U.S. Interventions in the Americas: A Historical Pattern of Force, Profit, and Human Cost

From the mid‑19th century to today, U.S. interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean have consistently combined military force, political influence, and economic pressure. Across this long arc, millions of lives have been shaped—often shattered—by policies that prioritize strategic advantage over human flourishing. Today’s geopolitical tensions with Venezuela are the latest flashpoint in a historical pattern that rewards elites while exacting profound human costs.

Note on Timing: This article is intentionally posted on Christmas Day 2025, a day traditionally associated with peace, goodwill, and reflection, to underscore the contrast between those ideals and the ongoing human toll of U.S. militarism and intervention abroad. The symbolic timing is a reminder that while many celebrate, others suffer the consequences of policies driven by power, profit, and geopolitics.

---

A Critical Warning for Students and Young People

As Higher Education Inquirer has repeatedly argued, the United States’ military footprint—its wars, recruitment programs, and entanglements with higher education—has deep consequences not just abroad but at home. ROTC programs and military enlistment are often marketed as pathways to education and economic stability, but they also funnel young people into systems with long‑term obligations, moral hazards, and psychological risk. Prospective enlistees and their families should think twice before committing to military pathways that may bind them to morally questionable conflicts and institutional control.

Moreover, U.S. higher education has become deeply entwined with kleptocracy, militarism, and colonialism, supporting war economies and benefiting from federal research contracts with defense and intelligence partners that obscure the real human costs of empire. These warnings are especially salient in the context of Venezuela and similar interventions, where human toll and geopolitical stakes demand deeper scrutiny.

---

Smedley Butler: War Is a Racket and the Business Plot

Major General Smedley D. Butler, among the most decorated U.S. Marines, became one of the U.S. military’s most outspoken critics. In his 1935 War Is a Racket, Butler rejected romantic notions of military glory and exposed the economic motives behind many interventions:

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.”

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service… being a high‑class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”

“Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.”

Butler’s warnings were not abstract. In 1933, he was approached to lead a coup against President Franklin D. Roosevelt, known as the Business Plot, which he publicly exposed. His testimony before Congress revealed how elite interests sought to use military power to overthrow democratic government, an episode that underscores his critique of war as a tool for entrenched interests at the expense of ordinary people.

---

Historical Interventions and Their Toll

Below is a timeline of major U.S. interventions in the Americas, with estimated deaths, showing the human cost of policies that often served strategic or economic interests over humanitarian ones:

Period	Location	Event / Nature of Intervention	Estimated Deaths
1846–1848	Mexico	Mexican-American War: Territorial conquest	~25,000 Mexicans
1898	Cuba/P.R.	Spanish-American War: U.S. seized P.R.; Cuba protectorate	~15,000–60,000 (90% disease)
1914	Mexico	Occupation of Veracruz: U.S. port seizure	~300 Mexicans
1915–1934	Haiti	Military Occupation: Suppression of rebellions	~3,000–15,000
1916–1924	Dominican Rep.	Marine Occupation: Control of customs/finance	~4,000
1954	Guatemala	Op. PBSuccess: CIA coup against Árbenz; led to civil war	150,000–250,000*
1965	Dominican Rep.	Op. Power Pack: U.S. intervention during civil war	~3,000
1973–1990	Chile	U.S.-backed Coup/Regime: Pinochet dictatorship	3,000–28,000*
1975–1983	S. America	Operation Condor: CIA-supported intelligence network	~60,000*
1976–1983	Argentina	Dirty War: U.S.-supported military junta and coup	~30,000*
1979–1992	El Salvador	Civil War: Massive military aid to govt forces	35,000–75,000*
1981–1990	Nicaragua	Iran-Contra Affair: Covert support for Contras	~30,000–50,000*
1989	Panama	Operation Just Cause: Invasion to remove Noriega	500–3,000
2025	Venezuela	Naval Blockade: Active maritime strikes and standoff	100+ (to date)

*Estimates include civilian casualties and deaths indirectly caused by U.S.-supported interventions.

---

Venezuela and the Global Politics of Intervention

Venezuela’s 2025 crisis is the latest in a long history of U.S. pressure in the hemisphere. A naval blockade—accompanied by maritime strikes and political isolation—has already produced more than 100 confirmed deaths. Historically, interventions like this have often prioritized U.S. strategic or economic interests over local welfare.

The situation is further complicated by global geopolitics. Former President Donald Trump, who recently pardoned key figures involved in controversial interventions, including Iran‑Contra actors, also maintains strategic ties with China and Russia, highlighting how interventions are entangled with global power plays that affect universities, recruitment pipelines, and domestic politics alike.

---

A Call to Rethink Intervention and Recruitment

Smedley Butler’s critique remains urgent: to “smash the racket,” profit must be removed from war, military force should be strictly defensive, and decisions about war must rest with those who bear its consequences. From Mexico to Venezuela—and including covert operations like Iran‑Contra—the historical record shows how interventions serve a narrow elite while imposing massive human costs.

HEI’s warnings underscore that higher education, ROTC programs, and military recruitment pipelines are not neutral pathways but deeply embedded parts of systems that reproduce extraction, militarism, and inequality. Students, educators, and families must critically evaluate the incentives and promises of military pathways and demand institutions that serve learning, opportunity, and justice rather than empire.

---

Sources

1. Butler, Smedley D. War Is a Racket. Round Table Press, 1935.

2. U.S. Congressional Record and Butler testimony on the Business Plot, 1934.

3. Kinzer, Stephen. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.

4. Scott, Peter Dale. Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America.

5. Reporting on Trump pardons, Iran‑Contra participants, and global alliances (2020–2025).

6. Higher Education Inquirer, “Kleptocracy, Militarism, Colonialism: A Counterrecruiting Call for Students and Families,” December 7, 2025. (link)

7. Higher Education Inquirer, “The Hidden Costs of ROTC — and the Military Path,” November 28, 2025. (link)

8. Historical records on U.S. interventions: Mexican‑American War, Spanish‑American War, Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976–1983), El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela (2025).

When Democrats Talk "War": Reckoning with Escalating Political Rhetoric

In recent months, some Democrats, including Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Oklahoma State Representative Chuck Hoskin Jr., have used language invoking “war” or “battle” to describe their political struggle. This development follows years of similar rhetoric on the right, with conservative commentators like Charlie Kirk openly discussing the possibility of civil war in America.

While the frustration expressed by many Democrats stems from legitimate concerns about the Trump administration’s impact on democratic norms and civil rights, escalating language on both sides of the political divide risks deepening national polarization.

Jasmine Crockett has spoken passionately about the need to resist authoritarian tendencies and protect voting rights, sometimes using combat metaphors to emphasize urgency. Governor Hochul has also used strong language framing political fights as critical battles for democracy. Similarly, Hoskin has described political conflicts in terms that evoke struggle. These expressions reflect the intensity of the current political moment and the anger felt by many who see democracy under threat. However, this kind of rhetoric can contribute to an atmosphere where political opponents are seen not just as rivals but as enemies. When elected officials use warlike language, it can legitimize hostility and increase the risk of violence.

Conservative voices like Charlie Kirk have for years warned of civil war should their political goals be blocked, normalizing extreme and violent discourse. Such language has been weaponized to mobilize supporters and delegitimize opposing viewpoints. The adoption of similarly combative language by Democrats risks amplifying division rather than fostering democratic debate.

It is understandable that Democrats feel frustrated and threatened after years of political attacks and institutional undermining. Still, all political leaders must be mindful of how their words can escalate tensions. Words matter. When public figures invoke “war,” it risks crossing from metaphor into justification for real conflict. Given recent episodes of political violence, rhetoric that inflames should be avoided by leaders on both sides.

The political climate in the United States is highly volatile. Frustration is widespread and justified in many quarters, but elected officials must consider the consequences of their rhetoric. The use of war-related language by Democrats, mirroring longstanding conservative warnings, underscores the urgency of returning to measured, responsible discourse that prioritizes democratic engagement over confrontation.

Sources for this article include public statements and speeches by Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Oklahoma State Representative Chuck Hoskin Jr., as well as commentary by Charlie Kirk, whose civil war rhetoric has been documented in interviews and social media from 2019 to 2023. Further context is drawn from political rhetoric analyses such as Kathleen Hall Jamieson's Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President (Oxford University Press, 2018), reporting on political violence from outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post between 2021 and 2025, and studies on political language’s impact on polarization from the Pew Research Center (2022).

Modeling civil unrest in the United States: some historical cases (Bryan Alexander*)

[Editor's note: This essay first appeared at BryanAlexander.org on September 6, 2022]

I’ve been modeling potential civil unrest in the US for a while, as some of you know (in terms of polycrisis, neonationalism, recent polls, after Trump, the 2020 election, 2018-2019, the 2016 election, egging on fears, and Sinclair Lewis). One way of doing this futuring work is by drawing on historical examples. History does not repeat, but some relevant  historical events can give us some rough ideas of how insurrections/civil war/rebellions/secession/etc. might play out.  At the least they give us examples to think with.

Today I wanted to offer a group of these examples, drawn from the past few generations, which might be useful.  For each one I’ll offer a very brief introduction, then explore how something similar might play out in the modern American setting.

One caveat: what follows are sketches of history, not serious historiography. Each one is way too short, and you should really dive into each on your own, including in comments. They are samples and summaries to stir your imaginations and investigations.

Another caveat. For these examples/models I assume a few details:

1. Trump (and DeSantis, the most likely Trump successor now) live and keep doing their thing for at least a few years.
2. Civil unrest happens, to some degree.
3. Time horizon: medium term, the next 5 years, or so.

The future can easily invalidate #s 1 and 2.  While Trump often appears in rude health and, in American style, is rich enough to pay for top notch medical care, he also has poor health habits and is nearing 80.  He or DeSantis could, of course, be killed, either in accidents or by the time-honored American tradition of assassination.  As for my second assumption, we haven’t seen much unrest over the past five years, despite my forecasts.  We might not experience anything of the kind – and should hope to be so fortunate.

One last bit of throat-clearing: there are other historical examples we can draw from, especially on the global stage.  I have been working on others, but wanted to get some out there now. I’d love to hear your own historical ideas.

Onward:

THE YEARS OF LEAD Italy endured a low grade civil conflict starting in the 1960s. Various extreme right and left groups targeted each other, the government, civil society, and civilians with bombings, kidnapping, robberies, and assassinations. The extreme right’s goal was the notorious “strategy of tension“: to scare people with terror enough that they would accept a reactionary government. The left’s strategy: to mobilize the population enough to kick off a left-wing revolution. Both used violence and terror as risky but sometimes successful recruiting tools, as well as for resource-gathering (cf bank robberies). Violence and terror also kept the cycle going by instilling the desire for revenge in survivors, friends, family, and witnesses.

The 1980 Bologna railway massacre.

How might this apply to the United States? It is not difficult to foresee some extreme right-wing groups (3%ers, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, etc) increasing their violent acts and becoming more ambitious. One established American precedent is The Order, a hard-right racist fringe outfit which conducted bank robberies and at least one assassination in the mid-1980s.  Following the Italian example, not to mention the action of some Republicans around the January 6th event, we would envision some politicians allying themselves with these fringe activists to varying degrees of secrecy or openness, for a shared cause and/or mutual benefit.

I’m not sure if there will be any such corresponding action on the extreme left, since so many are wedded to nonviolent action. But we could see such organizing happen if a group feels right-wing dangers are dire enough and if they are willing to obtain the necessary tools.  Perhaps right wing attacks will spur retaliation. Or maybe some will see their struggle as so fundamental to humanity that they must risk extreme action (cf the classic “if you had a time machine, would you travel to the 1920s and murder Hitler?” prompt).

Recall that in the Italian case the activists were very small in number. The Red Brigades numbered a few hundred out of a nation with circa 50 million people. The United States, in contrast, numbers nearly 330 million and is very well supplied with weaponry.

Recall, too, that in Italy’s Years of Lead neither side succeeded in taking over the government, even after kidnapping and killing a former prime minister.

CHINA’S CULTURAL REVOLUTION From 1966 to 1976 political chaos engulfed the People’s Republic of China. Chairman Mao, having lost a great deal of power due to the horrific failure of his Great Leap Forward, launched a political gamble to rebuild his leadership. The story is complex and not easy to summarize, but it took the broad form of a revolution from above, which developed into widespread unrest to the level of civil war.  Mao used national, regional, local, and cultural supporters to provoke political instability while building up a Stalin-level cult of personality.  To do this Mao and his allies ran huge propaganda campaigns, created new political-military units out of teenagers, spurred endless rounds of local political fighting (hence struggle sessions and escalating local violence), and purged leaders across the system, along with preparing the nation for war with the Soviet Union, and more.

(I recommend Frank Dikötter’s The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962—1976. The complexity of this story is immense, and its recency means it’s difficult to get perspective and documents.)

How might this play out in the United States?  Obviously the American situation is very different.  Contemporary America is a world leader and is neoliberal in ideology, as opposed to China’s developing nation status during these events, not to mention being a communist state. However, we could imagine a right wing American leader, such as Trump, applying some of Mao’s practices if he wins the 2024 presidential election. Imagine him authorizing various local groups (militias, friendly state governments, local or state police) and federal agencies to go after people he doesn’t like (liberal school boards, tech companies, whatever Trump thinks Antifa is). Trump (or DeSantis) could use federal powers to crack down on anyone he doesn’t like, such as sending troops to deep blue cities, increasing digital surveillance, or denying resources. Trump (or DeSantis) could also follow Mao in urging repeatedly updated political opinions, talking up foreign war to scare people at home, calling out domestic enemies, and generally building up a cult of personality.

Obviously there are limits to this analogy. Trump is no ideologue like Mao was; I’m not sure what a Little Red Book analog might be.  Further, today’s GOP counts economic growth as a major, even leading achievement, while a Cultural Revolution level of chaos would undermine that.

One thing to keep in mind: Mao succeeded, at least in terms of his drive to rebuild his own power. He lived the last years of his life in supreme authority, albeit in declining health, after dismantling some of his support structures.

THE DESTRUCTION OF YUGOSLAVIA In the 1990s this nation tore itself apart, as a nationalist party tried to seize and expand control over the whole republic, and as different sub-nations sought to secede. A powerful national army proved a major power source for the Serb hardliners, as did militias. Republics generated their own forces, including irregular militias. Violence escalated in cycles of vengeance and deliberately inflicted terror. Republics exited the federation while the war grew in complexity and horror.  Other nations intervened, eventually establishing a shaky peace – followed by more conflicts and more unstable settlements.

Bosnia’s Stary Most (Old Bridge) over the Neretva River, rebuilt after being shattered in the war.

What vision for American conflict does the destruction of Yugoslavia present?  This is a more extreme model than the first two, but it could play out in several ways. imagine if Trump or DeSantis wins the White House and cracks down much harder than in the Mao model. Such suppression, surveillance, and violence provokes resistance at the state and city level. Democrats/liberals/the left attempt to secede in some way, such as declaring local autonomy from the Republican administration. They could organize self-defense forces at scale. This could spark an escalated federal crackdown. Any violence would drive all sides to further organization and action, and the nation spirals into civil war.

Alternatively, we could imagine the reverse, with a Democratic election victory and the Trump/reactionary right treating the winner as a tyrant. The latter could attempt to secede at the city, state, and/or regional level. They could organizing violence at various levels, from lone activists to militias or suborned local police, aimed against federal forces or locals perceived as aligned with them. The White House follows Lincoln in 1861 and responds with greater force. The civil war spiral kicks off.

Once more, there are obvious differences between the United States in the 2020s and post-Tito Yugoslavia. As with the Chinese comparison, America is not a communist state.  The USA is also more powerful geopolitically, not at the point of having foreign forces intervene and force settlements.  There are not clear-cut mixtures of ethnic, religious, and linguistic divides; the American situation is more complex.  Yet ethnic cleansing, should it occur, might take different forms, such as racial mass murder.

---

Why these historical examples out of all others?

First off, I was looking for situations that were as close to the present as possible.  That makes the comparisons less removed than, say, examples from Europe in the 1600s.  These histories are still distant from our present in key ways.  The contemporary internet, for example, could prove a powerful tool in any actor’s arsenal. The experience and impact of COVID-19 might inflect any such future history in ways quite different from our examples.

Second, for each one I began by isolating present-day factors which could drive civil unrest in the United States. Looking at dueling small groups in Portland, Oregon and the group which rioted in the US Capitol brought to mind the fierce, committed extremists of modern Italy. Considering Trump’s cult of personality, I looked for contemporary examples.  North Korea offers one, as does Italy’s Berlusconi, but not with the deliberate cultivation of chaos represented by Mao’s top-down revolution. Considering secession presents several alternatives, like Czechoslovakia’s split or the Eritrean war, but former Yugoslavia has advantages: a larger number of factions, a late industrial economic base, and a mix of ideologies with other identities.

Again, these are sketches. There is a lot more to say about each of those stories. There are plenty of ways today’s American context differs from each. Plus I have a lot more research behind this, but don’t want to overwhelm in a single FB post. My goal is to get you all thinking and commenting, so have at it.

(Bologna bombing photo by Beppe Briguglio, Patrizia Pulga, Medardo Pedrini, Marco Vaccari – www.stragi.it/, CC BY-SA 3.0; Cultural Revolution photo from Wikipedia; Mostar’s Stary Most image from Wikipedia)

**Bryan Alexander is an award–winning, internationally known futurist, researcher, writer, speaker, consultant, and teacher, working in the field of higher education’s future. He is currently a senior scholar at Georgetown University. Bryan's next book is Universities on Fire, to be published by Johns Hopkins University Press. This article was originally published at BryanAlexander.org.

The Matrix of God: How Fourth Generation Warfare Shapes the Christian Right’s Political Strategy — and What It Means for Higher Education

Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) is a concept that redefines conflict in the modern era. Unlike the conventional wars of the past—mass manpower, mass firepower, and non-linear maneuvering—4GW transcends the physical battlefield and penetrates mental and moral realms. Coined by military theorist William S. Lind in 1989, it reveals how warfare today is a struggle over ideas, legitimacy, and social cohesion, rather than just territory or armies.

From Bullets to Ideas: The Evolution of Warfare

Where the Revolutionary War and the World Wars were fought with armies and weapons, 4GW attacks the very foundations of society: the social trust, the shared moral narratives, and the legitimacy of institutions themselves. This warfare aims to induce populations to shift loyalty away from established governments toward insurgent forces by undermining cohesion through psychological, informational, and cultural tactics.

The Christian Right’s Domestic Insurgency

While 4GW initially described conflicts between governments and insurgents abroad, it has been adopted domestically by the Christian Right as a framework for political warfare in the United States. Leading strategists such as Paul Weyrich and William S. Lind have mobilized 4GW to wage a campaign aimed at delegitimizing the liberal-secular democratic order and replacing it with a Christian nationalist vision.

Weyrich famously framed this battle as a “war of ideology” and “a war about our way of life” that requires the same intensity as a shooting war. Under their direction, the Free Congress Foundation published a blueprint calling for the destruction—not reform—of secular liberal institutions through continuous propaganda and guerrilla tactics aimed at eroding the legitimacy of “the Left” and the constitutional protections it upholds.

The Epistemological Battlefield and Christian Reconstructionism

The intellectual roots of this insurgency lie with Christian Reconstructionism, founded by Rousas John Rushdoony, which calls for rebuilding society on a biblical epistemology, supplanting secular knowledge systems. This worldview fuels the epistemological warfare central to 4GW: a battle to reconstruct what is accepted as truth, knowledge, and legitimacy.

The Quiet War’s Implications for Higher Education and Society

As HEI warned in August 2022, the worst-case scenario for higher education is its entanglement on both sides of what may become a Second US Civil War—between Christian Fundamentalists and neoliberals—with working families suffering the greatest consequences.

Higher education stands at a crossroads amid this cultural and political warfare. As an institution responsible for knowledge production, critical thinking, and social cohesion, colleges risk being battlegrounds where this Fourth Generation Warfare plays out—through contested curricula, campus culture wars, and battles over legitimacy and authority.

The Christian Right’s epistemological warfare challenges the very foundations of academic freedom, transparency, and democratic values that higher education strives to uphold. The erosion of social trust and the rise of disinformation campaigns threaten to fracture campuses and society alike.

Fighting for the Soul of Democracy and Education

Understanding Fourth Generation Warfare and its domestic deployment by the Christian Right is essential for educators, journalists, and policymakers. This “Matrix of God” is not just a theoretical military concept—it is an ongoing ideological insurgency aimed at reshaping American political culture and knowledge itself.

Higher education must resist becoming a pawn in this war. Instead, it can serve as a bastion of critical inquiry, transparency, and accountability—helping society confront major challenges like climate change, inequality, and authoritarianism.

The stakes are high: either colleges embrace their role in strengthening democracy and social trust, or they become caught in a destructive conflict that imperils working families and the country’s future.

---

Sources:

• Lind, William S. Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook (1989)

• Heubeck, Eric. The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement (2001)

• Weyrich, Paul. Various speeches and writings, 1980s-2000s

• Rushdoony, Rousas John. Christian Reconstructionism

• Battle without Bullets: The Christian Right and Fourth Generation Warfare, Academia.edu

• Higher Education Inquirer, Interview with Dahn Shaulis, August 2022: https://collegeviability.com/blog/f/interview-with-dahn-shaulis---higher-education-inquirer

Chris Rufo and Right Wing "Civil Rights"

Chris Rufo’s recent article in City Journal, titled "New Right-Wing Civil-Rights Regime", is a prime example of ideological revisionism that fails to engage with history in any meaningful way. At its core, Rufo presents an interpretation of the civil rights movement and its aftermath that is both profoundly ahistorical and dangerously reductionist. While attempting to frame his argument as a critique of the modern Left’s grip on civil rights law, Rufo distorts the legacy of the 1960s civil rights movement and misrepresents the real challenges of racial justice in America today.

Chris Rufo, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and a prominent figure in the battle against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, has gained significant influence in recent years for his aggressive campaigns to shift the national discourse on race and education. Rufo's rise to prominence coincided with his efforts to expose and denounce critical race theory (CRT) in public education, a tactic that has been instrumental in shaping conservative rhetoric around race. His latest article continues this trend, proposing that the Trump administration's attack on DEI programs in higher education represents a necessary correction to what he perceives as a Left-wing racialist agenda.

However, Rufo’s understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its legacy is highly problematic. The article begins by referencing Christopher Caldwell’s The Age of Entitlement, a book that has been influential in certain conservative circles. Caldwell’s thesis, which Rufo echoes, argues that the Civil Rights Act marked a "fundamental departure" from America’s constitutional tradition. According to Caldwell (and by extension, Rufo), the Act, initially a noble effort to combat racial discrimination, eventually "consumed core American freedoms" and has been weaponized to entrench "left-wing racialist ideology" in American institutions. This narrative, however, overlooks the essential purpose of the Civil Rights Act—to eliminate legally sanctioned racial discrimination and provide equal protection to marginalized groups.

Rufo’s invocation of Caldwell’s book is troubling because it oversimplifies the historical context of civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not the beginning of a long, slow descent into tyranny, as Rufo suggests, but rather the long-overdue correction of centuries of systemic racism. The idea that it was somehow a “departure” from constitutional principles is a misguided reading of both the Act’s intent and the broader history of American law. To frame the Act’s enforcement mechanisms and subsequent civil rights policies as a threat to "core American freedoms" is a distortion that erases the basic reality of racial oppression in the U.S. before and after its passage.

The Legacy of White Supremacy and Structural Racism

What Rufo and those who echo his arguments fail to acknowledge is the enduring legacy of white supremacy and structural racism that has pervaded American society for centuries. The very system of racial discrimination that the Civil Rights Act sought to dismantle is far from a relic of the past; it is woven into the fabric of American institutions, policies, and practices in ways that continue to disadvantage Black people and other people of color.

One glaring example is the practice of redlining, where federal policies explicitly denied mortgage loans and insurance to Black families and other communities of color in favor of white neighborhoods. The result was the creation of segregated, impoverished urban spaces that continue to suffer from disinvestment and lack of opportunity to this day. In many cities, predominantly Black neighborhoods were intentionally situated near polluting industries, highways, and other environmentally harmful sites—leading to environmental racism. For example, toxic waste was often dumped in or near Black communities, subjecting these populations to higher rates of asthma, cancer, and other health problems. These practices are a direct manifestation of a racist infrastructure that systematically devalued the lives and health of Black and Brown Americans.

Similarly, housing policies throughout the 20th century—especially during the post-WWII era—were designed to exclude Black families from the expanding suburban dream. The GI Bill, which offered housing subsidies to veterans returning from World War II, was administered in ways that largely excluded Black servicemen from accessing these benefits. As a result, millions of white families were able to buy homes and build wealth, while Black families were largely left out, forcing many into substandard housing or limited to racially segregated neighborhoods with fewer opportunities for economic mobility.

The effects of segregation are not limited to housing, however. In education, the legacy of white supremacy has created an unequal system that continues to affect Black and Latinx students today. While Brown v. Board of Education (1954) officially declared school segregation unconstitutional, de facto segregation still exists in many schools due to housing patterns, local funding disparities, and state and federal neglect. Predominantly Black schools often face chronic underfunding, inadequate facilities, and higher teacher turnover rates, all of which contribute to a less equitable education for students of color. The persistent racial achievement gap in standardized testing, college admissions, and career prospects is not an accident, but the direct result of this long-standing inequality in education.

In the workplace, systemic discrimination continues to be a major problem. Job discrimination against Black and Brown workers has been documented for decades, whether in hiring practices, wage disparities, or promotions. Studies show that applicants with “ethnic-sounding” names are less likely to be called back for job interviews, even when their resumes are identical to those of their white counterparts. Even in fields like law, medicine, and finance—where education and credentials are paramount—racial minorities face significant barriers to advancement.

The criminal justice system is perhaps the most visible example of how structural racism is still a significant issue in the United States. The over-policing of Black neighborhoods, mass incarceration, and the disproportionate sentencing of Black Americans for similar offenses compared to their white counterparts are stark reminders of how racial inequality remains embedded in American institutions. Rufo’s argument that we have moved past the systemic racism embedded in our society ignores this reality, while conveniently minimizing or disregarding the lived experiences of Black and Brown communities.

"Colorblindness" as a Historical Evasion

Rufo goes on to argue that the Right, for years ambivalent about civil rights law, has now discovered its “winning argument”—one grounded in “colorblind equality.” This is where the article takes a dangerous turn, suggesting that policies such as affirmative action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are the result of a Left-wing plot to institutionalize racial discrimination. The article not only misrepresents the goals of such programs but also fundamentally misunderstands the role they play in a society that has never fully reckoned with its history of racial inequities.

The notion of “colorblindness” as the ideal model of equality, promoted by Rufo and others, is deeply problematic. While it may sound appealing in theory, in practice, colorblindness ignores the structural realities of race in America. It’s an abstraction that overlooks the lived experiences of racial minorities and fails to address the historical and ongoing disadvantages they face. In higher education, for example, DEI policies are designed not to perpetuate discrimination but to provide opportunities for those who have been historically excluded from academic spaces. Rufo’s argument that these policies are a form of “racialist discrimination” is not only misleading but actively harmful, suggesting that efforts to correct inequality are themselves a form of bigotry.

Chris Rufo’s Avoidance of Class in His Analysis

One of the most glaring omissions in Rufo’s analysis is his near-total avoidance of class as a factor in understanding systemic inequality. Rufo's focus is almost exclusively on race, specifically on how he perceives racial policies to be privileging one group over another, but he does not consider the ways in which class and economic status intersect with race to perpetuate inequality. This avoidance of class, particularly in the context of economic mobility and working-class struggles, weakens his entire argument and distorts the reality of how racism operates in modern American society.

Rufo’s critique of the modern civil rights regime seems to entirely ignore the vast disparities in wealth, income, and opportunity that are not simply a product of racial identity but of class-based systems of power. For example, his focus on “colorblind” equality in education does not account for the fact that the richest Americans, regardless of their racial background, have access to a far superior education and resources than the poor, who are disproportionately Black, Latinx, or Indigenous. The education gap that Rufo claims is a result of racial policies is also a direct consequence of economic inequality, where low-income communities—largely communities of color—are unable to access the same quality of education as wealthier, predominantly white communities. Acknowledging this would complicate Rufo’s narrative, as it would challenge the simplistic framing of a racial conflict between different ethnic groups, rather than a structural critique of the class divide in America.

Moreover, Rufo’s call for a “colorblind” society effectively erases the fact that poverty and economic disempowerment are racialized in ways that cannot be understood without examining the intersection of race and class. By focusing solely on racial hierarchy without addressing the role that economic disparity plays in sustaining social divisions, Rufo contributes to a larger ideological erasure of class struggle from the national conversation. His avoidance of class is a deliberate one, as it allows him to cast the issue of racial justice solely in terms of “identity politics” and to dismiss efforts aimed at addressing material inequality as divisive or unnecessary.

Who Will Be Receptive to This Propaganda?

While Rufo's article represents a highly selective interpretation of civil rights history, it will likely resonate with certain groups whose political and cultural leanings align with his critique of left-wing ideologies. These are individuals who believe that the modern civil rights agenda, particularly in the form of DEI and affirmative action programs, has gone too far and is now harmful to the interests of "oppressor" groups like white people, men, and even some Asian Americans. This demographic includes:

1. Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers: Many who align with conservative or libertarian ideologies are drawn to the narrative that civil rights policies have become a tool of social engineering, seeking to dismantle traditional values in the name of racial and gender equality. Rufo’s emphasis on "colorblind" policies will appeal to those who see government intervention as an overreach and prefer individual merit over group-based policies.

2. Populist Right-Wing Activists: The article will likely resonate with populist voters who view institutions like the Ivy League universities as bastions of elitism and left-wing ideologies. These individuals are often distrustful of academic institutions, the media, and governmental institutions, and Rufo’s framing of DEI as racialist discrimination plays into their fears of being "marginalized" in favor of minority groups.

3. Cultural War Foot Soldiers: Many of Rufo’s ideas are packaged as part of the broader culture wars. His framing of CRT, DEI, and "wokeness" as threats to American values is designed to rally those who feel alienated by changes in cultural norms, especially regarding race, gender, and identity. This group tends to be more reactive to what they perceive as a breakdown in social order, and Rufo provides a coherent narrative that positions them as defenders of a traditional, meritocratic society.

4. Right-Wing Media Consumers: The article is likely to appeal to consumers of right-wing media who are already attuned to the language of cultural decline and political correctness. These readers will be receptive to Rufo’s framing because it aligns with familiar themes promoted by conservative pundits.

In the end, Rufo’s narrative is one that is carefully designed for a particular audience—a segment of the American populace that feels threatened by the cultural shifts around race, identity, and equality. By presenting a revisionist history of civil rights and ignoring the deeply embedded structural inequalities of class, race, and economics, Rufo continues to peddle an ideological framework that is more about cultural warfare than actual justice.

University of Colorado sued for free speech violations over response to Israel-Hamas war protest (John Herrick)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared at the Boulder Reporting Lab.]

A University of Colorado Boulder student and an employee filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court on Jan. 10, alleging the university violated their free speech rights following a protest related to the war in Gaza.

Sophomore Mari Rosenfeld and recent graduate Max Inman, the plaintiffs, claim CU Boulder retaliated against them for participating in an Oct. 3 protest organized by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) during a career fair at the University Memorial Center.

The lawsuit follows several other legal challenges against universities nationwide over restrictions on student protests over the Israel-Hamas war. These cases often underscore a tension universities face in balancing the protection of free speech with maintaining campus order.

According to the complaint, Rosenfeld and Inman sought to oppose U.S. support for Israel and the involvement of corporations allegedly linked to the war. Inman entered the University Memorial Center’s Glenn Miller Ballroom, where the career fair was held, and used a bullhorn to claim that corporations attending the job fair were profiting from the war. A police officer then directed the protesters to leave and they left, according to the lawsuit. 

The next day, the university issued an “interim exclusion” order barring Rosenfeld and Inman from attending certain university activities — except for classes — and placed SJP in “bad standing,” effectively revoking its status as a recognized student organization, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue these actions violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as a state law protecting student protests.

“Plaintiffs are being singled out based on their viewpoint and the content of their speech by Defendant University of Colorado Boulder and its administration in an effort to stifle further demonstrations,” the lawsuit states. 

Rosenfeld and Inman allege the punishment also prevented them from working the on-campus portions of their jobs. They are seeking monetary damages and a court order to prohibit the university from barring future pro-Palestinian protests at the UMC. They are also seeking an order to remove disciplinary notations related to the protest from their student records. 

The lawsuit names the University of Colorado and CU Boulder’s chancellor, Justin Schwartz, dean of students, Devin Cramer, and deputy dean of students, Holly Nelson. The university has not yet been served the lawsuit, according to a spokesperson. The spokesperson said the campus would review the filing and determine its response but declined to comment further.

The case reflects a broader national trend of universities cracking down on student activism related to the Israel-Hamas war. During the peak in the spring and summer 2024, universities imposed stricter rules, issued suspensions and called in police to arrest students — though many charges were later dropped. While some campuses have seen large-scale protests, CU Boulder has not experienced such encampments.

“Banning students from campus to prevent them from speaking out about an unjust war cannot go unchallenged,” Dan Williams, a lawyer with the local civil rights firm Hutchinson Black and Cook who is representing the plaintiffs. “I’m pleased to be fighting for the rights of these students to have their voices heard.”

ED Office for Civil Rights initiates Title VI investigations of 45 universities. Here's the List. (US Department of Education)

[Editor's note: The Trump-McMahon Department of Education continues to launch investigations of major universities in its war on US higher education. This strategy is similar to that used in Hungary and other less democratic nations.]

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations into 45 universities under Title VI following OCR’s February 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) that reiterated schools’ civil rights obligations to end the use of racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities. The investigations come amid allegations that these institutions have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) by partnering with “The Ph.D. Project,” an organization that purports to provide doctoral students with insights into obtaining a Ph.D. and networking opportunities, but limits eligibility based on the race of participants.  

OCR is also investigating six universities for allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships and one university for allegedly administering a program that segregates students on the basis of race.  

“The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination. The agency has already launched Title VI investigations into institutions where widespread antisemitic harassment has been reported and Title IX investigations into entities which allegedly continue to allow sex discrimination; today’s announcement expands our efforts to ensure universities are not discriminating against their students based on race and race stereotypes,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin. We will not yield on this commitment.” 

The universities now under investigation for allegedly engaging in race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs include: 

• Arizona State University – Main Campus  
• Boise State University  
• Cal Poly Humboldt  
• California State University – San Bernadino  
• Carnegie Mellon University  
• Clemson University  
• Cornell University  
• Duke University  
• Emory University  
• George Mason University  
• Georgetown University  
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)  
• Montana State University-Bozeman   
• New York University (NYU)  
• Rice University  
• Rutgers University  
• The Ohio State University – Main Campus  
• Towson University  
• Tulane University  
• University of Arkansas – Fayetteville   
• University of California-Berkeley  
• University of Chicago  
• University of Cincinnati – Main Campus  
• University of Colorado – Colorado Springs
• University of Delaware  
• University of Kansas  
• University of Kentucky  
• University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 
• University of Minnesota-Twin Cities  
• University of Nebraska at Omaha  
• University of New Mexico – Main Campus  
• University of North Dakota – Main Campus  
• University of North Texas – Denton   
• University of Notre Dame  
• University of NV – Las Vegas  
• University of Oregon  
• University of Rhode Island  
• University of Utah  
• University of Washington-Seattle  
• University of Wisconsin-Madison  
• University of Wyoming  
• Vanderbilt University  
• Washington State University 
• Washington University in St. Louis  
• Yale University 

The schools under investigation for alleged impermissible race-based scholarships and race-based segregation are:  

• Grand Valley State University   
• Ithaca College  
• New England College of Optometry   
• University of Alabama  
• University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 
• University of South Florida  
• University of Oklahoma, Tulsa School of Community Medicine 

Background: 

On February 14, OCR sent a Dear Colleague Letter to educational institutions receiving federal funding clarifying that, pursuant to federal antidiscrimination law, they must cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and other programs and activities. On March 1, the Department released FAQs to anticipate and answer questions that may have arisen in response to the DCL. 

These OCR investigations are being conducted pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in education programs and activities receiving federal funding. Institutions’ violation of Title VI can result in loss of federal funds. 

Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center and the Battle Lines of a New American Divide

As the United States continues to fracture along political and cultural lines, Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center (SFFC) is not just observing the divide—it is actively working to widen it. Positioned at the vanguard of Christian Nationalist thought, the SFFC promotes a vision of the nation where faith is law, politics is pulpit, and pluralism is cast as a spiritual threat.

In recent years, the center has ramped up rhetoric that casts the American culture war as a righteous struggle between biblical Christians and a “godless elite.” Nowhere is this more evident than in its escalating campaign against Planned Parenthood, which the center presents not just as a healthcare provider, but as the embodiment of neoliberal moral decay.

From Cultural Critique to Wartime Rhetoric

The SFFC has turned its media platforms into a moral war room, producing daily content that frames modern American politics in biblical terms—light versus darkness, good versus evil, Christians versus cultural Marxists. The center regularly targets institutions like public universities, Hollywood, and Washington bureaucracies as complicit in the erosion of Christian civilization.

A recent SFFC campaign, for example, lambasted Planned Parenthood with claims that it is not merely offering reproductive services, but “profiting from death.” Referencing the organization’s most recent annual report, the center emphasized that Planned Parenthood had performed over 402,000 abortions in a single year while pulling in more than $2 billion in revenue—a “record-breaking” number, according to the SFFC.

The Anti-Abortion Crusade as a Flashpoint

In SFFC messaging, this abortion data is used not just to critique Planned Parenthood, but to indict the American system as complicit in mass murder—what it describes as a “death movement” funded by taxpayers. The center argues that federal support for Planned Parenthood indirectly subsidizes abortion, even if laws technically prohibit direct funding for the procedure.

“This organization,” an SFFC statement reads, “which has long received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually, can sustain itself without public funding. Yet it continues to benefit from the federal trough while expanding its abortion services.”

The center draws a direct connection between this funding and what it sees as a systemic betrayal of America’s moral core. By painting Planned Parenthood as both a “political and cultural powerhouse” and a “merchant of death,” the SFFC not only undermines trust in public institutions—it rallies students and followers to view America’s future as dependent on destroying these institutions altogether.

Indoctrination, Not Education

While most university-affiliated think tanks encourage debate and pluralism, the SFFC operates more like an ideological factory. Its leaders are unapologetic in their intent to raise up a generation of “culture warriors” who will go into politics, media, and ministry with a mandate to reshape society in a narrowly defined Christian image.

The anti-abortion campaign is also used to collect data and recruit young activists. On the SFFC website, readers are invited to respond to a poll:

Do you think young people are becoming more conservative?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Email Address: ___________

A disclaimer informs users that “completing this poll entitles you to receive communications from Liberty University free of charge,” and that by participating, they agree to receive ongoing messaging rooted in the SFFC’s worldview.

Christian Nationalism and the Call for a Parallel America

By centering its messaging on abortion, gender identity, religious liberty, and “globalist control,” the SFFC is laying the ideological groundwork for a future in which two Americas coexist uneasily—or collide outright. One America, in this vision, is neoliberal and secular, ruled by technocrats and activists. The other is God-ordained, led by a “remnant” of faithful patriots.

This worldview leaves no room for compromise. It promotes defunding Planned Parenthood not as a policy choice, but as a moral imperative—a “necessary step toward reclaiming the soul of our nation.” Any opposition to this vision is treated as treasonous, immoral, and aligned with “demonic forces.”

The University’s Role in Civil Conflict

In past decades, higher education was viewed as a site for civic formation and critical thinking. But with institutions like Liberty University turning their academic platforms into partisan strongholds, the American university system is becoming a battlefield.

The Standing for Freedom Center is not merely part of the conversation—it is actively inciting a form of civil conflict. Its campaigns seek to delegitimize not just opposing arguments, but entire political structures. And in doing so, they push the country closer to a clash not just of ideas, but of identities.

Toward a Theology of Division

By promoting a view of the United States as a nation under siege by secular forces, the SFFC turns policy debates into spiritual warfare. Whether on abortion, education, or civil rights, every issue is recast as a battle for the soul of the country.

This theology of division, dressed in the language of liberty and moral clarity, may resonate with young evangelicals who feel alienated from mainstream culture. But its long-term effect may be the erosion of the shared civic space that makes pluralistic democracy possible.

As the 2026 election cycle accelerates, and as institutions continue to splinter, the question is no longer whether Liberty University is shaping the culture war—it’s how much longer the country can avoid the kind of civil fracture the Standing for Freedom Center seems eager to see fulfilled.

---

Do you have information about educational and religious institutions shaping political conflict? Contact the Higher Education Inquirer confidentially at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

A House Divided...

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln’s immortal words—delivered at a time of profound crisis—speak volumes to the United States of 2025. We are again a nation splintering at its foundations. Not only is the Trump administration’s 2025 spending bill a cruel redistribution of wealth and opportunity, but it is also a calculated assault on national cohesion. By pitting group against group, and widening already-existing chasms, this legislation weakens the country from within.

It worsens every major divide in American life:

Young and Old
This bill undermines the future of young people by defunding public education, freezing Pell Grant expansion, and dismantling student loan protections. Meanwhile, it offers little to nothing to the aging population—cutting health and housing programs while privatizing services they depend on. Instead of investing in generational cooperation, the bill fuels resentment: older voters blamed for electing regressive leaders, younger generations accused of entitlement. Both groups suffer—but separately.

Rich and Poor
At its core, the bill is a brutal act of class warfare. It strips federal protections and benefits from working-class families while expanding tax loopholes for the wealthy and funding corporate subsidies. The working poor lose access to healthcare, clean air and water, education, and social safety nets. The rich get richer—and more powerful. The wealth gap, already obscene, becomes insurmountable. Billionaires buy colleges, elections, and media narratives while everyday Americans lose homes, degrees, and dignity.

Men and Women
By slashing childcare funding, defunding reproductive healthcare, and threatening Title IX protections, the spending bill deepens the economic and social vulnerabilities of women, especially single mothers and women of color. Meanwhile, men, too, are left in precarious labor markets with fewer public supports and more pressure to conform to toxic models of masculinity peddled by reactionary forces. The bill ignores gender inequality while encouraging cultural backlashes, deepening mistrust between the sexes.

White, Black, and Brown
The racial fault lines of American life are carved even deeper by this legislation. Black and Brown communities, long targets of systemic disinvestment, will face cuts in education, public health, housing, and environmental protections. Latinx families lose protections for immigrant students and face heightened surveillance. Native American communities see treaty responsibilities ignored yet again. White working-class families, while nominally courted by nationalist rhetoric, are left materially worse off—offered culture war instead of clean water and decent jobs.

The Trump budget does not unite Americans; it divides them more efficiently. It weaponizes identity and scarcity—turning natural allies into enemies and stoking civil conflict not with guns but with spreadsheets.

This is not accidental. In a 2022 interview, we warned about the growing possibility of colleges being drawn into “both sides of a Second U.S. Civil War between Christian Fundamentalists and neoliberals.” In such a conflict, we said, “working families will take the largest hit.” That warning now feels prophetic. Colleges are already caught in the ideological crossfire, serving either the nationalist right or the neoliberal consulting class—while student debt and academic labor exploitation grow on both sides.

This bill isn't just a financial document. It's a manifesto for a new Gilded Age, where working people are left to fight one another over crumbs while billionaires hoard the pie.

Higher education, which once promised upward mobility and civic understanding, has been transformed into a marketplace of credentials, surveillance, and extraction. The 2025 Trump bill accelerates this, cutting off pathways to opportunity while protecting the interests of robocolleges, shady lenders, and digital monopolies.

The house is burning. And if we do not find a way to build solidarity across these divisions—young and old, rich and poor, Black and white, men and women—we will fall, not as tribes, but as a nation.

Sources:

• Interview with Dahn Shaulis, College Viability (2022)

• Congressional Budget Office, Trump 2025 Budget Analysis

• National Student Legal Defense Network

• American Council on Education, Pell Grant and Loan Data

• U.S. Department of Education: Title IX and regulatory changes

• Clean Energy for America Coalition

• U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Education and Tribal Funding Reports

• Higher Education Inquirer investigations on robocolleges, edtech profiteering, and student debt

The Admissions Game

History and Structure of Selective Admissions

Folks are not privy to the inner workings of admissions, especially at elite and brand name schools.  The College Admissions Scandal (aka Varsity Blues) gave us a small window into this structure, but that story will soon be forgotten. And it only touched the surface of how the system works for some and not for others.   

What little the public has access about selective admissions can be found in a few historical and sociological sources, like Craig Steven Wilder's Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities and William Domhoff's Who Rules America?: The Corporate Rich, White Nationalist Republicans, and Inclusionary Democrats in the 2020s. Books that are not best sellers or readily available in public libraries. 

The 400 year history of American higher education begins with selective admissions. From the 1600s to the 1860s, access was largely restricted to white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male landowners, reflecting the societal norms of the time. A few Native American elites were forced into universities as tools of assimilation, colonization, and cultural erasure.

There were some notable exceptions. Georgetown, a Catholic college, was founded in 1789, and like other schools relied on enslaved people for labor.  For others, there were for-profit trade schools for bookkeeping, engineering and technical drawing. In 1836, the first women's college, Wesleyan College, was founded. 

Higher Education Segregation and the Morrill (Land-Grant Colleges) Act

In the 19th century, as the United States industrialized and urbanized, the concept of meritocracy began to take hold. However, this meritocracy was often defined narrowly, excluding women, people of color, religious minorities, and those from lower socioeconomic classes.

 

Elite colleges continued to favor students from wealthy families, often requiring them to pass entrance exams that tested knowledge of Latin and Greek, subjects typically studied at private preparatory schools. 

 

Separate colleges for African Americans were established. 

 

After the Civil War, opportunities opened up for other white males with the emergence of federal land grants that established state flagship universities. The state universities, were in fact, established on land stolen from indigenous nations. 

 

With a demand for more folks with degrees, degree mills also rose. 

The GI Bill and Civil Rights

The 20th century saw some progress in expanding access to higher education. The GI Bill, for example, provided educational benefits to male veterans, including many from marginalized backgrounds. However, systemic racism and sexism continued to limit opportunities for Black students and women. 

 

Diploma mills again sprang up, in response to this large influx of government funds.

 

It wasn't until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s that significant strides were made in desegregating higher education. And the first tribal college, Diné College, was established in 1968 by the Navajo Nation. 

Affirmative Action and DEI

Today, while elite colleges have become more diverse, they remain elite in nature, especially in terms of social class (wealth, power, prestige). The private school pipeline, legacy admissions, active recruiting, and the financial motivations of these institutions continue to perpetuate inequalities. Students from under-resourced schools and communities may still face significant barriers to admission, even with impressive academic records.

The admissions process at elite colleges and universities has become increasingly scrutinized in recent years. Critics argue that the system favors a select group of students, often from privileged backgrounds, while excluding others with equally impressive credentials. 

Feeder Schools: The Private School Pipeline

Private schools provide students with a distinct advantage in the college admissions process. These schools offer smaller class sizes, specialized resources, and extracurricular opportunities that can enhance a student's application. Private schools also have established relationships with admissions officers at top colleges, which can give their students an edge. This pipeline effectively funnels a disproportionate number of students from wealthy families into elite institutions.

Legacy Admissions

Legacy admissions, which give preference to applicants whose parents or grandparents attended the same college, further perpetuate the advantages of wealth and privilege. Studies have shown that legacy students are significantly more likely to be admitted to top schools, even when compared to non-legacy applicants with higher test scores and GPAs. This practice raises questions about meritocracy and equal opportunity in higher education.

Active Recruiting

Elite colleges engage in extensive recruiting efforts to attract top students. They often target high-achieving students at selective high schools and even travel internationally to scout talent. While this practice may seem beneficial, it can also reinforce existing inequalities. Students from under-resourced schools and communities may not have the same access to information and opportunities, making it difficult for them to compete in the admissions process.

International Students

Elite universities often attract students from developing countries who pay substantial tuition fees, contributing significantly to the universities' financial stability. Critics argue that this practice exploits the global education gap, as students from wealthier countries often have better access to quality higher education within their own nations. Additionally, the "brain drain" phenomenon, where talented individuals from developing countries migrate to developed nations for education and employment, can further exacerbate economic disparities. While universities may tout the benefits of cultural exchange and global citizenship, the economic incentives and power dynamics involved in international student recruitment raise concerns about the ethical implications of this practice.

The Profit Motive

It is important to acknowledge that elite colleges are businesses. They generate significant revenue from tuition, endowments, and other sources. Admissions practices, such as legacy preferences and active recruiting, can be seen as strategies to attract wealthy students who can contribute to the institution's financial bottom line. This raises concerns about whether the primary goal of these colleges is to provide a quality education or to maximize profits.  

 

Many elite schools, including Harvard and MIT, have also used online program managers like 2U to peddle certificates of questionable value. 

The Admissions Lottery 

While a "lottery mindset" isn't directly beneficial to elite universities in terms of increasing applications, it can indirectly impact the perception of the admissions process. As more and more qualified students apply to these institutions, the acceptance rate decreases, making it feel like a lottery. This perception can lead to several outcomes:

 
Increased Application Volume: Students may feel compelled to apply to a wider range of schools, including elite universities, increasing the overall application pool.

 
Early Decision Strategies: Students and parents may be more inclined to apply early decision to increase their chances, as it often has a higher acceptance rate.

Focus on Holistic Review: As the application pool grows, admissions officers may place greater emphasis on holistic review, considering factors beyond grades and test scores. This can benefit students with unique talents, experiences, or backgrounds.

However, it's important to note that a "lottery mindset" can also be detrimental. It can lead to increased stress and anxiety among applicants, as well as a sense of disillusionment with the college admissions process. Ultimately, while a lottery mindset may have some unintended consequences, it's essential to remember that college admissions is not solely a game of chance. Hard work, dedication, and a well-rounded application can significantly improve a student's chances of acceptance.