Will Maximus and Its Subsidiary AidVantage See Cuts?

Maximus Inc., the parent company of federal student loan servicer Aidvantage, is facing growing financial and existential threats as the Trump administration completes a radical budget proposal that would slash Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars and cut the U.S. Department of Education in half. These proposed changes could gut the very federal contracts that have fueled Maximus's revenue and investor confidence over the last two decades. Once seen as a steady player in the outsourcing of public services, Maximus now stands at the edge of a political and technological cliff.

The proposed Trump budget includes a plan to eliminate the Office of Federal Student Aid and transfer the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration. This proposed restructuring would remove Aidvantage and other servicers from their current roles, replacing them with yet-unnamed alternatives. While Maximus has profited enormously from servicing loans through Aidvantage—one of the major federal loan servicers—it is unclear whether the company has any role in this new Trump-led student loan regime. The SBA, which lacks experience managing consumer lending and repayment infrastructure, could subcontract to politically favored firms or simply allow artificial intelligence to replace human collectors altogether.

This possibility is not far-fetched. A 2023 study by Yale Insights explored how AI systems are already outperforming human debt collectors in efficiency, compliance, and scalability. The report examined the growing use of bots to handle borrower communication, account resolution, and payment tracking. These developments could render Maximus’s human-heavy servicing model obsolete. If the federal government shifts toward automated collection, it could bypass Maximus entirely, either through privatized tech-driven firms or through internal platforms that require fewer labor-intensive contracts.

On the health and human services side of the business, Maximus is also exposed. The company has long served as a contractor for Medicaid programs across several states, managing call centers and eligibility support. But with Medicaid facing potentially devastating cuts in the proposed Trump budget, Maximus’s largest and most stable contracts could disappear. The company’s TES-RCM division has already shown signs of unraveling, with anonymous reports suggesting a steep drop-off in clients and the departure of long-time employees. One insider claimed, “Customers are dropping like flies as are longtime employees. Not enough people to do the little work we have.”

Remote Maximus employees are also reporting layoffs and instability, particularly in Iowa, where 34 remote workers were terminated after two decades of contract work on state Medicaid programs. Anxiety is spreading across internal forums and layoff boards, as workers fear they may soon be out of a job in a shrinking and increasingly automated industry. Posts on TheLayoff.com and in investor forums indicate growing unease about the company’s long-term viability, particularly in light of the federal budget priorities now taking shape in Washington.

While Maximus stock (MMS) continues to trade with relative strength and still appears profitable on paper, it is increasingly reliant on government spending that may no longer exist under a Trump administration intent on dismantling large parts of the federal bureaucracy. If student loan servicing is eliminated, transferred, or automated, and Medicaid contracts dry up due to funding cuts, Maximus could lose two of its biggest revenue streams in a matter of months. The company’s contract with the Department of Education, once seen as a long-term asset, may become a political liability in a system being restructured to reward loyalty and reduce regulatory oversight.

The question now is not whether Maximus will be forced to downsize—it already is—but whether it will remain a relevant player in the new federal landscape at all. As artificial intelligence, austerity, and ideological realignment converge, Maximus may be remembered less for its dominance and more for how quickly it became unnecessary.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue tracking developments affecting federal student loan servicers, government contractors, and the broader collapse of the administrative state.

Trump's Department of Education Continues to Drag Feet on Borrower Defense

On June 26th, the US Department of Education was brought to the Ninth District Court (and Judge Alsup) to show how many the Borrower Defense to Repayment cases that have been resolved per court order.  

While we wait for a transcript of the latest episode of Sweet v McMahon, what we can tell you is that the Trump government continues to drag its feet in paying back debtors who have been defrauded.  

According to Theresa Sweet:

“We really need Borrower Defense applicants included in both the full and post class of Sweet to send any denials to the Project on Predatory Student Lending. It’s important for the legal team to be able to track this and make sure there are no patterns of boilerplate denials or mass denials. It’s also really important to remember that if a Sweet class or post class member gets a denial it should include a Revise and Resubmit notice, which *must* be resubmitted on time or the denial becomes final unless the person takes it to court on their own.”

More than 950.000 student loan debtors have filed borrower defense fraud claims.

University of Virginia President is Latest Casualty of Trump's War Against Higher Education

In a political environment increasingly hostile to independent academic thought, University of Virginia President James E. Ryan has become the latest victim of a broader right-wing campaign to reshape American higher education. On June 26, 2025, President Ryan announced he would step down in 2026 amid escalating political pressure from Governor Glenn Youngkin and conservative donors aligned with former President Donald Trump’s ideological movement.

Ryan’s departure signals a new phase in what many scholars, faculty advocates, and civil liberties organizations describe as a calculated “war on higher education.” This campaign—led by Trump-aligned political figures and well-funded conservative think tanks—seeks to silence dissent, reshape curricula, and exert direct control over public universities once considered bastions of academic freedom.

From Jefferson's Dream to a Political Battleground

Founded by Thomas Jefferson as an Enlightenment-era experiment in self-governance and inquiry, the University of Virginia (UVA) has long held symbolic and practical importance in debates over the role of public higher education. But in the Trump era—and its aftermath—UVA has become a target for ideologues determined to transform universities into instruments of state-aligned conservatism.

Under Governor Youngkin, a UVA alumnus with close ties to Trump’s network of political operatives and donors, the Board of Visitors has seen a rightward shift. Youngkin has appointed multiple trustees who are openly critical of so-called “woke ideology,” DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs, and what they describe as the “leftist capture” of the academy.

Behind the scenes, donors aligned with conservative power brokers—some of whom also back organizations like the Manhattan Institute and the Heritage Foundation—have pushed for greater oversight of faculty hiring, curriculum design, and student programming. These efforts have been coupled with demands for ideological “balance,” often interpreted as enforced conservatism within departments historically committed to independent research and peer-reviewed scholarship.

The Pressure Mounts

President Ryan, who took office in 2018, initially enjoyed broad support. A legal scholar and former dean of Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, he worked to increase access for low-income students, build partnerships across ideological lines, and maintain UVA’s national reputation as a top-tier research institution.

But in the polarized landscape of post-2020 politics, Ryan found himself increasingly isolated. His support for DEI initiatives and resistance to political interference in hiring practices drew fire from right-wing media and activists who accused him of promoting “Marxism” and “anti-American” values. Conservative lawmakers in Virginia began threatening funding, while pressure from the Board of Visitors grew more intense and public.

By spring 2025, insiders say, it became clear that Ryan was being pushed toward the door. His announcement on June 26 came just months after similar resignations or removals of university leaders in Florida, Texas, and North Carolina—all states where Republican governors and legislatures have tightened their grip on higher education institutions.

Part of a Broader Campaign

Ryan’s resignation is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a national trend of politically motivated purges of university leadership. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis oversaw the forced transformation of New College into a conservative stronghold, appointing culture warriors to the board and replacing leadership. In Texas, universities have seen crackdowns on DEI offices, faculty tenure protections, and academic freedom under the guise of “protecting free speech.”

Former President Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly framed colleges and universities as enemies of the people, accusing them of indoctrinating youth and undermining national unity. Trump-aligned media outlets have amplified attacks on liberal arts programs, gender studies departments, and student activism, framing higher education as a battleground in the culture war.

Meanwhile, dark money groups such as the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) and the Federalist Society continue to shape governance reforms that reduce faculty power and increase donor and political influence. Some universities have faced legislation requiring loyalty pledges or mandating ideological reporting, tactics reminiscent of Cold War-era McCarthyism.

The Stakes for the Future

The forced resignation of James Ryan represents more than the loss of a single university president—it is a bellwether of a changing higher education landscape. The public university, once envisioned as a bulwark of democratic inquiry and upward mobility, is being redefined by those who see knowledge not as a public good but as a political threat.

For faculty, staff, and students at UVA and beyond, the message is chilling: conform or be replaced. The right’s war on higher education shows no signs of slowing. With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon and the Trump faction consolidating control over multiple states, more university leaders may soon face the same fate as President Ryan.

In this struggle, what is at stake is not only academic freedom, but the future of American democracy.

Trump, Hegseth, and the Bombing of Iran: Taking the Bait at America’s Peril

The sudden arrival of the U.S. Air Force's E-4B “Doomsday Plane” at Joint Base Andrews this week has reignited fears of impending military escalation in the Middle East. As speculation swirls online and among defense analysts, President Donald Trump and his Fox News consigliere Pete Hegseth appear to be inching dangerously close to embracing a war plan that plays into the hands of both their domestic political ambitions and the geopolitical strategies of their adversaries.

The E-4B, also known as “Nightwatch,” is no ordinary aircraft. Built to survive a nuclear attack, maintain satellite command and control in the event of total ground disruption, and oversee the execution of emergency war orders, its presence near Washington, D.C. signals something far more than routine military procedure. The use of a rare callsign—"ORDER01"—instead of the standard "ORDER6" only stokes the sense that we are on the brink of another catastrophic foreign policy decision.

This show of force comes amid rising tensions with Iran, exacerbated by ongoing Israeli aggression and increased Iranian defiance. But rather than de-escalate or seek diplomatic offramps, Trump and Hegseth—cheered on by neoconservative holdovers and MAGA populists—seem eager to provoke or retaliate with military might.

Political Theater with Global Consequences

The specter of bombing Iran isn’t just about foreign policy—it’s political theater. In the lead-up to a contentious election cycle, Trump is once again playing the wartime president, wielding fear and nationalism to consolidate support. For Hegseth, a veteran turned right-wing media figure, the promise of patriotic glory and "restoring American strength" makes for good ratings and even better branding. Both men are using the possibility of war as a campaign tool—recklessly gambling with global stability.

Yet the U.S. has nothing to gain from an expanded conflict with Iran. If anything, such an act plays directly into the strategic interests of hardliners in Tehran and Tel Aviv alike. For Iran’s theocratic regime, American aggression would bolster internal solidarity and justify further authoritarian crackdowns. For Israel’s leadership, it would secure unwavering U.S. allegiance in their own campaign of regional dominance. For both, American bombs would mean the end of diplomatic ambiguity.

Higher Education and the Fog of War

War is also profitable—for defense contractors, media networks, and privatized universities that specialize in churning out online degrees in homeland security and intelligence studies. Institutions like the Liberty University, whose ads routinely appear alongside war reporting, are the educational arm of the war economy, training an underpaid, precariously employed labor force in service of endless conflict. These for-profit institutions have long aligned themselves with militarism, offering “education benefits” that function as recruitment tools for the armed forces.

Meanwhile, real intellectual inquiry is under siege. Faculty who question U.S. foreign policy—particularly in the Middle East—face surveillance, harassment, and cancellation. Dissenting students are monitored. Grants for critical research dry up, while think tanks funded by the arms industry flourish. Universities become staging grounds for ideological conformity, not bastions of free thought.

Taking the Bait

Trump and Hegseth are being lured into a trap—one that benefits the very global elites they claim to oppose. Escalating with Iran serves the military-industrial complex, shores up Israeli hardliners, and consolidates state power under the guise of national emergency. At home, it means more surveillance, more censorship, and more austerity for working families already reeling from inflation and housing insecurity.

In the end, the cost of war will not be borne by Trump or Hegseth. It will be borne by low-income soldiers, the people of Iran, and the students who forgo education for military service. It will be paid for by cutting healthcare, housing, and higher education. And it will hollow out American democracy, all while propping up the illusion of strength.

This is not leadership. This is entrapment. And it’s time we said so—loudly, before the next bombs drop.

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.

The War on Education: Reclaiming Critical Thought in an Age of Fascism (Henry Giroux)

As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt note in How Democracies Die, authoritarianism no longer announces itself with marching boots or military coups. It now emerges through culture, through the seductive rhythms of social media, viral spectacles, and the normalization of cruelty. Today, culture is not just a backdrop to politics and historical amnesia; it is politics embedded in the erasure of historical memory. It teaches us how to see, what to remember, whom to fear, and what to forget. In this age of resurgent authoritarianism, culture functions as a powerful pedagogy of domination.

We are living through a dismal age, one where anti-intellectualism is no longer masked, but paraded as a form of virtue. A fascist monoculture thrives, dull and mechanized, overrun by wooden stuntmen, empathy-hating billionaires, and artists like Kanye West who unashamedly praise Hitler. Meanwhile, podcast ventriloquists spew algorithmic bile into the void. In the ruins of the university, too many so-called leaders and their bureaucratic accountants now lend legitimacy to what Herbert Marcuse once called “scholarshit,” a travesty of thought, dressed in the empty rituals of managerial reason, budget-cutting cruelty, and unapologetic brutality. “Scholarshit'” masquerades as intellectual discourse while stripping it of genuine engagement with critical inquiry. It thrives on jargon and pretension, prioritizing form over substance, and favoring self-congratulatory cleverness over meaningful argument. In its hollow rhetoric, the complexities of society are reduced to buzzwords and superficial analyses, its practitioners more concerned with appearing intellectually sophisticated than engaging in any real critique. This approach to scholarship fosters intellectual laziness, encouraging an atmosphere where complexity is simplified, nuance is erased, and true critical thought is marginalized in favor of what passes for cleverness but lacks depth or insight. Never has the need for critical education and a shift in mass consciousness been more urgent. Never has it been more crucial to recognize education as both a force for empowerment and a powerful mode of colonization.

In an age when instrumentalism and techno-fascism dominates the culture, reducing education to mere training and suffocating pedagogy under the weight of indoctrination, it becomes more urgent than ever to reclaim the university as a space for reflection, critique, and ethical imagination. Instrumentalism erases social responsibility, dismisses matters of justice, and detaches learning from the deeper relations of power. It exchanges depth for compliance and, in the process, robs education of its emancipatory promise.

We have witnessed this logic unfold in so-called liberal movements like "teaching to the test" and in the ongoing proliferation of Teaching and Learning Centers, which often reduce education to a toolbox of technical skills. As Ariella Aïsha Azoulay warns, these practices resemble the workings of "imperial technologies", systems designed to manage learning without nurturing an awareness of injustice, to flatten thought, and to detach education from the struggle for democratic agency and pedagogical citizenship.

Consider Elon Musk, hailed by some as a visionary for creating Tesla and fueling fantasies of colonizing Mars. Beneath this gleaming myth, however, lies a far more disturbing reality. Musk has made Nazi salutes, trafficked in dangerous conspiracy theories, and, as Michelle Goldberg noted in The New York Times, exhibits a chilling disdain for empathy, paired with "breathless cruelty." This cruelty is not abstract; it manifests in the real world, where the policies Musk champions have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Africa. His power is not merely technological; it is ideological, shaping a culture that confuses megalomania with genius and elevates indifference to suffering as a mark of strength. This is more than a collapse of civic literacy, it is a toxic poison, destroying any vestige of civic consciousness, solidarity, and social responsibility.

Cruelty has become the currency of power, the measure by which dominance is asserted and human worth discarded. Bill Gates, in a moment of moral clarity, acknowledged the gravity of shuttering USAID, conceding that he “bore the responsibility of risking a resurgence of diseases such as measles, HIV, and polio.” But his warning grew even more damning when, in The Financial Times, he described Elon Musk—once heralded as a symbol of techno-utopian promise—as “the world’s richest man killing the world’s poorest children.” Yet even Gates understates the larger architecture of violence at work. Trump’s so-called “beautiful budget bill” is not merely a policy document—it is a blueprint for social abandonment, a death sentence rendered in the language of austerity. It slashes funding for child nutrition programs, strips health care from millions, and eviscerates what remains of the social state. In its wake rises a machinery of disposability—a punishing state that targets the poor, the vulnerable, and people of color, turning the politics of governance into a war zone where compassion is silenced and suffering normalized. This is gangster capitalism on steroids--unleashed, utterly devoid of any social responsibility and drunk on its own greed, power, corruption, and fascist principles.

This silence speaks to a deeper void in higher education, one that raises crucial questions about the burden of conscience in education. It is no longer enough to champion STEM disciplines while starving the liberal arts and humanities. It is not enough for humanities students to dwell only in critique, disconnected from the technological world around them. What we need is a fusion of literacies, a pedagogy that teaches technical competence without sacrificing moral imagination; a pedagogy that nurtures civic literacy, historical awareness, the capacity to think beyond disciplines, and the courage to cross borders of culture, identity, and thought.

The attacks facing higher education today are more than a political or economic crisis, they also speak to a cultural catastrophe, a struggle over civic consciousness, critical literacy, and the promise of higher education as a democratic public good. Higher education has become prime target because it offers the promise to students of pedagogical citizenship—a pedagogy that enables young people to attentive, critical, knowledgeable, and able to hold power accountable. That is why higher education is viewed as dangerous to the authoritarian neanderthals attacking higher education. At the core of the crackdown on higher education is a project that successfully enables society to forget how to think, to feel, and to remember, practices that provide a fertile ground for creating fascist subjects.  Under such conditions, grotesque acts become normalized,  children are starved in Gaza, immigrant families are torn apart, and the horror of state terrorism fades into the background noise of spectacle and distraction.

And yet, culture remains a vital site of possibility. José Mujica, former president of Uruguay, reminded us that real change does not begin with laws or institutions, but with the values that shape how people see the world. You cannot build a society rooted in justice with individuals trained to prize greed, selfishness, and domination. As he put it, “You can’t construct a new kind of future with people whose hearts still belong to the old one.” The struggle for radical democracy must begin in the realm of culture, where imagination is nurtured, public conscience awakened, and the seeds of transformation take root.

Language itself has been hijacked, bent to the will of a colonizing legacy steeped in hatred, disposability, genocide, and a culture of unapologetic cruelty. Neo-Nazis march without shame, white supremacists shape the conservative cultural machinery, and racist policies are no longer whispered but codified. Nazi salutes are back in fashion. Universities are increasingly transformed into sites of indoctrination and surveillance, more attuned to the logic of police precincts than places of critical learning. Students who dare to protest the genocidal assault on Palestinians in Gaza are abducted, vilified, and silenced. The most powerful white nationalist on the planet parades corruption as a political virtue and deploys state terror as a primary tool of governance. Solidarity is reconfigured into communities of hate, while resistance to fascism is rebranded as terrorism. Beneath these crimes against humanity lies a culture hollowed out by the absence of reason, moral clarity, and the capacity to hold power accountable. The ghost of fascism has not merely returned; it has taken up residence and been made ordinary.

The age of lofty visions has been cast aside, discarded like ideological refuse. Yet without such visions, rooted in the hard labor and hopeful promise of democracy and the critical function of education, we are left adrift. In their place stand administrators who act as high-powered accountants, students shaped by a culture of commodification and conformity, and a precarious academic labor force paid less than Wall-Mart greeters and clerks. Meanwhile, racism, white nationalism, and Christian fundamentalism gather momentum, extinguishing the flickering lights that once illuminated the path toward a radical democracy. When higher education no longer serves as a vessel for ethical imagination and collective hope, it becomes complicit in its own undoing, and with it, democracy itself teeters on the edge.

As educators, we must fight for a vision of higher education as both sanctuary and catalyst, a place where democracy is not only studied but enacted, where students are not trained to be efficient machines, but cultivated into thinking, feeling, and acting human beings. We need an education in which a culture of questioning is not punished but nurtured, where talking back is a civic virtue, and where the pursuit of equity and justice is central to the very purpose of teaching and learning. Such an education must be grounded in the principles of civic literacy, historical consciousness, and a systemic understanding of power—one that connects private troubles to public issues and expands the possibilities for individual and collective agency.

This is the foundation upon which a radical democracy must be built, and it is the defining pedagogical task of our time. If we fail in this responsibility, higher education will surrender its role as a vital civic sphere—one essential to producing the narratives, knowledge, and capacities that sustain the promise of equality, justice, freedom, and compassion. In abandoning that mission, it will not merely falter; it will aid in its own unraveling. And with it, democracy will edge ever closer to collapse.

Donald Trump understands this. That is why he fears critical education. That is why he wages war on it.

MASSIVE RALLIES PLANNED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPPORTING NATIONWIDE “NO KINGS DAY” PROTESTS JUNE 14TH

San Diego, June 6, 2025 – More than 20 San Diego area organizations have come together to organize safe and peaceful marches and rallies in defense of American Democracy on “No Kings Day” June 14, 2025.

The central event will be a large march and rally between 10am and noon at Waterfront Park in downtown San Diego, building on the “Hands Off Our Rights” rally April 5th that drew more than 30-thousand participants.

This coincides with a series of events throughout the county and nationwide to draw attention away from a “Grand Military Parade” estimated to cost as much as $45 million on President Donald Trump’s birthday.

“This is the kind of vanity parade we would expect to see in Russia or North Korea, not in a democracy” said Allison Gill, award-winning podcaster, who will be speaking at the rally.

Officially the “grand parade” is said to honor the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. However, the massive parade of tanks, helicopters and thousands of soldiers in Washington, DC, also takes place on the President’s 79th birthday.

“No matter what the parade is called, our democracy is under attack. Donald Trump and his allies are dismantling democratic institutions to consolidate power and money at the expense of the rest of us. This is not a cause for celebration,” said Wendy Gelernter, one of the event organizers.

Specifically the rally will oppose:

An end to efforts to centralize executive power as laid out in Project 2025

Protection for democratic institutions, civil rights and the rule of law

Transparency, accountability, and truth over chaos, cruelty and corruption

Elected leadership and good governance that serves the people — not personal power, personal enrichment or spectacle.

“It is unconscionable to spend this kind of money when the veterans in our area are being stripped of their benefits to reduce government spending, and budgets are being slashed for health services, food programs for hungry children, and vital medical research at San Diego area universities,” added Misty O’Healy of Indivisible49.

Multiple San Diego County events have been organized in support of the June 14 action. On June 8th, hundreds of people will form a human “No Kings” banner in Ocean Beach. On June 14th, a news conference is scheduled with local Congressional and civic leaders in Waterfront Park at 9:15 ahead of the march there. And more rallies and protests will take place in about a dozen communities throughout the county including Escondido, Chula Vista and Oceanside/Carlsbad. (A complete list can be found at NoKings.org.). “While Donald Trump may be remembered as the most divisive President in American history, he has done a unique and extraordinary job of unifying Americans across San Diego and the Nation who reject his wanna-be authoritarian approach to governance,” said Frances Yasmeen Motiwalla, of Activist San Diego.

Allison Gill concluded ”We overthrew a monarch 250 years ago. And we are not going back!”

More information and a full list of participating organizations can be found at https://takeactionsandiego.org/hub/partners.html

To coordinate media activities day-of, please contact: Mark Sauer, marksauer2@gmail.com, (619) 643-1024

Medicaid Cuts Threaten Medical and Mental Health Providers Dependent on Medicaid — and Graduates of Online “Robocolleges”

As states grapple with budget shortfalls and federal funding shifts, Medicaid—the nation’s largest public health insurance program—faces potential cuts that could severely impact medical and mental health providers who depend heavily on Medicaid reimbursements. This looming threat not only jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services but also risks destabilizing the very providers that serve some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States.

Medicaid: A Lifeline for Providers and Patients

Medicaid covers over 80 million Americans, including low-income families, people with disabilities, and seniors. For many medical and mental health providers, Medicaid reimbursements constitute a significant portion of their revenue. Clinics in underserved areas, community health centers, and behavioral health providers often rely on Medicaid funding to stay afloat.

The federal-state partnership funds Medicaid, but states have discretion in determining eligibility and reimbursement rates. When states face fiscal pressures, cutting Medicaid funding or tightening reimbursement rates is often considered a quick fix.

The Domino Effect of Medicaid Cuts

Cuts to Medicaid funding translate directly into lower payments to providers. Unlike private insurance, Medicaid rates are often already low. Further reductions can mean providers lose money on each Medicaid patient treated.

This financial strain can force clinics and mental health programs to:

• Reduce services or limit patient intake

• Cut staff, including essential behavioral health professionals

• Close locations, especially in rural or underserved areas

These outcomes create barriers for patients who already face challenges accessing care. Individuals with serious mental illness, chronic conditions, or disabilities are particularly at risk of losing consistent care.

Impact on Medical Education and Training

Medicaid cuts can also disrupt medical and mental health education programs affiliated with teaching hospitals and universities. These programs often serve Medicaid patients in their clinical training sites. Reduced funding means fewer training opportunities for students and residents, potentially exacerbating workforce shortages in critical health fields.

Mental Health Providers: A Vulnerable Sector

Mental health providers are especially vulnerable to Medicaid cuts. Behavioral health services are frequently underfunded compared to general medical care. Medicaid often serves as the primary payer for mental health treatment, including therapy, psychiatric care, and substance use disorder programs.

Cuts could reduce access to outpatient therapy, crisis intervention, and community-based services, worsening outcomes for people with mental health conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the urgent need for robust mental health infrastructure, and cuts threaten to reverse progress made.

Robocollege Graduates: An Overlooked Impact

Another group at risk from Medicaid cuts are recent graduates of online for-profit colleges, sometimes disparagingly called "robocolleges." These institutions often produce graduates with degrees in healthcare-related fields such as nursing, health administration, or medical assisting.

Many of these graduates rely on Medicaid-funded healthcare settings for employment. Clinics and community health centers that serve Medicaid patients are common entry points for these workers. Cuts in Medicaid funding could lead to reduced hiring or layoffs in these settings, disproportionately affecting graduates struggling to launch their careers.

Moreover, the limited job security and lower wages typical of such entry-level positions compound the economic challenges for these workers, many of whom already face significant student debt and limited career mobility.

Broader Social and Economic Consequences

Limiting access to healthcare and mental health services has far-reaching consequences beyond individual health. Untreated illness can lead to increased hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and interactions with the criminal justice system. These outcomes are far more costly to society than preventative or ongoing care.

Policy Recommendations

To protect the health and stability of vulnerable populations, the providers who serve them, and entry-level healthcare workers including robocollege graduates, policymakers should:

• Avoid disproportionate Medicaid cuts that undermine care quality

• Invest in community health centers and behavioral health programs

• Maintain adequate reimbursement rates to sustain provider networks and employment

• Support integrated care models that combine physical and mental health services

• Consider workforce development initiatives that support graduates entering Medicaid-funded care settings

Medicaid is a cornerstone of America’s healthcare safety net, especially for medical and mental health providers serving those in greatest need. Cuts to Medicaid funding threaten not only provider viability but the health and well-being of millions—including the newest healthcare workers striving to build careers. As budget debates continue, preserving and strengthening Medicaid funding is essential to ensuring equitable access to quality care and supporting the providers and workforce on the front lines.

Iranian Students Face Uncertainty Amid Renewed U.S. Travel Ban

On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a sweeping travel ban, restricting entry for nationals from 19 countries—completely barring people from 12 nations and partially restricting those from seven others—citing national security concerns. This move has significant implications for Iranian students seeking education in the United States.

Impact on Iranian Students

Iranian students have historically faced challenges in obtaining U.S. visas due to stringent screening processes and political tensions between the two countries. The renewed travel ban exacerbates these difficulties, effectively halting new visa issuances for most Iranian nationals. 

Many Iranian students, even those admitted to prestigious U.S. universities, are now in limbo. Visa interviews have been suspended, and the processing of existing applications has slowed considerably. Some students have reported waiting over a year for visa approvals, with no clear timeline for resolution.

Legal Challenges and Advocacy

In response to these developments, a group of fifteen Iranian students and researchers filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the indefinite suspension of visa interviews and the expansion of social media vetting for applicants. The plaintiffs argue that these measures are discriminatory and violate the Administrative Procedures Act.

Advocacy organizations have also raised concerns about the broader implications of the travel ban. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) highlighted that federal law prohibits the issuance of student visas for Iranian students seeking to study in fields related to Iran's energy sector or nuclear sciences, further limiting educational opportunities.

Broader Implications for U.S. Higher Education

The travel ban's impact extends beyond individual students, affecting U.S. higher education institutions that benefit from the diversity and talent of international students. Universities may experience decreased enrollment from Iranian students, leading to potential financial and cultural losses. Moreover, the increased scrutiny and visa delays could deter prospective students from considering the U.S. as a viable destination for higher education.

Between Empire and Enterprise: Harvard, Trump, and the Exploitation of International Students

As the Trump administration again targets immigrants and global institutions with punitive policies, international students at Harvard University—one of the world’s most prestigious academic brands—are experiencing what one student leader called “pure panic.” At the center of the storm: a now-halted move by the White House to revoke Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, threatening the legal status of thousands of students from nearly every country in the world.

Harvard responded with swift legal action, accusing the federal government of ideological retaliation. But while the Trump administration deserves criticism for its xenophobic and authoritarian maneuvers, it is equally important to interrogate Harvard’s own role in creating a system where international students are treated as both intellectual capital and financial assets.

Nearly 27% of Harvard’s student body—close to 7,000 individuals—comes from abroad. For decades, Harvard has positioned itself as a global institution, a magnet for the so-called "best and brightest" regardless of national origin. It has used this cosmopolitan image to bolster its prestige, attract philanthropic donations, and justify sky-high tuition rates. In reality, Harvard is not just a university—it is a flagship enterprise in the global neoliberal order.

This model—recruiting international students as both symbols of diversity and sources of income—reflects the logic of global capitalism more than the ideals of education. Harvard’s operations increasingly mirror those of a multinational corporation: high-end branding, worldwide recruitment, aggressive legal defense, and political lobbying. The foreign students it attracts are often among the global elite, or, in many cases, indebted strivers betting their futures on the supposed merits of a Harvard degree. When the political winds shift, as they have under Trump, these students are left exposed.

This is precisely what’s happening now.

Abdullah Shahid Sial, co-president of Harvard’s student body and a Pakistani national, told CNN that students are “very clearly, extremely afraid” about their legal status and whether they can return to campus. Some are stuck abroad, unsure if they’ll be allowed back. Others face suspended research projects or financial uncertainty. Sial praised Harvard officials for trying to help but also acknowledged the limitations. The window to transfer to other schools is closed for many. Aid packages, crucial to international students, don’t travel with them.

This crisis reveals the tension at the heart of elite higher education’s global ambitions. Harvard, like other elite U.S. universities, thrives on internationalism—so long as it serves its institutional goals. But when international students are treated not as community members but as liabilities or bargaining chips in political disputes, the myth of benevolent globalization unravels.

Yes, the Trump administration’s policies are driven by xenophobia and an open hostility to intellectual exchange. But they also expose the fragility and hypocrisy of the global education marketplace. International students are recruited into a system that offers opportunity but no guarantees, prestige but little protection.

Harvard cannot simply claim the moral high ground by suing the federal government. It must also reckon with its deep entanglement in the very structures that commodify students and expose them to geopolitical risk. For all its rhetoric about global citizenship, Harvard’s model remains fundamentally extractive—built to serve elite interests, not global equity.

If the United States is to remain a serious destination for global education, and if Harvard is to be more than a luxury brand in academic robes, the model must change. International students deserve more than branding and brochures. They deserve stability, legal protection, and a voice in the institutions that profit from their presence.

Until then, they remain trapped—between the nationalist paranoia of Washington and the neoliberal empire of Cambridge.

Harvard Pushes Back Against Trump's Threats to Academic Freedom

In a recent letter to the Harvard community, interim president Alan M. Garber sounded an alarm over what he described as an unprecedented threat to the independence of American higher education. The federal government, Garber revealed, has issued a sweeping list of demands—tied to ongoing funding relationships—that Harvard views as overreaching, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the mission of the university.

For more than 75 years, federal partnerships with research institutions like Harvard have fueled major advances in science, medicine, and engineering. These collaborations, Garber noted, have not only improved global health and safety but have also contributed to America’s economic strength. Now, amid heightened scrutiny over accusations of antisemitism on campuses, those partnerships are under threat.

According to Garber, the administration's demands go far beyond addressing antisemitism. They include proposals to audit viewpoints across the campus community and diminish the influence of students and faculty based on their ideological positions. Harvard has rejected the demands, asserting that they violate constitutional protections and Title VI limits, and represent an improper attempt by the federal government to regulate “intellectual conditions” at a private institution.

Garber emphasized that Harvard remains committed to combating antisemitism and fostering an inclusive, open environment for dialogue and learning. He pointed to steps already taken in the past year and reaffirmed the university’s dedication to free speech, due process, and viewpoint diversity.

“This is not just about Harvard,” Garber warned. “It’s about the role of American universities in a free society.” The university insists that teaching, research, and admissions must remain free from political interference, regardless of the party in power.

As pressure mounts, the broader academic community now faces a fundamental question: How much influence should the federal government exert over what is taught and debated in higher education? For Harvard, the answer remains clear: safeguarding academic freedom is essential to fulfilling its mission of truth-seeking—and to preserving the promise of American higher education.

MEDIA ADVISORY UPDATE: 'Hands Off!' March at San Diego Civic Center, April 5 Noon - Protesters to March Demanding Protection of Rights and Services

SAN DIEGO, CA — Community members will gather at the San Diego Civic Center Plaza for a “Hands Off!” march on April 5 to protest DOGE and the Trump administration’s attack on programs and services used by San Diego residents. The local march will coincide with a nationwide day of demonstrations expected to be attended by hundreds of thousands…

Organizers describe the event as a collective response to policies impacting our community. “San Diegans who are veterans, who are postal workers and teachers, who rely on Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare, and who are horrified at the Trump-Musk billionaire takeover of our government are coming together to protest the Trump Administration’s attacks on the rights and services they depend upon, many of them for survival” said Angela Benson, a member of the organizing coalition.

Event Details:

• What: Over 10,000 San Diegans expected to peacefully demand "HANDS OFF!" their rights and services in one of over 1,000 HANDS OFF! events scheduled nationwide on April 5

• Who: Coalition of San Diego Pro-Democracy Groups

• When: Saturday, April 5, noon, 1 mile march to leave approximately 12:15 PM

• Where: March starts at Civic Center Plaza Fountain by 1200 Third St., ends at Hall of Justice at 330 W Broadway

• Transportation: Participants are encouraged to take public transit to the event

Planning group:

• Change Begins With ME

• CBFD Indivisible

• Indivisible49

• Indivisible North San Diego County

• Democratic Club of Carlsbad and Oceanside

• Encinitas and North Coast Democratic Club

• SanDiego350

• Swing Left/Take Action San Diego

• Activist San Diego

• 50501 San Diego

Media Opportunities:

• The following representatives will be available day-of the march for interviews. If interested, please coordinate with Richard (770-653-6138) prior to the event, and plan to arrive at the location marked below by 11:30 AM Pacific

• Representatives

• Sara Jacobs - House of Representatives, CA-51 district

• Scott Peters - House of Representatives, CA-50 district

• Chris Ward - California State Assemblymember, 78 district

• Stephen Whitburn - San Diego Councilmember

• Reverend Madison Shockley II - Pilgrim United Church of Christ

• Yusef Miller - Executive Director of North County Equity & Justice Coalition

• Brigette Browning - Executive Secretary San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council and President, Unite Here!

• Crystal Irving - President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

• Andy Kopp - Veteran

• Patrick Saunders - Veteran

• Phil Petrie - SanDiego350, Climate Activist

• Recommended Schedule

• 11:30 AM - 11:40 AM: Representative introductions - Group/cause they’re representing, why they’re marching

• 11:40 AM - 12:05 PM: Representatives break off, available for interview by Press

• 12:05 PM - 12:15 PM: Representatives move to beginning of march

• 12:15 PM: March begins

• 12:15 PM - 2:00 PM: March to Hall of Justice

• 2:00 PM: March ends at Hall of Justice, participants may disperse or continue to federal plaza

Trump’s Education Department is Closing. And Also Starting A Long Rulemaking Process. (David Halperin)

Although President Donald J. Trump last month signed an executive order directing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” and although DOGE efforts and layoffs have cut the Department staff by half, the Department announced today that it will embark on an extensive round of meetings to draft new regulations governing student financial aid.

Unlike most federal agencies, the Department is generally required to engage in an elaborate process called negotiated rulemaking before it can issue or cancel regulations. This has meant — on issues from campus sexual assault to performance standards guarding against predatory college abuses — years of public hearings, formal convenings of rulemaking panels, written public comments and meetings on draft regulations, and more. It also has produced a decades-long ping pong match of final regulations made by one party and overwritten by the other, from the Obama to Trump I to Biden, followed by years of court challenges.

The first Trump administration staffed its higher education jobs with former executives of predatory for-profit colleges, and they eliminated both regulations and enforcement efforts aimed at protecting students and holding predatory schools accountable.

Today’s notice, signed by James P. Bergeron, Acting Under Secretary of Education, says the first round of Trump II negotiated rulemaking will likely include consideration of Public Service Loan Forgiveness and other loan repayment programs “or other topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance programs.”

Other language in the notice suggests the Department may go deep, perhaps working to cancel the Biden rules creating performance standards for for-profit and career college programs (the gainful employment rule) and providing debt relief for students scammed by their colleges and government recoupment of funds from dishonest schools (the borrower defense rule). The notice opines that current regulations “may be inhibiting innovation and contributing to rising college costs” and that it wants to “streamline” the rules “while maintaining or improving program integrity and institutional quality.” “Innovation,” while a great thing for education when it can really happen, has been a buzzword used by the for-profit college industry to fight against rules aimed at protecting against predatory programs. Gutting the Biden rules would increase the vulnerability of both students and taxpayers to billions in waste, fraud, and abuse from deceptive, poor quality schools — even though the stated purpose of DOGE is to halt government excess.

When pro-student Democratic members of the House of Representatives  held a press conference outside the Department headquarters yesterday after they met with McMahon to discuss such concerns, she followed them. But she quickly fled when Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) asked her when she would shut down the building.

The Department’s rulemaking process begins with public hearings on April 29 and May 1, the first in-person at Department headquarters and the second online. Advocates for students and taxpayers should register to speak and show up to make their voices heard.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]

 

"We Are Killing the Essence of What the University Is": Dr. Joanne Liu on NYU Canceling Her Talk (Democracy Now!)

 

The former international head of Doctors Without Borders is speaking out after New York University canceled her presentation, saying some of her slides could be viewed as "anti-governmental" and "antisemitic" because they mentioned the Trump administration's cuts to foreign aid and deaths of humanitarian workers in Israel's war on Gaza. Dr. Joanne Liu, a Canadian pediatric emergency medicine physician, was scheduled to speak at NYU, her alma mater, on March 19 and had been invited almost a year ago to discuss the challenges of humanitarian crises. Censoring speech is "killing the essence of what the university is about," says Liu. "I truly and strongly believe that universities are the temple of knowledge."

Trump Dismantles US Institute of Museum and Library Services (YT Daily News)

The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has put its entire staff on administrative leave following President Trump's executive order to eliminate seven federal agencies, including IMLS. 

 

Keith E. Sonderling has been appointed as the acting director during this transition. Staff were notified via email about their 90-day paid leave, which included instructions to return government property and had their email accounts disabled. 

 

IMLS is a small federal agency, with about 70 employees, that awards grant funding to museums and libraries across the United States. Last year it granted $266 million to support essential cultural institutions.

A LETTER TO HARVARD LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS (Harvard Law School Faculty)

From the Harvard Crimson:

Roughly 70 percent of Harvard Law School’s professors accused the federal government of exacting retribution on lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by President Donald Trump in a Saturday night letter to the school’s student body.

The letter, which was signed by 82 of the school’s 118 active professors as of this article’s publication, described Trump’s threats as a danger to the rule of law. It condemned the government for intimidating individuals based on their past public statements and threatening international students with deportation over “lawful speech and political activism.”

Nine emeritus professors also joined the statement.

March 29, 2025 

To our students: 
We are privileged to teach and learn the law with you. We write to you today—in our 
individual capacities—because we believe that American legal precepts and the institutions 
designed to uphold them are being severely tested, and many of you have expressed to us your 
concerns and fears about the present moment. 

Each of us brings different, sometimes irreconcilable, perspectives to what the law is and should 
be. Diverse viewpoints are a credit to our school. But we share, and take seriously, a 
commitment to the rule of law: for people to be equal before it, and for its administration to 
be impartial. That commitment is foundational to the whole legal profession, and to the special 
role that lawyers play in our society. As the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide: “A 
lawyer is … an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for 
the quality of justice.” 

The rule of law is imperiled when government leaders: 
• single out lawyers and law firms for retribution based on their lawful and ethical 
representation of clients disfavored by the government, undermining the Sixth 
Amendment; 
• threaten law firms and legal clinics for their lawyers’ pro bono work or prior 
government service; 
• relent on those arbitrary threats based on public acts of submission and outlays of funds 
for favored causes; and 
• punish people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern. 

While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are 
all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly 
condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described. 

On our own campus and at many other universities, international students have reported fear 
of imprisonment or deportation for lawful speech and political activism. Whatever we might 
each think about particular conduct under particular facts, we share a conviction that our 
Constitution, including its First Amendment, was designed to make dissent and debate 
possible without fear of government punishment. Neither a law school nor a society can 
properly function amidst such fear. 

We reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and to our roles in teaching and upholding 
the precepts of a fair and impartial legal system. 

Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

Columbia University’s interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, resigned on Friday, just days after the university made significant concessions to the Trump administration in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal research funding. Armstrong's resignation follows a tumultuous period for the institution, already reeling from the departure of her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, in August 2024.

Armstrong, who had stepped into the role of interim president during a time of political and social unrest, faced mounting pressure over the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian student activism, which sparked national controversy and calls for accountability from political leaders, including former President Donald Trump and his administration. Armstrong’s resignation marks the latest chapter in a series of leadership shifts at Columbia as it navigates the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding campus protests.

 

Effective immediately, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, has been appointed acting president. David J. Greenwald, chair of the Board of Trustees, praised Armstrong for her dedication to the university, acknowledging her hard work during a time of “great uncertainty.” Greenwald’s statement highlighted Armstrong’s contributions to the university, saying, “Katrina has always given her heart and soul to Columbia. We appreciate her service and look forward to her continued contributions to the University.” Armstrong, who will return to lead the Irving Medical Center, had taken on the interim presidency in a period marked by increasing tensions on campus over political activism and its fallout.

Political Pressure and Concessions to the Trump Administration

The resignation comes amid significant political pressure, as the Trump administration imposed a set of demands on Columbia in exchange for the release of crucial federal funding. Earlier this month, the administration presented the university with nine conditions to restore the $400 million in research grants that had been frozen over accusations of antisemitism linked to campus protests.

In an effort to regain the funding, Columbia conceded to these demands, which included a ban on students wearing masks to conceal their identities during protests, except for religious or health reasons. Additionally, Columbia agreed to hire 36 new campus security officers with the authority to arrest students involved in protests. The university also committed to increasing institutional oversight by appointing a new senior vice provost to monitor the university's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.

Perhaps most notably, Columbia pledged to adopt a stance of “greater institutional neutrality,” a policy that the university said would be implemented after working with a faculty committee. The decision was seen as an attempt to quell political tensions while navigating the contentious issues surrounding student activism.

A Leadership Crisis at Columbia University

Armstrong’s resignation follows the departure of Minouche Shafik, who faced widespread criticism for her handling of campus protests against the war in Gaza. Under Shafik’s leadership, Columbia became a focal point of national debates about free speech, activism, and the role of universities in responding to global conflicts. Shafik ultimately resigned after facing intense scrutiny for her handling of the protests and the occupation of an academic building by students, an incident that ended with NYPD officers forcibly removing the students.

In Armstrong’s case, her tenure was similarly marred by controversies surrounding the university’s response to the growing political activism on campus. The university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests, particularly those related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, led to calls for stronger action from political figures, especially within the Republican Party. Armstrong’s decision to oversee negotiations with the Trump administration over the university’s federal funding placed her at the center of a storm of political and social unrest, further intensifying the pressure on her leadership.

Columbia's Future Amidst Political Turmoil

The resignation of Armstrong is a significant moment for Columbia, as the institution grapples with the broader implications of political activism within academia and the increasing role of government in shaping university policies. As the university enters another phase of leadership instability, the question remains: how will the next president balance the competing demands of activism, free speech, and political pressures from outside forces?

Columbia’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and increase security measures reflects the complex and polarized environment that universities are navigating in today’s political climate. The growing influence of political figures like Trump and the scrutiny placed on universities over their responses to student protests signal a new era for higher education, one where the lines between campus activism and political power are increasingly blurred.

As the search for a permanent president continues, Columbia University will need to chart a course that both addresses the concerns of its diverse student body and faculty while navigating the external pressures that have shaped the university’s recent trajectory. The role of universities in fostering open dialogue, supporting activism, and protecting the rights of students will likely continue to be a central issue in higher education for years to come.

Conclusion

The resignation of Katrina Armstrong adds to a growing list of university presidents who have faced intense political pressure and scrutiny over campus activism, particularly surrounding Middle Eastern and global conflicts. Columbia’s next steps will be crucial not only for the future of the institution but also as a bellwether for how universities across the country navigate the increasingly complex landscape of political activism, academic freedom, and government intervention. The institution’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the role of higher education in a polarized society.