Neoliberal Elites Win One Against Trump — And Now, Labor Is Under Siege

In a dramatic policy shift that took just hours, the Trump administration reversed its position on reciprocal tariffs, caving to pressure from corporate America. In an unexpected retreat, President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Advisor Peter Navarro reversed course on their “non-negotiable” tariffs, opting for a 90-day pause after facing a chorus of condemnation from CEOs and Wall Street titans. Despite the administration’s spin on the decision as a “win,” the retreat highlighted the deep sway that neoliberal elites hold over U.S. economic policy, even when faced with populist rhetoric.

While the immediate concern was the stock market plunge—$6.5 trillion lost in just two days—the larger narrative was the growing influence of corporate America in shaping trade policy. Business leaders from Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan to Larry Fink of BlackRock spoke out against the tariffs, urging the President to change course. In an organized show of power, corporate CEOs, including those from tech giants like Tesla and Ford, sided with the broader economic establishment over the administration’s protectionist policies.

However, what is not often discussed in these corporate circles is the broader attack on workers' rights and labor organizing taking place across the country—particularly in higher education, where private universities are increasingly using the courts and political arguments to undermine labor organizing efforts.

In a striking example of this trend, the University of Southern California (USC) has launched a direct challenge to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent federal agency that has long protected workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively. The university is attempting to block a unionization effort by its non-tenure-track faculty members, echoing the anti-union rhetoric pushed by corporations like SpaceX, Amazon, and Trader Joe’s, which have previously argued that the NLRB is unconstitutional.

In December, over 2,500 non-tenure-track faculty members at USC filed a petition to form a union with the United Faculty-United Auto Workers (UFW-UAW). This move came after a majority of faculty members expressed support for unionization. But ten days after the petition was filed, USC took the unprecedented step of arguing that the NLRB itself is unconstitutional. This argument hinges on claims that the NLRB’s structure—specifically, its independence and the protection of its members from presidential dismissal—violates constitutional principles.

This tactic mirrors the legal arguments advanced by corporations like SpaceX, which in 2020 challenged the NLRB’s constitutionality in court, claiming that the board's authority to issue decisions in labor disputes violated the separation of powers. Amazon, too, has tried to undermine the NLRB’s authority, arguing that the board’s structure infringes upon its rights as an employer.

While corporate interests have long resisted unionization—fearing the erosion of their unchecked power—USC’s stance is particularly noteworthy because it highlights how elite institutions, even those within academia, are increasingly willing to side with corporate interests to suppress workers’ rights. The university’s argument that non-tenure-track faculty cannot unionize because they are “managers” or “supervisors” is a familiar refrain in the corporate world, where businesses often claim that certain employees lack the right to unionize due to their purported managerial roles. This is despite the fact that faculty members have little to no influence over university policy.

Jennifer Abruzzo, former general counsel for the NLRB, emphasized that the university could voluntarily recognize the faculty union without needing to rely on the NLRB’s authority. She argued that USC’s challenge is a direct attempt to subvert workers' rights to organize, asserting, “Whether the NLRB is unconstitutional or not does not preclude USC from recognizing and bargaining with their workers’ chosen representative.”

The significance of USC’s challenge extends beyond the university itself. If successful, this legal strategy could have wide-reaching implications for labor rights in the U.S. In a climate where conservative forces are already pushing to dismantle federal regulatory agencies, a ruling against the NLRB’s constitutionality could decimate the labor rights of nearly 170 million American workers.

For faculty members at USC, the stakes are personal and immediate. Sanjay Madhav, an associate professor and union activist at USC, pointed out that the push for unionization is especially critical as the university faces budget cuts and hiring freezes in response to financial uncertainty. Faculty members like Madhav are advocating for greater bargaining power, particularly around merit pay and benefits—issues that have become more pressing as the economic landscape becomes increasingly volatile.

Ironically, the pushback from USC against unionization underscores the very corporate mindset that has driven much of the resistance to Trump’s trade policies. Just as CEOs have leveraged their financial and political influence to halt tariffs that threatened their profits, private universities like USC are wielding legal arguments and political influence to protect their control over faculty and suppress the possibility of meaningful labor negotiations.

This broader context of corporate resistance to workers’ rights—both in trade policy and labor organizing—raises critical questions for higher education. It signals a growing trend where powerful interests are not only challenging the rights of workers but are also attempting to reframe the debate around collective bargaining and labor rights as unconstitutional or undesirable. This echoes a deeper, neoliberal agenda that seeks to hollow out democratic mechanisms of worker representation, whether in trade, the workplace, or the classroom.

As faculty at USC and other institutions wait to hear whether they will be allowed to proceed with their union election, the broader question remains: What happens when the very institutions that are meant to foster critical thinking and social mobility also align themselves with forces that seek to dismantle workers’ rights? And what does it mean for the future of labor and democracy when both corporate America and elite universities are so aggressively working to undermine the rights of those who power their institutions?

---

Erica Gallagher Speaks Out About 2U's Shady Practices at Department of Education Virtual Listening Meeting

Hello, my name Erica Gallagher and I am a graduate of the University of Southern California’s online Masters of Social Work program. Or to put it more accurately, I am a graduate of 2U’s online Masters of Social Work diploma mill. 

2U is the Online Program Management or OPM company that runs USC’s online MSW program. When I decided to attend USC, I had no idea that the online MSW program was actually run by 2U.

I didn’t know that my classes were going to be taught by instructors who were hired specifically for the OPM classes, rather than USC professors, or that they would be using outdated materials to teach me.

I didn’t know that OPM employees were the ones assigning us field placements, many of which had nothing to do with our experiences.

I didn’t know that the admissions representatives and the counselors I was emailing on a day-to-day basis were actually OPM employees, and not actual USC staff. That’s because they went to great efforts to make students believe this was fully a USC program, even arming 2U employees with USC email addresses. 

If I had known, I would have never enrolled. 

From the moment I looked into the program until the moment I graduated, I was lied to. I was promised a USC education that would open doors for me, and that’s not what I got. Instead, I got a shady, but equally as expensive, version of USC’s on-campus MSW program.

It’s so important for people to realize how much this OPM model hurts students. It rewards greed and profit at the expense of a quality education. It incentivizes schools to sign up as many people as they can, charging top dollar for subpar programs, while hiding their deception and profiteering behind the nonprofit brands of well-regarded schools.





The fact that they did this with a social work program — to people who were trying to build a career motivated by helping others — adds even more insult to injury.

Having this degree was supposed to change my life, but all it has done is complicate it. All I’ve gotten with this diploma is a mountain of debt and anxiety.

Related link: 

OPMS: The Next Frontier of Predatory Practices in Higher Education  (PPSL Blog)

2U Virus Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities  

Colleges Are Outsourcing Their Teaching Mission to For-Profit Companies. Is That A Good Thing? (Richard Fossey)

Borrower Defense Claims Surpass 750,000. Consumers Empowered. Subprime Colleges and Programs Threatened.

Elite University Presidents: Most Hated Men (and Women) on Campus

In prestigious universities across the country, the figurehead of the institution—the president—has become a symbol of frustration and resentment among students, faculty, and staff. These figures, often once revered as academic leaders, are increasingly viewed as little more than corporate CEOs, prioritizing the interests of wealthy trustees and donors over the very people who make the university what it is: the students and the dedicated faculty and staff who carry out its mission.

At the heart of the growing discontent is the trend of university presidents restricting freedom of speech and assembly, stifling student activism, and limiting open debate in the name of "campus safety" or "institutional stability." Instead of acting as advocates for open discourse, many university presidents have aligned themselves with powerful corporate interests, turning their backs on the very values that once defined higher education. The administration's agenda is often dictated by the whims of major donors, whose influence can shape everything from university policy to the hiring and firing of professors.

The University of Chicago, long a beacon of academic freedom, has seen its leadership take a hard turn in recent years, placing increasing restrictions on student demonstrations and dissent. Under the guise of maintaining "campus order," the administration has been known to deploy private security to break up protests and limit public forums for free speech.

Harvard University, with its enormous endowment and prestigious reputation, has become another example of an institution where the president seems more concerned with appeasing donors than listening to the students and faculty. The administration has been criticized for prioritizing relationships with donors over addressing the deepening student debt crisis and growing concerns about inequality in higher education. The university has faced a wave of student-led protests demanding action on climate change, affordable tuition, and the rights of adjunct faculty, all of which were largely ignored or dismissed by the top administration.

Harvard’s massive endowment—reportedly the largest of any university in the world—has been a focal point of controversy. While it continues to grow, many argue that the university could be doing far more to address the financial burdens of its students, particularly the mounting debt facing undergraduates. Instead, the administration has focused on expanding its brand and maintaining its status as an elite institution, often prioritizing donor preferences and legacy admissions over efforts to make education more accessible. Legacy admissions, in which children of alumni are given preferential treatment, have been a point of contention, with critics arguing that this practice entrenches privilege and reduces opportunities for marginalized students.

Even at places like Princeton University, long considered a champion of academic freedom, President Christopher Eisgruber has come under fire for clamping down on student speech and assembly. While Princeton’s administration claims to support free expression, it has quietly enacted policies to restrict protestors’ access to the administration building, citing concerns about “disruption” and “disorder.” Eisgruber, who has connections to powerful alumni, has been accused of using his position to protect the interests of wealthy donors while ignoring the voices of those who are most directly affected by the university's policies.

The University of Southern California (USC) is another prime example of a university where the president’s priorities have come under increasing scrutiny from students, faculty, and staff. Under President Carol Folt, USC has become emblematic of a trend where the administration appears more aligned with wealthy donors and corporate interests than with the needs of its campus community.

Folt, who took over as USC's president in 2019, was thrust into the spotlight during a period of significant unrest. The university had already been embroiled in scandals—including the high-profile college admissions bribery scandal—and was facing criticism for its handling of sexual assault allegations within its medical school. Rather than addressing these issues head-on, many argue that Folt’s administration focused instead on securing funding from high-profile donors and expanding the university’s brand, while sidelining the concerns of students and faculty.

This prioritization of external donors is evident in USC’s massive fundraising campaigns, which often overshadow initiatives aimed at addressing student debt, affordability, or academic freedom. USC's endowment has grown exponentially under Folt’s leadership, but student loan debt continues to be a crippling issue for many Trojans, and the concerns of adjunct faculty members remain largely ignored.

Furthermore, Folt’s administration has faced criticism for its efforts to suppress dissent on campus. For instance, student protests related to labor rights, housing issues, and calls for greater diversity on campus have been met with limited response or, at times, outright hostility. In 2022, when USC students protested the administration's handling of campus housing shortages, they were met with heightened security measures and a lack of genuine engagement from university leadership. These actions—along with Folt’s ties to the private sector, particularly her background in environmental policy and corporate leadership—have fueled perceptions that USC’s administration is more interested in protecting its brand than in creating an inclusive, participatory academic environment.

USC also exemplifies the growing disconnect between students, faculty, and administration when it comes to issues of free speech and assembly. Protests have become less frequent, as many students feel their voices will not be heard, and faculty members, particularly those in non-tenure track positions, are often too fearful of retribution to publicly criticize the administration.

The discontent with university leadership is not confined to the campus. In recent years, presidents from some of the nation's most elite institutions, including Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have faced intense scrutiny and backlash during hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives. These public hearings, aimed at addressing the growing issues of student debt, university funding, and the influence of wealthy donors on campus, have highlighted the widening disconnect between top university administrations and the communities they are supposed to serve.

During a House hearing in 2022, Lawrence Bacow of Harvard, along with MIT's President L. Rafael Reif and Penn's President Amy Gutmann, faced tough questioning from lawmakers who were deeply critical of how these institutions have handled student debt, tuition costs, and their ties to corporate interests. Bacow, in particular, faced pointed questions about Harvard's massive endowment and the university's refusal to use its resources to address skyrocketing tuition and student loan debt. Both Reif and Gutmann were grilled on how their institutions have prioritized securing donations from wealthy alumni and corporate entities over the well-being of students and faculty. The hearing exposed a troubling pattern where the presidents of these prestigious institutions seemed more concerned with maintaining their institutions' financial health than with addressing the needs of their campus communities.

Legacy admissions, a practice entrenched at many of these elite schools, also came under fire during the hearings. Critics argued that such policies perpetuate inequality, giving children of alumni—many of whom come from wealthy backgrounds—unfair advantages in the admissions process. This has contributed to the growing perception that these universities, while claiming to offer merit-based opportunities, are fundamentally shaped by privilege and corporate interests.

These public confrontations highlighted the growing frustration with university presidents who are seen as out of touch with the everyday realities facing students and faculty, as well as the increasing influence of money and corporate interests in higher education. The presidents of these universities, once seen as respected leaders, have become targets of anger and resentment, with many on Capitol Hill and on campus calling for a shift in how these institutions are governed.

These are just a few examples of elite universities where the power structure has shifted toward those who have the financial means to dictate the terms of the campus experience. As tuition costs rise and student loan debt becomes a crushing burden for many, university presidents seem more determined than ever to serve the interests of trustees and donors, rather than advocating for the people who should be their true constituents: the students, faculty, and staff who make up the heart of the academic community.

The impact of this shift has been profound. On campuses across the country, students are increasingly feeling that their voices don’t matter. Faculty members, once seen as the intellectual core of the institution, are being sidelined in favor of administrators who prioritize financial concerns over academic integrity. And staff members—many of whom are underpaid and overworked—are being pushed to the margins as well.

But it’s not just students who are feeling the heat. Faculty and staff have found their own platforms for protest increasingly under attack. At places like Yale University, where former President Peter Salovey faced criticism for neglecting the needs of faculty and for his lukewarm responses to issues like labor rights and the treatment of graduate workers, professors staged walkouts and organized petitions to voice their discontent with the administration's disregard for their well-being.

In this new era, university presidents are no longer the beloved leaders of intellectual discourse—they are the gatekeepers of corporate power, more concerned with securing funding from wealthy donors than with fostering an inclusive, open, and critical academic environment. The fallout from this shift is only growing, as campuses become hotbeds of dissent, with students, faculty, and staff increasingly questioning the direction of higher education and the people at the helm.

As the divide between administration and the campus community continues to widen, one thing is clear: the once-admired university president is now among the most hated figures on campus, seen not as a champion of academic values, but as an enforcer of an increasingly political and profit-driven agenda.

Sexual Criminals in US Higher Education: A Brief History

Sexual abuse in US higher education has persisted for decades across multiple institutional domains. Perpetrators have included doctors, professors, athletic staff, administrators, fraternity members, and students. While some high-profile cases have drawn national attention, many remain buried under confidentiality agreements, weak oversight, and institutional reluctance to act against powerful individuals and organizations.

Medical and athletic departments have been at the center of several major cases. At the University of Southern California (USC), Dr. George Tyndall, a campus gynecologist, was accused by hundreds of women of sexual abuse during exams spanning three decades. Despite internal complaints dating back to the 1990s, USC allowed Tyndall to remain employed until 2016. The university later agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement in 2021, the largest sexual abuse settlement in higher education history.

At Michigan State University (MSU), Dr. Larry Nassar sexually abused hundreds of women and girls, including Olympic athletes, while serving as a team physician. Reports were repeatedly ignored or minimized by athletic staff and administrators. In 2018, Nassar was sentenced to 40 to 175 years in prison. MSU paid $500 million in settlements to survivors.

Pennsylvania State University saw one of the most publicized cover-ups in collegiate sports when former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing boys over a 15-year period. High-ranking university officials, including President Graham Spanier and Athletic Director Tim Curley, were later convicted for failing to report allegations. The scandal led to resignations, criminal charges, and a significant financial settlement.

The University of Michigan faced a similar reckoning. Dr. Robert Anderson, a campus physician, was accused by more than 1,000 former students and athletes of sexual abuse between 1966 and 2003. The university acknowledged that numerous complaints were not acted upon and agreed to a $490 million settlement in 2022.

Columbia University reached a $236 million settlement in 2023 with hundreds of patients of Dr. Robert Hadden, a gynecologist accused of sexually abusing women over several decades. Hadden, affiliated with Columbia and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, had previously received limited sanctions and continued treating patients despite multiple complaints.

Beyond medical and athletic departments, faculty and administrators have also engaged in sexual misconduct. At Harvard University, government professor Jorge Domínguez was accused of harassment spanning four decades. Multiple internal warnings went unheeded. Domínguez retired only after public pressure and a university investigation confirmed a pattern of misconduct and institutional failure.

Louisiana State University (LSU) was investigated by the U.S. Department of Education following reports of systemic failures to respond to sexual misconduct complaints, including those involving football players and fraternity members. A 2021 report by the law firm Husch Blackwell detailed widespread noncompliance with Title IX procedures and administrative inaction.

Fraternities represent another enduring source of sexual violence and institutional evasion. Greek organizations have been linked to a disproportionately high number of sexual assault reports on campuses. A 2007 sociological study by Armstrong, Hamilton, and Sweeney documented how alcohol-fueled fraternity parties serve as a structural context for what they called "party rape." Despite such findings, enforcement has remained limited.

At Baylor University, a 2016 scandal exposed multiple incidents of sexual assault involving football players and fraternity affiliates. The university hired the law firm Pepper Hamilton, whose report concluded that Baylor had failed to implement Title IX protections. Several university leaders, including President Ken Starr, were forced to resign.

Ohio State University faced its own reckoning when more than 350 men accused team doctor Richard Strauss of sexual abuse from the 1970s through the 1990s. The university confirmed that coaches and administrators were aware of complaints but failed to act. OSU has paid over $60 million in settlements.

The fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) has faced repeated allegations of sexual misconduct and hazing across numerous campuses, including the University of Oklahoma and Louisiana State University. Although some chapters were suspended, most eventually returned, often with limited structural changes.

At the University of Southern California, the Sigma Nu fraternity was suspended in 2021 after multiple students reported being drugged and assaulted at fraternity events. Student protests followed, demanding greater accountability and questioning the role of fraternities on campus. However, no permanent action was taken against Greek life.

Phi Delta Theta was implicated in the 2017 hazing death of LSU freshman Max Gruver, alongside other reports of sexual misconduct involving chapter members. Gruver’s death, caused by forced alcohol consumption, led to criminal charges and civil litigation, but the fraternity was not banned permanently.

The University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and Columbia University have all faced scrutiny over fraternity-related assaults. At UVA, the controversial and later-retracted 2014 Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” sparked national attention, but also backlash. Nonetheless, the story accelerated broader examinations of sexual assault within Greek life.

Some religious institutions have also been implicated. A 2021 ProPublica investigation into Liberty University found that administrators had discouraged sexual assault victims from reporting incidents and in some cases penalized them under the school’s conduct codes. Liberty settled related lawsuits for $14 million and remains under federal investigation.

Federal laws such as Title IX and the Clery Act require institutions to report and address sexual misconduct, but enforcement is inconsistent. Many institutions use non-disclosure agreements and confidential settlements to manage liability without public accountability. Survivors report that grievance processes are often retraumatizing, with few consequences for perpetrators.

Advocates have called for mandatory public reporting of misconduct cases, independent oversight of campus adjudication, and restrictions on the use of NDAs in sexual misconduct settlements. Some have proposed the creation of a national registry for faculty and staff found responsible for misconduct—similar to systems used in K-12 education—but no such registry currently exists.

The prevalence of sexual abuse in higher education—whether committed by faculty, doctors, athletic staff, or fraternity members—reflects institutional priorities that often place reputation and revenue above student and employee safety. While some institutions have taken steps toward transparency and reform, systemic change remains limited.

Sources
The New York Times. (2021). "USC Agrees to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Gynecologist Abuse Claims."
ESPN. (2018). "Larry Nassar sentenced to 40 to 175 years."
NPR. (2012). "Jerry Sandusky Sentenced To 30 To 60 Years For Sex Abuse."
Detroit Free Press. (2022). "University of Michigan to settle sexual abuse lawsuits for $490 million."
The New York Times. (2023). "Columbia to Pay $236 Million in Settlements Over Gynecologist’s Abuse."
Harvard Crimson. (2021). "Domínguez Investigation Finds 40 Years of Sexual Misconduct, Institutional Failures."
USA Today. (2021). "LSU mishandled sexual misconduct complaints."
American Sociological Review. (2007). “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape,” Armstrong, Hamilton, Sweeney.
The Atlantic. (2014). "The Dark Power of Fraternities."
CNN. (2017). "LSU Student Dies in Hazing Incident."
Rolling Stone. (2014, Retracted). “A Rape on Campus.”
Columbia Journalism Review. (2015). “The Lessons of Rolling Stone.”
ProPublica. (2021). “The Liberty Way.”
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2022). “After USC Fraternity Suspensions, Students Push for Greek Life Abolition.”
Inside Higher Ed. (2021). “Fraternity and Sorority Misconduct: Policy Gaps and Institutional Avoidance.”
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2024). “Open Title IX Investigations in Postsecondary Institutions.”
North American Interfraternity Conference. (2023). Public Statements on Campus Regulation.

Intent To Receive Public Feedback for the Development of Proposed Regulations and Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (US Department of Education)

 To submit a public response, go to https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/04/2025-05825/intent-to-receive-public-feedback-for-the-development-of-proposed-regulations-and-establish

AGENCY:

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Intent to negotiate.

SUMMARY:

We announce our intention to host public hearings and establish one or more negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations on various programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (title IV, HEA programs). The Department invites public feedback, especially addressing topics which may include Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), or other topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance programs.

DATES:

Comments due: We must receive written comments on the topics suggested by the Department and additional topics that may be considered on or before May 5, 2025.

Hearing dates: The dates, times, and locations for the public hearings are listed under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES:

Comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting comments, is available on the site under “FAQ.” If you require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via Regulations.gov, please contact regulationshelpdesk@gsa.gov or by phone at 1-866-498-2945. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

The Department will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. Additionally, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information about negotiated rulemaking, see the Frequently Asked Questions Section of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process for title IV regulations website at: https://www.ed.gov/​laws-and-policy/​higher-education-laws-and-policy/​negotiated-rulemaking-process-title-iv-regulations-frequently-asked-questions.

For information about the public hearings, or for additional information about negotiated rulemaking, contact: Tamy Abernathy, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-4595. Email: NegRegNPRMHelp@ed.gov.

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 492 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098a) requires that, before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary must obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations. We announce our intent to develop proposed title IV regulations by following the negotiated rulemaking procedures in section 492 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098a). These topics will focus on how title IV regulations have impacted institutions, States, and other partners and if their implementation may be inhibiting innovation and contributing to rising college costs. We believe any rulemaking effort should provide the opportunity to streamline or eliminate unnecessary regulatory processes that are not otherwise required by law. The feedback can be received during two public hearings, including one in-person hearing and one virtual hearing, at which interested parties may comment on the topics suggested by the Department and may suggest additional topics that should be considered for action. Additionally, the Department will accept written comments on the topics suggested by the Department and suggestions for additional topics that should be considered for action. Finally, any negotiating committees will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the proposed regulations.

We intend to select negotiators from nominees of the organizations and groups that represent the interests significantly affected by the proposed regulations. To the extent possible, we will select individual negotiators from the nominees who reflect a wide variety of experts among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098a).

Regulatory Issues

We intend to convene one or more negotiated rulemaking committees to develop proposed regulations pertaining to title IV regulations that have impacted institutions, States, and other partners and if their implementation may be inhibiting innovation and contributing to rising college costs. Some proposed topics for negotiation would include:

1. Refining definitions of a qualifying employer for the purposes of determining eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

2. Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) repayment plans.

3. Potential topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance program regulations while maintaining or improving program integrity and institutional quality.

We will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the topics of PSLF, PAYE, ICR, or other topics related to current federal student financial assistance programs. This notice will solicit nominations for individual negotiators who represent the communities of interest significantly affected by the proposed regulations. This notice will also be posted on the Department's website at: https://www.ed.gov/​laws-and-policy/​higher-education-laws-and-policy/​higher-education-policy/​negotiated-rulemaking-for-higher-education-2025-2026.

Public Hearings

For interested parties who want to discuss the rulemaking agenda, the Department will hold two public hearings, including one in-person hearing at the U.S. Department of Education located at 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Barnard Auditorium, Washington, DC 20202 and one virtual hearing. The in-person public hearing will be held on April 29, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. with a lunch break from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., and from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The virtual public hearing will be held from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern time, on May 1, 2025. Additional information on the public hearings is available at https://www.ed.gov/​laws-and-policy/​higher-education-laws-and-policy/​higher-education-policy/​negotiated-rulemaking-for-higher-education-2025-2026.

Individuals who would like to present comments at the public hearing must register by sending an email message to negreghearing@ed.gov no later than noon, Eastern time, on the business day prior to the public hearing. The message should include the name of the presenter, the general topic(s) the individual would like to address, and one or more dates and times during which the individual would be available to speak. We will attempt to accommodate each speaker's preference, but, if we are unable to do so, we will select speakers on a first-come, first-served basis, based on the date and time we received the message. We will limit each participant to three minutes. For those who need a reasonable modification in order to provide a live comment during the hearing, please see the “Reasonable Modifications” section below for information about how to make such a request.

The Department will notify registrants of the date and time slot reserved for them and, for the virtual hearing, will provide information on how to log in to the hearing as a speaker. An individual may make only one presentation at the public hearings. If we receive more registrations than we are able to accommodate, the Department reserves the right to reject the registration of an entity or individual that is affiliated with an entity or individual that is already scheduled to present comments, and to select among registrants to ensure that a broad range of entities and individuals is allowed to present. We will accept registrations for any remaining time slots on a first-come, first-served basis, beginning at 8 a.m. on the day of the public hearing at the Department's on-site registration table (or at negreghearing@ed.gov for the virtual hearing).

Reasonable Modifications: The hearings will be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Information for contacting the Department to request auxiliary aids or services to provide a live comment will be included in the registration process for providing a live comment at the hearing. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to provide your comment, please notify the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date.

Registration is not required to observe the in-person public hearings; however, space may be limited. Registration is required to view the virtual public hearing. American Sign Language translation will be provided to all who attend the hearings, and closed captioning will be provided for the virtual public hearing. We will post links for attendees who wish to observe on our website at https://www.ed.gov/​laws-and-policy/​higher-education-laws-and-policy/​higher-education-policy/​negotiated-rulemaking-for-higher-education-2025-2026. The Department will also post transcripts of all hearings on that site.

The Department will accept written comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal through May 5, 2025. See the ADDRESSES section of this document for submission information.

Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to generally make comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available. Commenters should not include in their comments any information that identifies other individuals or that permits readers to identify other individuals. The Department reserves the right to redact at any time any information in comments that identifies other individuals, includes information that would allow readers to identify other individuals, or includes threats of harm to another person. This may include comments where the commenter refers to a third-party individual without using their name if the Department determines that the comment provides enough detail that could allow one or more readers to link the information to the third-party individual. If your comment refers to a third-party individual, please refer to the third-party individual anonymously to reduce the chance that information in your comment could be linked to the third party. For example, “a former student with a graduate level degree” does not provide information that identifies a third-party individual as opposed to “my sister, Jane Doe, had this experience while attending University X,” which does provide enough information to identify a specific third-party individual. For privacy reasons, the Department reserves the right to not make available on Regulations.gov any information in comments that identifies other individuals, includes information that would allow readers to identify other individuals, or includes threats of harm to another person or to oneself.

Schedule for Negotiations

The dates and locations of negotiated rulemaking meetings will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted online at: https://www.ed.gov/​laws-and-policy/​higher-education-laws-and-policy/​higher-education-policy/​negotiated-rulemaking-for-higher-education-2025-2026.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or portable document format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free on the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Program Authority:20 U.S.C. 1098a.

James P. Bergeron,

Acting Under Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2025-05825 Filed 4-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

Wealth and Want Part 2: Continued University Expansion and Displacement of Others

In Wealth and Want Part 1 we briefly mentioned the origins of university wealth, including generations of land theft and the use of forced labor. The origins of elite universities and large flagship universities in the 17th through 19th centuries came largely from the exploitation of others and of the environment. This exploitation continues today, not just through their endowments, but in the real estate that universities continue to take for their advantage, often at the expense of their neighbors.

Harvard University: The expansion of Harvard University in the 19th century led to the displacement of African American residents from the neighborhood of Roxbury.

Columbia University: In the 19th century, Columbia University's expansion contributed to the displacement of residents from Morningside Heights.

University of Chicago: The University of Chicago's expansion in the late 19th century led to the displacement of residents from the Hyde Park neighborhood. 

Stanford University: Stanford's expansion in the late 19th century led to the displacement of Native American Ohlone people from the Palo Alto area.

University of Michigan: In the late 19th century, the University of Michigan's expansion contributed to the displacement of residents from Ann Arbor's Old West Side neighborhood.

University of Texas at Austin: The university's expansion in the early 20th century led to the displacement of residents from the East Austin neighborhood.

University of California, Berkeley: The university's expansion in the 20th century contributed to the displacement of African American residents from the West Berkeley neighborhood.


Elite universities during the Great Depression were generally able to weather the storm better than many other institutions. However, they were not entirely immune to the economic hardships of the time. Here's a breakdown of how they fared.

Endowment Funds: Many elite universities had substantial endowment funds, which provided a crucial financial cushion during the Depression. These funds allowed them to maintain their operations and continue offering high-quality education.

Reduced Enrollment: Despite their financial advantages, most elite universities experienced a decline in enrollment as families struggled to afford tuition. This decrease in revenue put pressure on their budgets.

Faculty Salaries: Some universities had to reduce faculty salaries or even lay off staff to cut costs. However, many institutions were able to maintain their core faculty and avoid significant cuts.

Government Support: In some cases, elite universities received government support, such as grants or contracts, to help them weather the economic downturn.

Alumni Donations: Alumni donations played a vital role in supporting elite universities during the Depression. Many alumni felt a strong sense of loyalty to their institutions and were willing to contribute financially to help them through difficult times.


The expansion of elite universities has continued.  Here are some examples.

University of Virginia: In the 1960s and 70s, the University of Virginia's expansion led to the displacement of residents from the Vinegar Hill neighborhood, a predominantly Black community.

Old Dominion University: In Virginia, Old Dominion University's expansion has displaced Black families in the Lambert's Point neighborhood.

New York University: NYU's expansion in New York City has contributed to rising rents and gentrification, pushing many longtime residents out of their neighborhoods.

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA): UCLA's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in surrounding neighborhoods, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.

University of Southern California (USC): USC's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in surrounding neighborhoods, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.

University of Michigan: The University of Michigan's expansion in Ann Arbor has led to rising housing costs and gentrification, displacing many long-time residents, including people of color.

University of Texas at Austin: The university's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in Austin, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents, including people of color.

University of Pennsylvania: The expansion of Penn has contributed to increased demand for housing and commercial space, driving up prices. This has made it difficult for many long-time residents to remain in the neighborhood.

Temple: Temple's expansion has also played a role in gentrification, as the university has attracted more students and faculty, leading to increased demand for housing and services.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: The expansion of UNC-Chapel Hill led to the displacement of residents from the segregated Black neighborhood of Black Hill.

University of Georgia: The expansion of the University of Georgia contributed to the displacement of residents from the African American neighborhood of Athens Terrace.

Louisiana State University: LSU's expansion in Baton Rouge has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.

Johns Hopkins: The expansion of Johns Hopkins in Baltimore has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in the surrounding neighborhoods. This has made it difficult for many long-time residents to remain in the area.

Vanderbilt: In Nashville, Vanderbilt's expansion has also contributed to gentrification. The university's growth has attracted more students, faculty, and staff, leading to increased demand for housing and services, which has driven up prices.

Georgetown University: Georgetown's expansion has contributed to the gentrification of the Georgetown neighborhood, leading to rising housing costs and the displacement of many long-time residents.

George Washington University: GWU's expansion has also played a role in gentrification, particularly in the Foggy Bottom and West End neighborhoods.

American University: AU's growth has contributed to rising housing costs in the Tenleytown neighborhood.

Workers at 2U expect more layoffs in 2024

After successfully completing its recent bankruptcy proceedings, 2U workers expect another round of layoffs.  2U, with its subsidiary edX, is the online program manager for dozens of elite universities, like Harvard and Yale, who offer their brand names to sell online degrees and certificates.  But two schools, the University of Southern California and Fordham, have distanced themselves from the company. 2U's new board chair of is Brian Napack, who served as an executive at John Wiley and McMillan, two other companies that have faced financial challenges. 

Related links: 

2U Collapse Puts Sallie Mae and SLABS Back on the Radar (Glen McGhee)

2U Suspended from NASDAQ. Help for USC and UNC Student Loan Debtors.

2U Declares Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Will Anyone Else Name All The Elite Universities That Were Complicit?

HurricaneTWOU.com: Digital Protest Exposes Syracuse, USC, Pepperdine, and University of North Carolina in 2U edX Edugrift

2U-edX crash exposes the latest wave of edugrift

2U Virus Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities

Buyer Beware: Servicemembers, Veterans, and Families Need to Be On Guard with College and Career Choices

EdTech Meltdown

Erica Gallagher Speaks Out About 2U's Shady Practices at Department of Education Virtual Listening Meeting 

More Layoffs at 2U, the Online Program Manager for Elite Universities

2U, the parent company of edX, has announced more layoffs today. The layoffs were announced to staff and it's not known yet whether they will be publicly reported. It appears that many of the cuts will come from edX bootcamps which may be closing by June 2025. 

2U filed for bankruptcy earlier this year and the bankruptcy was approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on September 9th. Mudrick Capital Management is currently involved in the turnaround plan. 

According to David Halperin, the edtech company may also be the subject of investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and California Attorney General.

2U is the online program manager for a number of elite universities, including Harvard, Yale, MIT, and the University of California. Some of the programs have been the subject of public scorn by consumers who claim they were defrauded. HEI has been investigating 2U since 2019. The Wall Street Journal has also investigated 2U and written several critical stories. 

edX promises career support to people who sign up for bootcamps. But what happens when the bootcamps close?    

Related links:

FTC and California AG Have Been Investigating Online College Provider 2U (David Halperin) 

Workers at 2U expect more layoffs in 2024 

2U Collapse Puts Sallie Mae and SLABS Back on the Radar (Glen McGhee)

2U Suspended from NASDAQ. Help for USC and UNC Student Loan Debtors.

2U Declares Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Will Anyone Else Name All The Elite Universities That Were Complicit?

HurricaneTWOU.com: Digital Protest Exposes Syracuse, USC, Pepperdine, and University of North Carolina in 2U edX Edugrift

2U-edX crash exposes the latest wave of edugrift

2U Virus Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities

Buyer Beware: Servicemembers, Veterans, and Families Need to Be On Guard with College and Career Choices

EdTech Meltdown

Erica Gallagher Speaks Out About 2U's Shady Practices at Department of Education Virtual Listening Meeting

HurricaneTWOU.com: Digital Protest Exposes Syracuse, USC, Pepperdine, and University of North Carolina in 2U edX Edugrift

A new website to inform student consumers has popped up. It's called HurricaneTWOU.com. The website authors identify themselves as a group of former graduate students who want to warn prospective students about what's happening at brand name programs managed by 2U and edX. And they are asking existing students to take a strategic leave of absence. 

The authors also provide information on submitting borrower defense to repayment (fraud) claims to the US Department of Education to have federal student loans forgiven.

The problem is, many consumers are unaware that the brand name schools they are attending online are paying a lion's share back to an online program manager, 2U-edX.  When some consumers cannot find gainful employment after completing their programs, enough to pay off their student loans, they start digging. What they find is that the brand name schools are barely involved in the schemes, other than to take their cut. Even the instructors, poorly paid adjuncts, are employees of the online program manager.

A number of 2U-edX programs are mentioned on HurricaneTWOU.com, to include certificate and graduate degree programs at Syracuse, USC, Pepperdine, and the University of North Carolina.  The authors are organizing an effort through a number of non-violent means, including a petition to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In addition, they are asking people at 2U-edX to provide information to help their cause. 

 

Related links:

2U-edX crash exposes the latest wave of edugrift 

Erica Gallagher Speaks Out About 2U's Shady Practices at Department of Education Virtual Listening Meeting

 2U Virus Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities