects), CARE 2.0 (cumulative impacts), and CARE-SALTOS Integrated (long-term outcomes)—provided unprecedented insights into how concussions affect recovery, cognition, mood, sleep, and overall well-being.
The CARE study generated more than 90 peer-reviewed publications, influencing safety protocols, athletic training practices, and public health debates in both NCAA settings and the U.S. military.
CTE and the Need for Decades-Long Research
The suspension comes at a critical moment. Concerns about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)—a degenerative brain disease linked to repetitive head trauma—are rising. Because CTE’s symptoms often surface decades after injuries, researchers emphasize that only long-term, continuous studies can reveal who develops CTE and why.
Pausing or dismantling CARE risks losing continuity in precisely the kind of data needed to connect the dots between adolescent or collegiate injuries and late-life neurodegenerative conditions.
Collateral Damage: Workers Left Behind
The disruption of CARE has already produced casualties beyond lost data. At the University of Michigan, one of the leading CARE sites, about two dozen research workers were abruptly laid off. Without union protections, they had little recourse. This underscores how fragile large research consortia can be—dependent not only on grants and institutional goodwill, but also on a workforce often treated as disposable.
These layoffs raise troubling questions: If the workers who made CARE possible are discarded without warning, what does that say about the broader commitment to athlete and cadet safety?
Outstanding Questions for NCAA and DoD
The Higher Education Inquirer is pressing for answers:
Why was CARE suspended? Was this due to funding shortfalls, shifting priorities, or political pressure?
Will existing data remain accessible? The CARE Consortium has been a vital contributor to the Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR) database.
What about the workforce? Why were employees terminated without protections, and what obligations do the NCAA, DoD, and participating universities have to them?
What is the long-term plan for concussion research? Without decades-long studies, the risks of CTE and other late-life conditions will remain poorly understood.
Big Loss for Athletes
If CARE is permanently suspended, the consequences will extend far beyond academia. Athletes and cadets will lose a vital source of protection, science will lose irreplaceable data, and workers will continue to bear the costs of institutional indifference.
The Higher Education Inquirer urges the NCAA and DoD to clarify CARE’s future and recommit to the kind of decades-long research that brain science demands. Anything less is a betrayal—to athletes, to service members, and to the very workers who made this research possible.
Sources
NCAA. NCAA-DOD Grand Alliance: CARE Consortium. ncaa.org
Universities have long been bastions of freedom, democracy, and truth. Today, they find themselves operating in a nation where these ideals are increasingly under siege—not by foreign adversaries, but by policies emanating from the highest levels of government.
The Department of War: A Symbolic Shift with Real Consequences
On September 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order rebranding the U.S. Department of Defense as the "Department of War," aiming to restore the title used prior to 1949. This move, while symbolic, reflects a broader ideological shift towards an aggressive, militaristic stance. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, appointed in January 2025, has been a vocal proponent of this change, asserting that the new name conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve.
Critics argue that this rebranding prioritizes optics over substance, with concerns over potential high costs and effectiveness. Pentagon officials acknowledged the financial burden but have yet to release precise cost estimates.
Economic Instability and Global Alienation
Domestically, the administration's economic policies have led to rising unemployment, inflation, and slowing job growth. A recent weak jobs report showing a gain of only 22,000 jobs prompted Democrats to criticize President Trump's handling of the economy, linking these issues to his tariffs and other controversial actions.
Internationally, Trump's policies have strained relationships with key allies. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and several European nations have expressed concerns over U.S. trade practices and foreign policy decisions, leading to a reevaluation of longstanding alliances.
Authoritarian Alliances and Human Rights Concerns
The administration's foreign policy has also seen a shift towards aligning with authoritarian leaders. Leaked draft reports indicate plans to eliminate or downplay accounts of prisoner abuse, corruption, and LGBTQ+ discrimination in countries like El Salvador, Israel, and Russia, raising concerns about the U.S.'s commitment to human rights.
Immigration Policies and Humanitarian Impact
On the domestic front, the administration's immigration policies have led to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including those with Temporary Protected Status. Critics argue that these actions undermine the nation's moral authority and have a devastating impact on affected families.
The Role of Higher Education
In this turbulent landscape, higher education institutions find themselves at a crossroads. Universities are traditionally places where freedom, democracy, and truth are upheld and taught. However, as the nation drifts away from these principles, universities are increasingly tasked with defending them.
Faculty and students are stepping into roles as defenders of civic values, ethical scholarship, and truth-telling. But without robust support from government and society, universities alone cannot sustain the principles of freedom and democracy that once underpinned the nation.
The current moment is a test: Can American higher education continue to serve as a bastion of truth and civic responsibility in an era where the country’s own policies increasingly contradict those ideals? Or will universities be compelled to adapt to a world where freedom, democracy, and truth are optional, not foundational?
Faculty members in the Los Angeles Valley College (LAVC) Media Arts Department implicated in decades of fraud and misconduct have been removed from administrative positions, though they remain in teaching roles.
Over the summer, longtime department head Eric Swelstad, who had led Media Arts since 2008, was replaced as chair by Chad Sustin, a full-time professor of Cinema and Media Arts. The change followed a notification from the LACCD Whistleblower Movement to new Chancellor Alberto J. Roman, alleging that Swelstad falsely claimed membership in the Writers Guild of America – West for more than 20 years and used this misrepresentation in official LACCD promotional materials.
Sustin, a tenured faculty member since 2016 and a former Technicolor post-producer, now leads the department.
The reshuffling comes amid years of internal turmoil. In 2022, full-time cinema professor Arantxa Rodriguez resigned and was replaced by Jonathan Burnett as assistant professor. Rodriguez had previously been implicated in department infighting and, alongside Swelstad, was named as a co-defendant in a 2008 case alleging failure to provide advertised technical training and education. Burnett’s hiring bypassed longtime adjunct and former grant director Dan Watanabe.
Watanabe previously administered several Media Arts training grants, the last of which—ICT & Digital Media, LA RDSN—was reported as fraudulent in 2016. The 2013 grant proposal promised courses such as The Business of Entertainment, Advanced Digital Editing, Photoshop, and After Effects. Yet once funding was approved, The Business of Entertainment and Advanced Digital Editing were archived by LAVC’s Academic Curriculum Committee and Senate. Photoshop and After Effects were offered only minimally, with After Effects disappearing after 2015 and Photoshop shifting to online-only by 2017.
Students reported the suspected fraud to the State of California in 2016, prompting a review of the grant. Renewal applications submitted by Watanabe in 2018 and 2021 were both denied.
Grant Record (Denied Renewal, 2018):
Project Title: ICT & Digital Media – LA RDSN (Renewal)
Funding Agency: CCCCO EWD
Grant Amount: $165,000
Funding Period: Oct. 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019
Project Director: Dan Watanabe
Description: Proposed renewal of the Deputy Sector Navigator grant under the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, focused on curriculum development and alignment with universities and K–12 schools.
Despite this, Watanabe (who was also passed over for a full-time position at Los Angeles Pierce College) remains an adjunct faculty member slated to teach Cinema 111, Developing Movies – a field he reportedly last worked in twenty years ago. Arantxa Rodriguez and Eric Swelstad have both been scheduled to teach Fall 2025. Despite falsifying his credentials as a member of the Writer's Guild of America – West, and implying he was a Primetime Emmy Winner (he in fact was the director of a movie that received a local Los Angeles Emmy in the 1990s), he is slated to teach Cinema 101 and screenwriting core class Media Arts 129. Rodriguez will a remote History of Film Class.
Reportedly the new full-time faculty in the department have started working to reverse the damage. Fall 2025 schedule includes Media Arts 112, Creative Sound Design Workshop.
Google is everywhere. Search, Maps, YouTube—they make life convenient and seem “free.” But convenience comes at a price: your behavioral data. Every click, pause, search, or location check generates a digital footprint that Google collects, analyzes, and sells.
This isn’t just data collection—it’s what Shoshana Zuboff calls behavioral surplus: data that goes beyond what’s needed to provide the service itself. Google doesn’t just need to know what you search; it wants your location patterns, click habits, watch time, and every little action that can predict what you might do next. That surplus becomes a commodity, sold to advertisers and used to train AI systems that keep you engaged—and profitable—without your permission or compensation.
What “Data Debt” Means for You
Think of it like this: every time you interact with Google, you’re contributing to a kind of informational debt. Unlike a normal loan, this debt is infinite and unpayable. You can’t erase your search history, reclaim your behavioral profile, or get paid for the value you generate.
Here’s how it affects you:
You’re Paying With More Than Money
Your data is the real currency. That “free” Google Maps route? Paid for with your personal information, every time you move, click, or linger on a page.
You Can’t Opt Out
Google and similar platforms are now essential infrastructure. Avoiding them often means social or professional exclusion. You’re effectively forced into the system to live a connected life.
More Companies Have Access to Your Data
Recent antitrust rulings require Google to share some data with competitors. Instead of reducing extraction, this spreads your data around, giving multiple companies the ability to profit from your behavior.
You Get No Ownership or Share of Profits
Unlike college athletes who can monetize their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), most of us generate value for Google with no control, no claim, and no legal recourse. You’re a perpetual unpaid shareholder in a company that never pays dividends.
Privacy Is Your Job
The system shifts responsibility onto you. You have to manage settings, use privacy tools, and track policies—all while the structural extraction continues.
Why This Matters
This is not just about annoying ads or targeted videos. It’s about power. Google, and other platforms like it, are essentially operating as all-powerful debtors. They take your data, turn it into profit, and owe you nothing. Meanwhile, the system is structured so that you can’t negotiate, limit, or reclaim what’s taken.
The rare exceptions—like NIL rights for college athletes—show how unusual it is for people to profit from their own data. For the rest of us, extraction without reciprocity is the rule, not the exception.
What You Can Do
Be conscious of your digital footprint: Every app, click, and interaction is part of your behavioral surplus.
Use privacy tools: VPNs, ad blockers, and encrypted services can limit some collection.
Advocate for structural change: Laws and regulations that return ownership or compensation for data are the only way to address the systemic imbalance.
Support alternatives: Platforms that share revenue with users or operate without surveillance models are small but growing options.
The key takeaway: your data is valuable, and right now, you’re the unpaid creditor. Understanding the stakes is the first step toward regaining some control—or at least knowing what you’re giving away.
Sources
Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, PublicAffairs, 2019.
Maurizio Lazzarato, The Making of the Indebted Man, Semiotext(e), 2012.
Across American higher education, labor rights have been under sustained pressure for decades. Adjunct faculty and contingent academic workers face precarious employment conditions, stagnant pay, and eroding protections. Yet when systemic critiques are raised, elite university presidents often reframe the discussion, narrowing structural problems into manageable, apolitical talking points.
Technocratic Deflection
Presidents frequently recast labor issues in neutral managerial terms:
Union suppression = “workforce modernization”
Adjunct exploitation = “budgetary flexibility”
Student debt peonage = “innovative financing”
By reducing structural injustices to administrative concerns, they strip these issues of political and historical significance, making them easier to manage and harder to challenge.
The “Hands Tied” Defense
When confronted with inequities, presidents often insist:
“Declining appropriations leave us no choice.”
“Our boards demand fiscal responsibility.”
“Market forces shape our decisions.”
This logic frames systemic oppression as inevitable, technical, and apolitical — a narrative that protects institutional power while masking the long-term consequences for faculty and students.
Vocabulary Capture
Elite leaders control the conversation through language:
Critics say “union suppression”; presidents say “workforce modernization.”
Activists say “racial exclusion”; presidents invoke “mission fit.”
Students call it “robocolleges” or corporatization; presidents speak of “scaling access.”
By changing the words, they change the battlefield, making systemic critique appear radical, ill-informed, or irrelevant.
Evasion of History
Historical context is often sidelined:
Universities rarely acknowledge their role in breaking faculty strikes or adopting corporate governance models.
They deflect from the impact of elite endowments and funding structures in deepening inequality.
Decisions that shape labor, access, and academic priorities are rarely recognized as part of a decades-long neoliberal project.
Case Studies
1. Columbia University's $221 Million Settlement
In a notable instance, Columbia University agreed to a $221 million settlement with the Trump administration, restoring previously cut federal research funding. While the university emphasized its continued autonomy in admissions and hiring decisions, the settlement included oversight on issues such as merit-based hiring and campus free speech. This move sparked backlash from faculty who viewed it as political interference in academic governance .
2. Harvard University's Response to Federal Pressure
Harvard University faced scrutiny from the Trump administration over alleged failure to combat antisemitism. In response, Harvard President Alan Garber pledged cooperation with federal demands but faced criticism for lacking a strong defense of academic independence. Administrative actions, including suspensions of pro-Palestinian programs, heightened faculty unease and raised concerns about potential political interference in academic institutions .
3. The 2023 Rutgers University Strike
At Rutgers University, faculty and graduate student workers participated in a strike demanding increased salaries, job security, and equal pay for equal work. The strike, involving over 9,000 staff members and 67,000 students, was suspended after a tentative agreement for across-the-board salary increases was reached. This action highlighted the growing mobilization of contingent faculty and the challenges they face in advocating for better working conditions .
The Veritas Problem
Elite institutions claim Veritas — truth — but their leaders practice selective blindness. They respond to criticism in managerial jargon, policing language, and rendering systemic injustices invisible within the institution.
Across campuses nationwide, the strategy is consistent: narrow the conversation, maintain the appearance of neutrality, and protect the interests of trustees, donors, and corporate partners — all while structural crises of labor, debt, and inequality continue unchecked.
Sources:
"Columbia agrees $221mn settlement with Trump administration" – Financial Times, August 2025
"Harvard faculty organize amid anxiety university will capitulate to Trump" – The Guardian, April 2025
"2023 Rutgers University strike" – Wikipedia, June 2023
Over the last half-century, the U.S. economy has undergone a profound transformation, one that has consistently shifted wealth, power, and risk from labor to capital. Nowhere is this transfer more evident than in the American university. Once celebrated as engines of mobility and knowledge, colleges and universities have become laboratories for the financialization of labor and the exploitation of debt, producing both highly educated workers and precarious employment. The story of U.S. higher education mirrors the broader trajectory of labor in the postindustrial economy: the erosion of wages, benefits, and job security, replaced by indebtedness, contingent labor, and privatized risk.
In 1969, union membership in the U.S. reached historic heights, covering nearly one-third of workers, and wages broadly tracked productivity. Universities, like other sectors, offered stable employment, pensions, and health benefits for faculty and staff. Students could pursue degrees without accumulating crushing debt. Yet this stability faced systematic challenges. Rising global competition, stagflation in the 1970s, and growing corporate influence over politics and law set the stage for a deliberate weakening of labor. Influential business leaders, inspired by the Powell Memo of 1971, invested in reshaping regulations, judicial appointments, and cultural attitudes to protect capital and undermine collective worker power.
The higher education sector became a testing ground for these strategies. Universities increasingly adopted anti-union policies, aggressively resisting faculty organizing. Tenured and tenure-track positions stagnated, while the majority of teaching staff shifted to contingent and adjunct roles. Adjunct faculty, who now comprise the majority of instructors at many institutions, are paid a fraction of full-time salaries and frequently lack basic employment protections. Retirement and medical benefits are often unavailable, leaving adjuncts dependent on precarious contract work while navigating an academic labor market that demands high productivity and expertise. Meanwhile, students are encouraged to shoulder growing tuition costs through loans, creating a generation of indebted graduates whose economic vulnerability mirrors that of the adjunct faculty teaching them.
This debt-driven model reflects a broader trend in U.S. labor. As real wages stagnated across most industries, households turned to credit cards, home equity loans, and student loans to maintain living standards. Medical debt and inadequate access to health insurance became commonplace, and pension security eroded as defined-benefit plans gave way to 401(k)s tied to volatile financial markets. Universities, simultaneously relying on contingent labor and student debt, became both emblematic and instrumental in this shift. They profited from a system that exploited the labor of instructors while binding students into decades-long financial obligations.
The 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic further exposed these structural inequalities. Wall Street recovered rapidly through bailouts and financial consolidation, while millions of workers—including adjuncts and early-career academics—experienced housing loss, unemployment, and financial insecurity. Universities, too, leveraged these crises to consolidate programs, increase online offerings, and further casualize labor. Inflation fears and budget shortfalls became convenient rationales for suppressing wages, cutting benefits, and delaying retirement security.
By 2025, a new wave of labor activism is emerging, both inside and outside the academy. Union drives at Starbucks, Amazon, hospitals, and universities reflect widespread discontent, yet union density remains below ten percent. Legal obstacles, from Janus v. AFSCME to state-level right-to-work laws, continue to suppress organizing. Capital, for its part, has adapted. Endowments, private equity firms, hedge funds, and sovereign wealth funds dominate sectors from housing to healthcare to higher education. Pension funds, once a safeguard for workers, have been financialized into instruments that profit the very institutions and executives who outsource or eliminate labor protections.
The consequences are stark. Since 1969, productivity has more than doubled, but real wages for most workers have barely changed. CEO pay has increased by over a thousand percent, while median worker pay stagnates. Household debt exceeds seventeen trillion dollars. Universities, which were once supposed to provide pathways to mobility, increasingly rely on adjunct labor and student indebtedness to function. Workers in both corporate and academic sectors are often left without reliable health coverage or retirement security, forcing them into perpetual economic vulnerability.
Higher education exemplifies the paradox of U.S. labor in the postindustrial era: it produces a highly credentialed workforce while exploiting its own employees and saddling students with debt. The burden of sustaining American capitalism—through longer hours, reduced benefits, and relentless indebtedness—has shifted decisively onto labor. Whether this growing discontent can coalesce into a new labor movement or whether capital—including universities—will continue to restructure society in its own interest remains one of the central questions of our time.
Sources
Gordon Lafer, The Job Training Charade (2002)
Michael Hudson, The Bubble and Beyond (2012)
Maurizio Lazzarato, The Making of the Indebted Man (2011)
Economic Policy Institute, State of Working America Data Library
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Tables
Stephen Burd’s report, “A Case of Predatory Inclusion at Baylor University” (New America), exposes how Baylor steered low-income families into crippling debt through its heavy use of Parent PLUS loans. These federal loans—uncapped and offered without serious consideration of family income—became Baylor’s enrollment weapon of choice, enabling the university to build prestige, rise in rankings, and fund its expansion.
Burd’s framing of predatory inclusion cuts to the core of higher education’s contradictions. Baylor marketed itself as an accessible Christian institution while pushing financial products that trapped vulnerable families in long-term, high-risk debt. Enrollment management firms and internal strategists ensured that this system disproportionately affected those least able to repay.
The piece also places Baylor’s behavior in historical context: a small Baptist school transforming into a national powerhouse through sports, branding, and strategic manipulation of financial aid. It’s a reminder that universities often chase prestige at the expense of their mission.
Importantly, Burd acknowledges Baylor’s attempts to pivot. The Baylor Benefit Scholarship, which covers tuition for students from families earning under $50,000, along with a $1.5 billion campaign that created 870 endowed scholarships, show that reforms are possible. Still, these changes only came after years of exploitative practices that harmed families who trusted the institution.
Where Burd is strongest is in diagnosing the ethical failures of financial aid strategies that masquerade as opportunity. Where the piece is thinner is in mapping the broader systemic nature of the problem. Baylor is not an outlier—similar tactics are common across U.S. higher ed. But Burd’s phrase “predatory inclusion” is a valuable addition to the critical lexicon, one HEI readers should embrace and apply far beyond Waco, Texas.
For those tracking the political economy of higher education, the message is clear: inclusion without support is exploitation. Baylor’s case should be a rallying cry to demand transparency, rein in the misuse of Parent PLUS loans, and expose enrollment management practices that prey on working-class and poor families.
Sources
Stephen Burd, A Case of Predatory Inclusion at Baylor University, New America, June 2025. Link
Eric Hoover, “How Baylor Used Parent PLUS Loans to Climb the Rankings,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 25, 2025.
Josh Mitchell and Andrea Fuller, “Baylor University’s Big Bet on Parent Debt,” Wall Street Journal, October 2021.
Last night, we got great news: We WON our lawsuit challenging the Trump’s administration’s attempt to dismantle research and critical thought at Harvard University.
A federal judge agreed with us and with the Harvard administration that the Trump administration violated the Constitution, the Civil Rights Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act by demanding that Harvard restrict speech and restructure core operations or else face the cancellation of billions in federal funding for the university and its affiliated hospital.
In her ruling, US District Judge Allison Burroughs found that the administration’s actions, which included freezing and canceling more than $2 billion in research grants, violated the First Amendment rights of Harvard and of Harvard’s faculty and amounted to “retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion.” Her ruling vacates the government’s funding freeze and permanently blocks it from using similar reasoning to deny grants to Harvard in the future.
In April, the national AAUP and our Harvard chapter, alongside the United Auto Workers, filed the lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump administration’s attack on Harvard. Pressured by our filing, the Harvard administration subsequently filed suit and the cases were linked.
Many of Judge Burroughs’s findings responded primarily to the claims of AAUP members, particularly about harms to research, First Amendment violations, and attacks on academic freedom.
This is a huge win not just for AAUP members at Harvard but for all of American higher education, for science, and for free and critical thought in this country. The Trump administration’s attempts to restrict speech and cripple lifesaving research are widespread, affecting every state and type of institution in the nation. As this victory shows, Trump’s war on higher education is unconstitutional. We will continue to stand up and fight back against these attempts to dismantle our universities, terrify students and faculty, and punish hospitals and scientific research for not bowing to authoritarianism. And we will win.
Since its founding in 1944, the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) has been a cornerstone of educational equity in the United States. Created to support historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), UNCF has helped hundreds of thousands of students access higher education and achieve their dreams.
Public Service Announcement for the United Negro College Fund from 1977 features Ray Charles.
UNCF’s mission is simple yet powerful: to increase the number of African American college graduates by providing scholarships, supporting HBCUs, and advocating for minority education. Each year, the organization awards more than 10,000 scholarships through over 400 programs, helping students overcome financial barriers and persist through college.
The impact is measurable. UNCF scholarship recipients graduate at rates significantly higher than the national average for African American students. Its member institutions—37 HBCUs across the country—continue to produce leaders in every field, from science and medicine to the arts and public service.
Beyond financial aid, UNCF has played a vital role in shaping public discourse around education. Its iconic slogan, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” introduced in 1972, remains one of the most recognized and enduring messages in nonprofit history. The phrase encapsulates the organization’s belief in the transformative power of education and the urgency of investing in young minds.
Under the leadership of Dr. Michael L. Lomax, UNCF continues to evolve, expanding its reach through partnerships, fellowships, and policy advocacy. In an era of rising tuition and persistent inequality, UNCF remains a vital force—empowering students, strengthening institutions, and reminding the nation that talent is universal, but opportunity is not.
Sources:
United Negro College Fund official website
UNCF Annual Reports and Impact Data
“A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste” campaign history, Ad Council
Interview with Dr. Michael L. Lomax, The Chronicle of Higher Education
University of California (UC) President James Milliken has sounded an alarm over what he calls one of the “gravest threats” in the institution’s 157-year history. In testimony before state lawmakers, Milliken outlined a looming financial crisis sparked by sweeping federal funding cuts and unprecedented political demands from the Trump administration.
The UC system — spanning 10 campuses, five medical centers, and serving hundreds of thousands of students and patients — receives more than $17 billion in federal funds annually. That includes $9.9 billion in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, $5.7 billion in research dollars, and $1.9 billion in student financial aid. According to Milliken, much of this funding is now at risk.
Already, UCLA alone has seen more than $500 million in research grants cut. On top of that, the administration has levied a $1.2 billion penalty against the system, alleging that UCLA and other campuses failed to adequately address antisemitism.
“These shortfalls, combined with the administration’s punitive demands, could devastate our university and cause enormous harm to our students, our patients, and all Californians,” Milliken warned. He has requested at least $4 to $5 billion annually in state aid to blunt the impact of federal cuts.
More Than a Budget Fight
The Trump administration has tied federal funding to sweeping political conditions, including:
Release of detailed admissions data.
Restrictions on protests.
Elimination of race-related scholarships and diversity hiring.
A ban on gender-affirming care for minors at UCLA health centers.
Critics argue that these conditions amount to political blackmail, undermining both academic freedom and healthcare access.
California Governor Gavin Newsom denounced the federal measures as “extortion” and “a page out of the authoritarian playbook.” Thirty-three state legislators urged UC leaders “not to back down in the face of this political shakedown.”
Protesters in the Crossfire
Yet while UC leaders frame themselves as defenders of free inquiry, many students and faculty who have protested war, racism, and inequality have found themselves silenced by the very system that now claims victimhood.
2011 UC Davis Occupy Protest: Images of police casually pepper-spraying seated students went viral, symbolizing the university’s harsh response to peaceful dissent.
2019 UC Santa Cruz Graduate Worker Strike: Graduate students demanding a cost-of-living adjustment were fired, evicted, or disciplined rather than heard.
2022 UC Irvine Labor Strikes: Workers organizing for fair pay and job security faced heavy-handed tactics from administrators.
2023–24 Gaza Encampments: UC campuses, including UCLA and UC Berkeley, called in police to dismantle student encampments protesting U.S. and UC complicity in Israel’s war in Gaza. Dozens of students were arrested, suspended, or disciplined for their participation.
These incidents show a pattern: UC celebrates academic freedom in official statements, but clamps down when protests threaten its ties to corporate donors, political interests, or foreign governments.
As one Berkeley student put it during the Gaza protests: “The university claims it’s under attack from Trump’s censorship — but it censors us every single day.”
UC’s Own Accountability Problem
Beyond silencing dissent, UC has been unresponsive to many Californians on broader issues: rising tuition, limited in-state enrollment, reliance on low-paid adjuncts, and partnerships with corporations that profit from student debt and labor precarity. For many working families, UC feels less like a public institution and more like an elite research enterprise serving industry and politics.
This contradiction makes the current crisis double-edged. UC is indeed being targeted by the Trump administration, but it also faces a legitimacy crisis at home.
Looking Ahead
Milliken, who took office as UC President on August 1, is lobbying state lawmakers to commit billions annually to offset federal cuts. But UC’s survival may hinge not only on political deals in Sacramento, but also on whether it can rebuild trust with the Californians it has too often sidelined — including the protesters and whistleblowers who have been warning for years about its drift away from public accountability.
The larger struggle, then, is not just UC versus Washington. It is about whether a public university system can still live up to its mission of serving the people — not corporations, not politicians, and not the wealthy few who hold the purse strings.
Sources:
University of California Office of the President
California State Legislature records
Statements from Gov. Gavin Newsom
U.S. Department of Justice communications
Higher Education Inquirer archives on UC protest suppression and public accountability
Coverage of UC Davis pepper-spray incident (2011), UC Santa Cruz COLA strike (2019), UC Irvine labor strikes (2022), Gaza encampment crackdowns (2023–24)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has sparked a crisis in American public health and higher education through his aggressive campaign to dismantle the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Long a cornerstone of federal responsibility for health, welfare, and biomedical research, HHS employed more than 80,000 people and administered over $1.7 trillion annually before Kennedy’s interventions and influence over policy in 2025.
Historical Context: Eisenhower to Kennedy
In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched Reorganization Plan No. 1 to create the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), marking a pivotal moment in the federal government's role in public well-being. By elevating health, education, and social security programs to cabinet-level status, Eisenhower signaled a bold commitment to addressing the needs of a rapidly changing postwar America.
The move consolidated scattered agencies under one umbrella, aiming to improve administrative efficiency and policy coordination. For higher education, this reorganization laid the groundwork for expanded federal involvement in student aid, institutional support, and educational research.
Vaccines became a formal part of the federal health mission under HEW in the 1950s and 1960s, as the U.S. government began to take a more active role in immunization programs. The turning point was the polio vaccine, licensed in 1955, which prompted widespread federal coordination to distribute and administer vaccines across the country.
President Lyndon B. Johnson transformed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into a driving force behind his ambitious Great Society agenda, using it to expand the federal government's role in education and public health. Under his leadership, HEW administered landmark programs like Medicare and Medicaid, revolutionizing access to healthcare for the elderly and poor. In higher education, Johnson championed the Higher Education Act of 1965, which HEW implemented to provide financial aid, strengthen colleges and universities, and open doors for underserved students. HEW became not just a bureaucratic body but a vehicle for social mobility, equity, and national progress—reflecting Johnson’s belief that education was the key to unlocking America’s full potential.
HHS itself was born from a major federal reorganization. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon proposed to consolidate the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into HHS. Nixon’s move was intended to streamline operations, but it left the U.S. with a robust federal apparatus to manage national health challenges.
Under Jimmy Carter the HHS was formed in 1979, creating a centralized agency tasked with managing health policy, Medicare and Medicaid, public health research, and social programs.
Decades later, Kennedy has argued that HHS is bloated, inefficient, and beholden to corporate and pharmaceutical interests. Through a series of public campaigns and policy interventions, he has influenced the administration to break up HHS, pushing programs down to states or folding them into smaller offices.
Fallout at the CDC
The changes at HHS have had immediate and dramatic consequences at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Kennedy publicly criticized the agency and its leadership, leading to the firing of CDC Director Dr. Marsha Reynolds and sparking a wave of resignations among senior officials. Experts warn that this leadership vacuum jeopardizes the U.S.’s ability to respond to disease outbreaks, maintain vaccination programs, and oversee critical public health surveillance. Internal memos reveal that morale at CDC is at historic lows, with key epidemiologists and lab directors leaving amid uncertainty over funding and administrative oversight.
Impacts on Higher Education and Research
Universities and medical schools are facing cascading consequences. HHS, primarily through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has long been the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, distributing over $45 billion annually. Institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and Stanford rely heavily on these funds to support laboratories, graduate students, and clinical trials.
With NIH programs frozen or disrupted due to policy shifts, medical schools are seeing stalled research projects, disrupted residency programs, and shrinking training pipelines in critical specialties. Universities dependent on HHS-administered scholarships, loan repayments, and childcare subsidies for students and staff are struggling to fill the gaps. Without federal coordination, these programs risk becoming inconsistent across states, deepening inequality in education and healthcare access.
National Security and Global Competitiveness
Experts warn that the dismantling of HHS and the destabilization of CDC erode the nation’s capacity to respond to pandemics, bioterrorism, and other public health emergencies. The U.S.’s global leadership in biomedical research is at stake, with rival countries like China, India, and the EU increasingly capable of attracting talent and funding.
A Divisive Legacy
Supporters of Kennedy argue that decentralizing HHS empowers states and reduces bureaucratic overreach. Critics counter that the move threatens public health, medical education, and national security. Universities, research hospitals, and public health agencies are now navigating an uncertain future, with millions of Americans reliant on HHS programs feeling the immediate impact.
From Eisenhower's founding of HEW to Kennedy’s dismantling of HHS, the trajectory of federal health governance has shifted dramatically. The consequences of these decisions—on research, higher education, and public safety—will likely be felt for decades.
Sources
National Institutes of Health. “NIH Budget and Historical Trends.” nih.gov
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “National Health Expenditure Data.” cms.gov
Congressional Research Service. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Overview and Budget Trends. 2024.
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). “Federal Support for Medical Education and Research.” aamc.org
CDC Internal Communications (leaked memos, 2025)
Higher Education Inquirer archives on federal research funding and policy shifts
