Bari Weiss, UATX, and the Corporate Rewriting of “Free Speech”

Bari Weiss has built a powerful public identity as a defender of free speech against institutional conformity. From elite universities to legacy newsrooms, she presents herself as a principled dissenter confronting ideological capture. Yet her expanding influence across higher education and corporate media suggests something deeper than individual controversy. It reveals how elite institutions are increasingly repackaging control, consolidation, and risk management as rebellion.

Weiss’s involvement in the University of Austin and her editorial authority at CBS News illustrate how the language of free inquiry has been absorbed into a broader project of institutional realignment rather than democratization.

The University of Austin was launched in 2021 as a highly publicized response to what its founders described as illiberal conditions in American higher education. Weiss, as a co-founder and public face of the project, helped frame UATX as a refuge for intellectual risk-taking and heterodox thought. Yet the institution was not built from the margins of academia. It emerged through the backing of wealthy donors, venture capitalists, tech executives, and high-profile media figures who already occupy powerful positions within American public life.

UATX’s critique of higher education centers almost entirely on cultural politics, presenting universities as hostile to dissent while leaving largely untouched the material structures that govern academic freedom. The casualization of academic labor, the erosion of tenure, donor influence over research agendas, student debt as a disciplinary force, and retaliation against labor organizers and whistleblowers rarely figure into the narrative. In this way, UATX offers not a systemic challenge to elite education but an exit strategy for those with the resources to opt out of public accountability.

The same logic appears in Weiss’s role within legacy media. In late 2025, CBS News pulled a completed investigative segment from 60 Minutes examining the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants to a notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador. The segment had reportedly passed legal and editorial review. The decision to shelve it, attributed to a demand for additional on-the-record administration comment, sparked internal outrage. Veteran journalists described the move as political interference rather than standard editorial caution, with some staff reportedly threatening to resign.

The episode carried a deep irony. One of the most prominent self-described defenders of free speech now presided over the suppression of investigative journalism within one of the country’s most storied news programs. Whether temporary or permanent, the delay signaled a shift in institutional priorities, where political sensitivity and corporate risk appeared to outweigh journalistic autonomy.

This controversy unfolded amid broader upheaval at CBS News. Longtime anchors departed the CBS Evening News in emotional farewells as management reshuffled talent and redefined the network’s public posture. Inside the newsroom, morale reportedly declined as staff faced uncertainty about editorial direction, layoffs, and ideological repositioning. Weiss reportedly questioned journalists about public perceptions of bias, reinforcing a top-down effort to rebrand the organization rather than engage in collective editorial deliberation.

These developments cannot be separated from the corporate transformation of CBS’s parent company. Paramount Global has undergone a sweeping restructuring shaped by its merger with Skydance Media, led by David Ellison, the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison. Under this new ownership structure, CBS News has been encouraged to restore “balance” and credibility, language that often accompanies efforts to reduce investigative risk and align journalism more closely with corporate and political interests.

At the same time, Paramount’s deal-making has intersected with elite political networks. Jared Kushner’s private equity firm was involved in related media acquisition efforts before withdrawing, highlighting the increasingly blurred lines between media ownership, political influence, and capital consolidation. In this environment, editorial independence is not abolished outright but carefully managed, constrained by the priorities of ownership and the sensitivities of power.

What connects UATX and CBS News under Weiss’s influence is not ideology so much as structure. In both cases, authority flows upward while dissent is curated. Free inquiry is framed as a moral value but detached from democratic governance, labor protections, or accountability to those most vulnerable to institutional retaliation. Meanwhile, individuals and groups who experience genuine silencing in academia and media—adjunct faculty, student activists, labor organizers, whistleblowers, and critics of militarism or donor power—remain largely absent from this version of the free speech debate.

This pattern is familiar within higher education. When institutions face crises of legitimacy, elites rarely pursue democratization. Instead, they create alternatives that preserve control under new branding: private institutes, donor-led centers, honors colleges, and parallel universities. Legacy media has followed a similar path, repackaging dissent while narrowing the scope of accountability.

Bari Weiss is not an anomaly within this landscape. She is emblematic of it. Her influence reflects how “free speech” has become an aesthetic rather than a structural commitment, invoked loudly while practiced selectively.

The danger is not that Weiss holds strong opinions. It is that her framework for free speech travels so easily across institutions precisely because it leaves their economic and power relations intact. The University of Austin does not confront the forces hollowing out higher education. CBS News, under corporate consolidation, risks muting the investigative journalism that once defined it. In both cases, freedom becomes a branding strategy rather than a democratic practice.

For those concerned with truly independent journalism and genuinely democratic education, the lesson is clear. Speech is never just about speech. It is about ownership, power, and who bears the consequences when truth becomes inconvenient.

National Survey Finds Strong Faculty Support for Free Speech, Diverse Viewpoints, and Civil Discourse in the Classroom Amid an Alarming Decline in Academic Freedom (AAC&U)

Washington, DC—The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) today released the results of a national survey of faculty perceptions and experiences related to academic freedom and civil discourse in higher education. Funded by the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and conducted in partnership with the American Association of University Professors and NORC at the University of Chicago, the survey was administered online and included faculty of all ranks and disciplines at public and private, two-year and four-year institutions throughout the United States.

The survey found clear evidence that faculty value diverse student perspectives, encourage civil discourse among students, and support free speech in the classroom. Moreover, faculty see educational value in classroom discussions of controversial topics or issues and do not support censoring course materials. Overall, however, the survey results point to a recent and ongoing decline in academic freedom across American higher education—a decline perceived by more than a third of all faculty members across a wide variety of indicators.

Faculty today are concerned about growing restrictions on their academic freedom and worry that expressing their views freely may lead to online harassment or professional repercussions. In the current climate, faculty are less willing to address controversial topics and more likely to self-censor. The survey also found evidence of a chilling effect produced by the spread of legislative restrictions, enacted since 2021, on the teaching, learning, and discussion of so-called “divisive concepts” related to race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and American history.

“Without the academic freedom to explore significant and controversial questions, higher education’s mission of advancing knowledge and educating students for work, life, and citizenship cannot be fulfilled,” said AAC&U President Lynn Pasquerella. “The results of this national survey provide the most compelling evidence yet of the significant and alarming erosion of academic freedom across American higher education. The findings should serve as a wake-up call for campus leaders, policymakers, and anyone who understands the vital role higher education plays in improving the lives of individuals and communities, driving innovation and economic growth, and sustaining our democracy.”

Selected Findings

• More than 1 in 3 faculty say they have less academic freedom today when it comes to teaching content without any interference (35%), speaking freely as citizens (36%), and speaking freely when participating in institutional governance (38%).
• More than half (53%) are concerned about their ability to express what they believe as scholars to be correct statements about the world and worry that their beliefs or activities as faculty members may make them targets of online harassment.
• Significant percentages of faculty have faced restrictions on what they can say in faculty and department meetings (36%) or on social media (33%) and what they teach in their courses (24%).
• 52% of faculty have altered the language in something they have written in order to avoid controversy; most refrain from using terms or words they believe might be perceived as offensive by their students (62%), by administrators (57%), by other faculty members (57%), or by institutional staff (54%).
• 53% believe classroom discussion of controversial topics or issues should be encouraged and should occur frequently because of its educational value.
• 93% believe faculty should intentionally invite student perspectives from all sides of an issue.
• 57% encourage mutually respectful disagreement among the students in their courses either “quite a bit” or “a great deal,” and 70% believe that the amount of mutually respectful disagreement among their students is “about right.”
• Just 12% believe classroom discussions should be halted if views are expressed that some students feel causes harm to certain groups of people, and just 5% believe a required reading or other assignment should be dropped if it includes such views.

“Our hope is that this study inspires, in equal measure, both reflection and action across higher education,” said the report’s coauthor, Ashley Finley, Vice President for Research and Senior Advisor to the President at AAC&U. “Though colleges and universities may lack influence over legislative actions, there is much collective power in their ability to address faculty mental health, encourage respectful discourse within and beyond the classroom, and invite thoughtful debate about the meaning and applications of academic freedom within institutions.”

A full report on the findings is available for download at www.aacu.org/academicfreedom.

The survey was conducted online between December 7, 2023, and February 12, 2024, by NORC at the University of Chicago. The survey sample included 164,815 individuals who, during the preceding twelve-month period, had instructional duties and/or served in a faculty role at a two- or four-year public or private college or university in the United States.

The survey instrument was developed under the guidance of a national advisory group: Samuel Abrams, Sarah Lawrence College; Cory Clark, University of Pennsylvania; Jonathan Friedman, PEN America; Isaac Kamola, Trinity College; April Kelly, Elizabethtown College; Frederick Lawrence, Phi Beta Kappa; Kenann McKenzie-DeFranza, Gordon College; Demetri Morgan, Loyola University Chicago; and Andrew Seligsohn, Public Agenda.

About AAC&U

The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is a global membership organization dedicated to advancing the democratic purposes of higher education by promoting equity, innovation, and excellence in liberal education. Through our programs and events, publications and research, public advocacy, and campus-based projects, AAC&U serves as a catalyst and facilitator for innovations that improve educational quality and equity and that support the success of all students. In addition to accredited public and private, two-year and four-year colleges and universities, and state higher education systems and agencies throughout the United States, our membership includes degree-granting higher education institutions around the world as well as other organizations and individuals. To learn more, visit www.aacu.org.

Scam Artist or Just Failed CEO?

For eight years, this blog has been investigating greed and corruption in higher education at all levels, from predatory for-profit colleges and student loan servicers to elite university endowments. We have also highlighted the good people in higher education: those who promote transparency, accountability, value, justice, and empathy.

Over those years, we have gained a good number of friends and allies and received a small amount of negative feedback. When we did face staunch criticism, or in a few cases, threats, we had to consider the sources, who were always bad actors or those who worked for them. The bad actor, Christopher (Chip) Paucek, and his attorneys, have filed a federal litigation, suing this blog and its author for giving you, our valued readers, our opinion. Specifically, Paucek has taken exception to our characterization of him as a scam artist.

We stand by our opinion of Chip based on what we learned in more than five years of investigations of 2U, the company Paucek led for over 10 years. And we hope that more people will do their own investigations.  

We took our first look at 2U in 2019. In time, we were not the only ones paying attention. Workers in social media presented an inside view of the inner workings of 2U, describing what they viewed as enrollment practices that were highly questionable. Student consumers stepped forward, saying they had been deceived by 2U. Shareholders came forward, presenting Chip’s own words, saying he had misled them. The Wall Street Journal published a number of investigative pieces about 2U and the Chronicle of Higher Education also published two articles. While none of these outlets mentioned Chip, he was the CEO at the time, and in our view was responsible. 

By March 2022, Chip Paucek was still CEO of 2U, and was formally setting up the Pro Athlete Community, also known as PAC. There was nothing secret about this venture by this time. But it did seem to us questionable that a CEO of a large corporation would be formally setting up another for-profit organization while the one he was running was failing.  

In 2024, Chip admitted in an interview that he should have left 2U in 2019, but he didn’t. Chip also admitted that without his staying at 2U during that five year period, he wouldn’t have been able to start PAC. Last June, while still being paid as a consultant to 2U, a company nearly bankrupt, he led a group of retired players to ring the bell at NASDAQ. No one in the mainstream media picked up on the hypocrisy of all that exuberance on Wall Street. But we did.  

 

Chip’s lawsuit against us was a surprise on several levels. First, our statements were just our opinion–it’s not provable or disprovable. Second, it seems nonsensical to bother with a blog seen by only 25,000 people a month. Third, and most importantly, Chip Paucek’s track record in business could reasonably lead someone to believe he is, indeed, someone who says untrue things to his own benefit. 

Our feeling is that this lawsuit is more than a man taking exception to being called out for his track record; it’s, in our view, an attempt to keep us from warning his next potential victims–the athletes, employees, and investors who will be the next to learn about his methods. 

Many states (including New Jersey, where Chip filed suit) have a law to deal with situations in which someone uses the courts to squelch investigative journalism. Accordingly, we are pursuing an Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) counter suit, asking for his case to be dismissed, and for him to pay our legal fees and court costs.  

On November 25th, David Halperin, an ally of ours for many years, let the public know that 2U is likely to be under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission and the California Attorney General. The company Chip left in 2023, but is still being paid by, as a special advisor. We are not surprised.  

If Chip would grant us an interview, we’d like to know more.

Related links:

“A Perverse Outcome”: Advocates Warn that 2U Bankruptcy Could Protect Executives at Students’ Expense (Student Borrowers Protection Center). 

Department of Education Must Protect Students Following Collapse of For-profit Education Company 2U (Project on Predatory Student Lending) 

A Hidden Risk of Online Higher Education (Student Borrower Protection Center) 

David Bernard v Climb Credit, University Accounting Services, Loan Science & 2U

2U Investors Reach $37 Million Settlement With Online Educator (Bloomberg Law)

Mounting Evidence from State Watchdog Report Proves That, Yet Again, Public Universities Are Selling Out Students to For-Profit Companies (Student Borrower Protection Center) 

USC Ends Partnership with 2U After Graduate Social Work Students Sue Over Online MSW “Diploma Mill” (Project on Predatory Student Lending)

Letter from CFPB to Richard Cordray about 2U

The Long, Steep Fall of an Online Education Giant (Wall Street Journal)

That Fancy University Course? It Might Actually Come From an Education Company.

USC Pushed a $115,000 Online Degree. Graduates Got Low Salaries, Huge Debts. (Wall Street Journal)