In early 2023, the Higher Education Inquirer received a letter from a prominent law firm representing a for-profit college with a significant online footprint. The letter, framed as a demand for the removal of an investigative article from our platform, accused us of defamation and threatened legal action. The article in question investigated financial and operational ties between several education-related entities, alleging that these connections may have harmed students and misused federal education funds.
The school in question—once part of a collapsed for-profit empire—has been at the center of public scrutiny and legal battles for more than a decade. With multiple ownership changes and continued reliance on federal student aid, its trajectory has mirrored that of other “subprime” colleges that critics argue profit from the desperation of working-class Americans seeking better lives through education.
HEI’s article followed up on prior reporting from established education watchdogs and included both public records and interviews with whistleblowers. It raised uncomfortable but critical questions about whether a nonprofit conversion was used as a façade for continued enrichment by private operators—via management contracts, lead generation, and opaque partnerships.
In response, the school's legal counsel sent a five-page cease-and-desist letter accusing HEI of publishing “verifiably false statements,” “misleading readers,” and violating the basic tenets of journalism. The letter denied all allegations, redefined industry terms like “online program manager,” and asserted that the school’s service provider—a company with ties to previous for-profit ventures—had not profited and had, in fact, saved the institution from collapse.
Beyond its immediate purpose, the letter serves as a clear example of how institutions with money and legal firepower can attempt to silence independent journalists and small outlets. The implication is not subtle: remove the story or risk expensive litigation.
This tactic—commonly known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)—relies not on prevailing in court but on intimidating reporters and shrinking the boundaries of public discourse. It’s especially effective against under-resourced outlets like HEI, which lack the legal teams and financial reserves of mainstream media companies.
In this case, by refusing to name the school or its legal representation in this article, we aim to highlight the broader dynamics rather than focus on personalities. The use of legal threats by online colleges to protect questionable business practices is not new. Over the last two decades, we’ve seen this pattern emerge repeatedly—from Corinthian Colleges to ITT Tech, and more recently, through institutions navigating the murky territory between nonprofit status and for-profit operations.
These threats don’t just chill speech—they freeze accountability. They make it harder for students, whistleblowers, and journalists to speak openly about abuses in a sector fueled by federal subsidies and student debt. They protect failing systems while vulnerable students are left to shoulder the consequences.
At HEI, we believe the public deserves transparency about where their tax dollars go and whether educational institutions are serving students or exploiting them. We believe that journalists must be free to raise difficult questions without fear of retribution. And we believe that schools receiving millions in federal funds—particularly those with a history of collapse, debt, and misrepresentation—should expect scrutiny, not silence.
If our reporting is wrong, we welcome good-faith corrections and open dialogue. But when a powerful institution threatens legal action to suppress investigation rather than engage with the facts, it raises the very questions they wish to bury.
Sources
-
U.S. Department of Education records on school ownership transitions
-
Interviews with former employees and students
-
Public court documents (lead generation lawsuit and dismissal)
-
David Halperin’s original reporting in the Republic Report
