Universities Are Becoming Real Estate Giants—and It's Hurting Communities

As housing costs soar and faculty wages stagnate, colleges and universities are turning to a so-called solution: workforce housing. Marketed as a win-win to help recruit and retain middle-income academic workers—those priced out of both subsidized and market-rate housing—this trend has quietly become a major land grab. But behind the rhetoric of affordability and institutional care lies a troubling truth: big banks and universities are partnering to privatize housing and reshape cities in ways that displace vulnerable communities.

According to Tucker Kaufmann of JPMorganChase—one of the largest financial institutions in the world—universities are "well-positioned" to take on this new real estate role. Kaufmann frames this as a shift in mindset: “It’s about getting people to think about it differently.” But we should be asking: who is doing the thinking—and who is left out of the conversation?

Deverian Baldwin, author of In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower, has spent years exposing how higher education institutions act as unregulated city-builders. Far from being benevolent employers or “anchor institutions,” universities often operate more like corporations—accumulating land, avoiding taxes, and driving gentrification under the guise of community development. Workforce housing is just the latest vehicle for this expansion.

What Is Workforce Housing—And Who Benefits?

Workforce housing is aimed at those earning 60–120% of area median income (AMI)—a group Baldwin might describe as "precarious professionals," squeezed by rising costs but not considered poor enough for traditional subsidies. In theory, this model helps faculty, staff, and grad students live closer to campus. In practice, it creates new market pressures on neighborhoods that are already facing displacement.

In 2022, a third of U.S. renter households were cost-burdened. But instead of addressing root causes—like stagnant wages, predatory lending, or the commodification of housing—universities are stepping in as landlords. With land and capital at their disposal, they can build new developments or purchase existing ones, positioning themselves as the solution to a crisis they help perpetuate.

And let’s be clear: this isn’t just about meeting employee needs. It’s about revenue. Workforce housing offers steady cash flow, and in many cases, universities don’t even pay property taxes on their holdings—leaving cities to foot the bill for infrastructure, schools, and services.

The Real Cost: Gentrification and Displacement

Baldwin’s research underscores a stark reality: universities increasingly behave like corporate developers. Their real estate strategies—cloaked in the language of public service—have devastating consequences for low-income communities, especially Black and brown neighborhoods near urban campuses.

When universities build workforce housing, they often do so on underutilized or “surplus” land. But in cities where land is scarce, that often means expanding into working-class areas. As higher-paid university employees move in, property values rise, rent hikes follow, and long-standing residents are pushed out.

The narrative of “revitalization” ignores the cost to these communities. It also masks the power imbalance: universities operate without public accountability, shielded by their nonprofit status and backed by powerful financial institutions like JPMorganChase. This is not just housing policy—it’s economic displacement, dressed in institutional branding.

Developer or Educator?

Universities claim that workforce housing improves “town-gown” relations and helps them recruit talent. But Baldwin warns that these justifications often hide a more cynical calculus: expand the brand, grow the endowment, and control the neighborhood. Whether through public-private partnerships or nonprofit intermediaries, universities are carving out real estate empires while sidestepping democratic oversight.

Some institutions purchase existing multifamily housing, like a California university-affiliated nonprofit that bought 120 units for faculty. Others build from scratch, such as a New England campus partnering with developers to erect new housing complexes. In both cases, the university gains influence over local housing markets—without bearing the responsibilities of a traditional landlord or civic entity.

These projects are rarely subject to community input. And when they are, the concerns of low-income residents are often sidelined in favor of institutional priorities. Even well-intentioned efforts risk accelerating the very gentrification they claim to mitigate.

Toward Accountability and Justice

To avoid deepening inequality, universities must fundamentally rethink their role—not just as employers, but as power brokers in urban space. That means moving beyond token stakeholder meetings and isolated affordability set-asides. It means asking who gets to live in a neighborhood, and who gets pushed out.

Baldwin argues for stronger oversight, tax reform, and truly democratic planning processes. Universities should be held accountable for the social and economic impacts of their development—especially when public money, land, or resources are involved.

Mixed-income housing, community land trusts, and partnerships with tenant groups are one path forward. But even these must be guided by the principle that housing is a human right—not a recruitment tool or investment strategy.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Mission

Workforce housing, at its best, is a patch on a broken system. At its worst, it’s a real estate strategy that deepens inequality while shielding powerful institutions from scrutiny. Universities claim to serve the public good—but when they act like landlords and developers, they erode the very communities they’re supposed to uplift.

As Baldwin reminds us, we must resist the myth of the benevolent university. Institutions of higher education are not neutral actors—they are central players in urban displacement and economic exclusion. If they want to help solve the housing crisis, they must start by relinquishing power, paying their fair share, and prioritizing justice overgrowth.

Harvard Pushes Back Against Trump's Threats to Academic Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Universities Complicit in Genocide, Again

As universities across the United States respond with increasing repression to student-led protests against the genocide in Palestine, historical parallels emerge that challenge the very principles of academic freedom and moral responsibility. The aggressive crackdowns—ranging from mass arrests to administrative threats—echo disturbing precedents from The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower by historian Stephen H. Norwood. The book exposes how many American universities, particularly in the 1930s, were complicit in Nazi ideology through appeasement, censorship, and the suppression of anti-fascist voices. The current treatment of pro-Palestinian student activists suggests that history is, once again, repeating itself.

The Suppression of Moral Dissent in Higher Education

Norwood’s research demonstrates how elite U.S. universities—including Harvard, Columbia, and Yale—maintained diplomatic and academic relationships with Nazi Germany, even as the regime persecuted Jews, socialists, and other marginalized groups. Student activists who sought to protest these ties were ignored, censored, or dismissed as “radicals.” The pattern is eerily similar today: pro-Palestinian students, many of whom are calling attention to potential war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, are met with suspensions, arrests, and a media narrative that frames them as dangerous or disruptive.

This is not simply an issue of campus policy. It is an indication of how institutions of higher learning align themselves with power—whether it be the Nazi government in the 1930s or the Netanyahu government today—at the expense of justice and free expression.

The Influence of Financial and Political Interests

One of Norwood’s most damning revelations was how American universities welcomed Nazi officials on campus, accepted funding from German sources, and ignored early reports of persecution. Today, many of these same institutions maintain deep financial ties to Israel, including research partnerships, donor influence, and endowment investments in companies linked to the Israeli military-industrial complex.

This financial entanglement shapes institutional responses to protest. Instead of engaging with the moral and legal arguments posed by students—who cite documented reports from the UN, Human Rights Watch, and other credible organizations—university administrators call in police forces, disband student groups, and issue vague statements about maintaining "campus order." Just as in the 1930s, universities prioritize political and economic alliances over ethical accountability.

The Criminalization of Campus Activism

Norwood’s book describes how students protesting Nazi ties were accused of being “unruly” or “disruptive,” justifying administrative crackdowns. Today, students calling for an end to U.S. complicity in Israel’s actions face similar character assassinations, often being labeled as “terrorist sympathizers” or threats to campus safety.

Recent crackdowns have seen:

• Mass arrests of peaceful demonstrators, including those engaging in sit-ins and teach-ins.

• Surveillance and doxxing of students and faculty who express pro-Palestinian views.

• Increased administrative pressure, including suspensions, expulsions, and threats to scholarships or visas for international students.

The use of state power—often in coordination with local police, federal agencies, and even private security firms—mirrors historical instances where universities acted as enforcers of political orthodoxy rather than defenders of intellectual freedom.

What This Means for US Higher Education

If universities continue down this path, they risk further eroding their credibility as spaces for critical inquiry and moral debate. Just as history judges those who remained silent—or complicit—during the rise of fascism, future generations will scrutinize how today’s institutions responded to calls for justice in Palestine.

The lesson from The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower is clear: universities have a choice. They can either stand on the side of truth and academic freedom or become enforcers of state violence and repression. The students protesting today, much like those who opposed fascism in the 1930s, are asking their institutions to make that choice. The question is whether universities will listen—or if history will once again record their failure.

US-China Trade War Escalates: What It Means for Chinese Students in America

The ongoing US-China trade war has intensified tensions between the two global superpowers, and higher education is feeling the impact. As President Donald Trump’s administration enforces harsher policies on China, international students—particularly those from China—are now caught in the crossfire of this economic and diplomatic battle. The implications for Chinese students hoping to study in the United States, as well as for American universities that have long relied on them, are becoming increasingly significant.

Visa Restrictions and Increased Scrutiny

One of the most immediate effects of the trade war has been on the student visa process. The Trump administration has imposed new restrictions on Chinese students, especially those studying in fields deemed sensitive to national security interests. This includes graduate students in areas like artificial intelligence, robotics, and quantum computing. The new visa policies make it more difficult for these students to enter the US, with extended waiting times and heightened scrutiny of visa applications.

While the US has historically been a top destination for Chinese students—who are not only drawn by world-class educational institutions but also the promise of future career opportunities—the tightening of visa regulations has caused many to reconsider. The fear of being caught in political crosswinds, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the trade war, has led to a growing number of Chinese students looking to study in countries with more stable diplomatic relations and less restrictive policies, such as Canada, Australia, or the UK.

Impact on US Universities and Research

US universities are feeling the ripple effects of this trade war, as Chinese students make up the largest group of international students in the country. According to the Institute of International Education, Chinese students contribute more than $14 billion annually to the US economy through tuition and living expenses. Universities that once welcomed these students with open arms are now grappling with declining enrollment numbers and the prospect of losing a significant revenue stream.

Research partnerships are also suffering. Chinese students, many of whom are pursuing graduate degrees in STEM fields, have been vital contributors to cutting-edge research at American universities. With restrictions tightening, universities may struggle to maintain their leadership in global innovation. Furthermore, many research projects that rely on international collaboration face delays or cancellations due to political tensions and fears of intellectual property theft.

Which Universities Will Be Hurt the Most?

Some of the most prestigious US universities stand to be disproportionately affected by the tightening of Chinese student visas and the broader trade conflict. Institutions that rely heavily on Chinese students both for their enrollment numbers and financial contributions may face significant challenges.

1. Top Ivy League Schools
   Ivy League schools, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, have long been magnets for Chinese students. Harvard alone enrolled nearly 5,000 international students from China in recent years, and the closure of this recruitment pipeline could lead to steep declines in overall student numbers and financial stability for these schools. These universities also rely on international students to contribute to academic diversity and global research partnerships.

2. STEM-focused Universities
   Universities with strong STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) programs, such as the University of California, Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford, are among those most vulnerable. Chinese students make up a significant portion of graduate students in these fields, and many of them are involved in high-level research that contributes to American leadership in technology and innovation. The loss of Chinese graduate students could hinder research capabilities and potentially delay technological advancements.

3. Public Research Universities
   Public institutions like the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) also stand to lose large numbers of Chinese students. Many of these universities have established robust partnerships with Chinese institutions, facilitating exchange programs and joint research initiatives. With stricter visa policies and increased scrutiny, these collaborations could be jeopardized, weakening their global research standing.

4. Private Universities in Major Urban Centers
   Private universities, particularly those in major metropolitan areas like New York University (NYU), Columbia University, and University of Southern California (USC), which have long attracted a significant number of international students, may face financial strain as enrollment drops. These schools have benefited from the influx of full-paying international students, and their financial health could be seriously impacted if Chinese students—who often pay full tuition—choose to study elsewhere.

The Decline of Confucius Institutes: Another Impact of US-China Tensions

Adding another layer of complexity to the current situation is the steady decline of Confucius Institutes in the United States since 2018. These centers for Chinese language and cultural education were established with the goal of promoting Chinese culture, language, and knowledge of China’s social and political history. However, under the Trump administration, a growing number of universities have shut down or severed ties with their Confucius Institutes due to concerns over academic freedom and potential Chinese government influence.

The closure of Confucius Institutes is a direct result of the broader geopolitical tensions between the two nations. Critics argue that these centers, funded by the Chinese government, acted as a soft-power tool for Beijing, with the potential to influence curricula and suppress criticism of China’s policies. In 2020, the US State Department designated several Confucius Institutes as "foreign missions," further heightening scrutiny and prompting additional closures.

For US universities, the decline of Confucius Institutes has meant the loss of a long-established funding source, along with a reduction in cultural exchange programs that could have helped to mitigate the loss of students from China. Additionally, universities that hosted these centers are now grappling with how to reshape their Chinese language and cultural studies programs, often without the same level of institutional support.  In 2025, only five Confucius Institutes remain:

• Alfred University; Alfred, New York.
• Pacific Lutheran University; Tacoma, Washington.
• San Diego Global Knowledge University; San Diego, California.
• Troy University; Troy, Alabama.
• Webster University; St. Louis, Missouri.
• Wesleyan College; Macon, Georgia.

Increasing Tensions on US Campuses

As US-China relations continue to sour, tensions are also rising on US university campuses. A report from Radio Free Asia in August 2023 highlighted growing concerns about Chinese influence on US college campuses, particularly through initiatives like Confucius Institutes and Chinese student organizations. These groups, some of which have been accused of suppressing free speech and monitoring dissent, have faced increasing scrutiny from both US authorities and university administrations. In some cases, these organizations have been linked to the Chinese government’s broader propaganda efforts.

Students and faculty who advocate for human rights or criticize Chinese policies—especially regarding issues like Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang—have reported facing pressure or surveillance from Chinese-backed student groups. This growing sense of insecurity has led to a polarized environment, where Chinese students, in particular, are caught between their loyalty to their home country and the need to navigate a politically charged academic space.

Moreover, the US government’s push to restrict Chinese students in certain fields has further stoked fears of academic suppression and retaliation. The situation has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, making it difficult for both US and Chinese students to pursue their academic goals without being caught in the middle of geopolitical tensions.

The Broader Educational Landscape

In response to these challenges, some US universities are beginning to adjust their strategies to attract a more diverse range of international students. As the US-China relationship continues to sour, universities are looking to other countries—particularly those in Asia, Europe, and Latin America—to build new partnerships and recruitment channels.

While some US institutions are already shifting their focus to regions outside of China, others are doubling down on their internationalization efforts, exploring new ways to make studying in the US more attractive to foreign students. This includes offering scholarships and financial incentives for students from non-traditional countries, as well as expanding online learning opportunities for international students who may feel uneasy about traveling to the US under the current political climate.

Trade War as a Catalyst for Change

Though the US-China trade war presents significant challenges for both Chinese students and American universities, it also serves as a catalyst for change in higher education. This ongoing trade dispute underscores the importance of diversifying international student bodies and fostering collaborations beyond traditional powerhouses like China.

However, the situation raises larger questions about the future of global education. As more students choose to study elsewhere in the wake of tightened restrictions, the US risks losing its position as the world's leading destination for higher education. This would have lasting economic and cultural consequences, not only for the universities that rely on international students but also for the broader American public, which benefits from the ideas and innovation that foreign students bring to the country.

Looking Ahead

As the US-China trade war continues to unfold, the long-term impact on the international student landscape remains uncertain. While the trade war may ultimately result in stronger policies aimed at protecting US interests, it also threatens to undermine the very foundation of higher education in America—the free exchange of ideas and the global collaboration that drives innovation.

For US universities, the challenge now is to balance national security concerns with the need to remain open to international talent. The key will be maintaining a welcoming environment for students from all over the world while navigating the complexities of global politics. After all, the future of American higher education—and its ability to lead on the world stage—depends on the continued exchange of ideas, research, and cultural experiences, regardless of geopolitical conflicts.

AFT President Selling Out to Edtech?

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten is scheduled to speak at the upcoming ASU-GSV summit. For 16 years, the conference has been a space for those in edtech to hype their ideas, both good and bad.  We have noted a few of these bad ideas from bad actors over the years, to include 2U, Guild, and Ambow Education. 

Given Weingarten's track record as President of AFT, we don't expect much from her in terms of speaking truth to power. There are many people in edtech that Weingarten should criticize at the summit. But she is too much of a politician to do such a thing when it is needed.  

Weingarten has been the President of AFT since 2008, a union with about 1.7 million members across the US. While AFT has had some victories, those victories were won by the rank-and-file and the hard work of AFT organizers, not due to the actions of Weingarten. With numbers that large, AFT could pose as a serious presence at demonstrations in DC and across the nation. They have done that, when they had to, but not when other folks' lives were at stake. 

In 2013, while Weingarten was President of AFT, we recommended that the union use its clout to tell teachers' pension programs and state retirement funds from investing in for-profit colleges like Corinthian Colleges, Education Management Corporation, ITT Tech, and the University of Phoenix. They refused. We have not forgotten how AFT was unwilling to defend consumers, student debtors, and retirees. 

Since that time, AFT has done little to defend folks against subprime robocolleges and online program managers like 2U and Academic Partnerships/Risepoint when they certainly needed to call them out. And now their ranks are full of educators and administrators with marginal online degrees.

Risepoint: The Rise and Fall of Another OPM?

In recent years, the online education sector has seen dramatic growth, largely fueled by partnerships between universities and Online Program Managers (OPMs) like Risepoint (formerly known as Academic Partnerships). These companies promised to help institutions expand their online offerings, providing technical support, marketing services, and student recruitment in exchange for a significant share of tuition revenue. However, as OPMs grew in power, their business models came under intense scrutiny for potentially exploitative and predatory practices.

The Rise of Risepoint

Risepoint, initially founded as Academic Partnerships (AP) in 2007 by Randy Best, became a leading player in the OPM space, helping universities launch and manage online degree programs. In return, Risepoint took a significant cut of the tuition fees, sometimes as much as 50%. The company’s model relied heavily on tuition-share agreements, which have long been controversial due to the significant financial burden they place on both institutions and students.

These arrangements became more contentious as the cost of higher education continued to rise, particularly in the case of online degrees. Critics argue that the large sums taken by OPMs like Risepoint divert essential funds from universities, leading to higher tuition fees and contributing to the growing student debt crisis. This concern has been amplified by the rise in aggressive recruitment tactics employed by OPMs, which often target low-income students with promises of easy access to higher education without fully disclosing the financial implications.

Randy Best's Ties to Republicans: A Controversial Network

Randy Best, the founder of Academic Partnerships, had close connections to prominent Republicans, including Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. Best has been a well-known advocate for education reform and has built a network of relationships within both political parties. His close ties to Bush, a key figure in education policy, have been part of a broader pattern of OPM companies gaining influence across the political spectrum.

This bipartisan network of political connections allowed Best and Academic Partnerships to navigate the political landscape and expand their reach in the higher education sector. However, critics argue that such ties may have contributed to a lack of accountability for OPM companies like AP/Risepoint, who have operated with little oversight while profiting off of public institutions.

Risepoint's Ownership: The Vistria Group and Its Ties to the Obama Administration

A key piece of Risepoint’s corporate structure lies in its ownership by Vistria Group, a Chicago-based venture capital firm with close ties to political and corporate elites, including former President Barack Obama. In 2019, Vistria Group acquired Academic Partnerships for its Vistria II fund, adding the company to a broader portfolio that includes a number of for-profit education assets such as Edmentum, Vanta Education, FullBloom Education, MSI Information Services, Apollo Education Group, and Unitek Learning.

Vistria’s co-founder, Marty Nesbitt, is a close friend of Barack Obama, and the firm has been associated with several high-profile political figures. Nesbitt himself is known to have worked closely with Obama on various initiatives, and his connections have helped Vistria expand its reach in the education sector. The firm’s investment in Risepoint underscores a broader trend of venture capital firms seeking profit from higher education, leading to concerns about the growing corporate influence on public institutions and their students.

The Controversy at the University of Texas-Arlington

The close connections between OPMs and university leaders have not been without scandal. In 2020, Vistasp Karbhari, the president of the University of Texas-Arlington, resigned following a controversy involving his relationship with Academic Partnerships. Karbhari had accepted two international trips paid for by the company, sparking an investigation into potential conflicts of interest. The university had paid Academic Partnerships more than $178 million over a five-year period for managing its online degree programs.

This situation drew public attention to the potential for improper financial relationships between university administrators and private OPM companies. The high cost of these partnerships, particularly the large amounts paid to OPMs like Academic Partnerships, raised questions about whether universities were prioritizing student outcomes or simply enriching private firms at the expense of public funds.

Minnesota Leads the Way: A State Takes Action

The controversy surrounding tuition-share deals reached a boiling point in 2024 when Minnesota became the first state to pass legislation restricting these agreements. St. Cloud State University in Minnesota had signed a tuition-share deal with Risepoint that resulted in the company receiving a substantial percentage of tuition revenue. Critics of the arrangement argued that the deal drained valuable resources from public universities, while enriching private companies at the expense of students.

In response to mounting pressure, Minnesota lawmakers passed a bill banning new tuition-share agreements with OPMs, signaling a shift toward greater oversight of these partnerships. The move was hailed by critics as a much-needed reform to protect public institutions and students from exploitative business models.

Senate Concerns and Growing Backlash

In addition to state-level efforts, U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Tina Smith raised concerns over OPM practices in a 2024 letter to eight major OPM companies, including Risepoint. The senators questioned whether the recruitment tactics and revenue-sharing models contributed to rising student debt and whether these companies were sufficiently transparent about how tuition funds were being used.

“We continue to have concerns about the impact of OPM partnerships on rising student debt loads,” the senators wrote. They specifically targeted the high percentage of tuition revenue taken by OPMs, arguing that this model created financial disincentives for universities to lower costs or improve educational outcomes for students.

In response, Risepoint and other OPM companies indicated a willingness to engage with policymakers, but the growing scrutiny of their business practices indicates that their influence in the higher education space may be waning.

Academic Partnerships Acquires Wiley’s Online Business

In an interesting turn of events, AP/Risepoint expanded its reach in November 2023 by acquiring Wiley’s online business for $150 million. This acquisition is part of a broader trend of consolidation in the OPM sector, as companies seek to maintain their competitive edge in an increasingly saturated market.

The deal underscores Risepoint’s ambition to broaden its portfolio of online education services, even as its business practices face growing criticism. While Risepoint sees this acquisition as a growth opportunity, others view it as a sign of the consolidation of power within the OPM sector—a market that has been repeatedly criticized for its lack of transparency and for its role in inflating costs for both universities and students.

New Department of Education Guidelines

As the federal government joined the conversation, the U.S. Department of Education took steps to regulate the OPM industry more closely. In January 2025, the department issued new guidance that could lead to penalties for colleges that allow their OPM partners to mislead students. The guidance prohibits OPM employees from using college email addresses or signatures that imply they are employed by the institution, as well as from misrepresenting the quality of online programs.

The Department of Education’s actions came in response to long-standing concerns about misleading marketing practices. Student advocacy groups have called for stronger oversight of OPMs, which often promise students high-quality education without fully disclosing the financial ramifications. “OPMs commonly mislead students about the quality of their online programs, and that is illegal,” said Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at The Century Foundation.

The Decline of OPM Growth

However, the OPM industry is showing signs of slowing down. A report by Validated Insights in October 2024 revealed that OPM growth has dramatically slowed, with 147 partnerships ending in 2023—the highest number of contract terminations since 2020. Additionally, new contracts for 2024 have dropped by more than 50%. This slowdown signals that many universities are reevaluating their reliance on OPMs like Risepoint, opting instead to bring online programs in-house or partner with alternative providers.

The reduction in OPM partnerships reflects broader trends in higher education, where increasing scrutiny over business models, rising student debt, and calls for greater accountability are reshaping the landscape. Universities are under increasing pressure to justify the cost and efficacy of online degree programs, and many are finding that the financial burden of partnering with OPMs may no longer be sustainable.

The Future of Risepoint and the OPM Industry

The scrutiny surrounding Risepoint and other OPMs is part of a larger conversation about the future of online education and the need for greater transparency in how these programs are marketed and funded. As states like Minnesota lead the charge to limit tuition-share agreements, and as federal agencies take a more active role in regulating the industry, the days of unchecked growth for OPMs may be numbered.

Risepoint, once a leader in the OPM space, now faces a rapidly changing regulatory environment that threatens its business model. While the company continues to acquire new assets like Wiley’s online business, the industry as a whole may be entering a period of retrenchment, with universities becoming more cautious about entering into partnerships with companies that take a large cut of tuition revenue.

As the OPM industry faces increasing scrutiny and regulatory challenges, the future of companies like Risepoint remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the once-booming market for online program management is shifting, and the predatory practices that have long been associated with OPMs are being closely examined. Whether Risepoint can adapt to these changes or whether the OPM model as a whole will undergo significant reform remains to be seen.

Our Journalism

Our journalism is different than most others who cover higher education.  Like those other outlets, we report the news, but that is not our focus. And like a few outlets, we also do time-consuming investigative work.  We recognize the outstanding contributions of dedicated journalists, but these times, the 2020s, call good people to do more--much more. 

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) follows the legacy of the muckrakers from the early 20th century. HEI delves into in-depth investigative reporting, uncovering scandals, institutional failures, and systemic inequalities in colleges, universities, and their related businesses. Journalists like Upton Sinclair (who exposed the meatpacking industry) and Ida Tarbell (who revealed monopolistic practices in oil) used their platforms to spotlight hidden problems. In a similar vein, HEI carries this tradition forward by focusing on the higher education industry and connects it with the world outside the ivory tower.

Muckraking journalists of the past often focused on giving a voice to the voiceless, and in today's context, HEI highlights issues such as racial, class, and gender disparities in education and the work that should follow. These topics have become more prominent in the 2020s as society grapples with the effects of systemic inequalities and how marginalized communities are underserved and underrepresented in elite institutions.

Just as muckrakers' stories led to reforms (e.g., child labor laws, anti-trust regulations), HEI aims to create change in higher education by influencing public opinion and policy. Change that can take decades to create and months to lose. By exposing unethical practices and systemic problems, such as the growing burden of student loans, the corporatization of universities, and complicity in climate change and authoritarianism, we hope to prompt action from lawmakers and educators to implement more equitable solutions.

Importance of This Type of Journalism in the 2020s:

In the 2020s, higher education is undergoing significant challenges, to include skyrocketing tuition, an increasing reliance on adjunct faculty, and concerns over the value of a college degree. Investigative journalism like ours holds universities accountable for the way they handle these issues. It serves as a check on the growing power and wealth of educational institutions, particularly in light of their increasing commercialization and influence over public policy.

The 2020s have brought heightened awareness of issues like racial inequality, mental health concerns, and the widening gap between wealthy and poor students. Investigative journalism continues to expose these problems, helping to drive conversations about fairness and equity in education. In an era when many people feel disconnected from powerful institutions, journalism that uncovers uncomfortable truths is essential for mobilizing change.

Higher education has been seen by many as a beacon of knowledge, innovation, and fairness, yet there are growing concerns about its accessibility and integrity. Investigative journalism done well helps maintain public trust in higher education by ensuring that universities live up to their purported values. HEI helps the public see when universities exploit students, misuse funds, or engage in unethical practices.

In the 2020s, many key policy issues—such as student debt, the cost of education, and educational access—are hot topics. Journalism that scrutinizes higher education can influence policy reform, potentially leading to legislative action aimed at reducing student debt, increasing transparency in university finances, and addressing fair hiring practices.

War and Peace:

War is often driven by political, economic, and technological forces, and universities are deeply intertwined with these drivers. Many top universities have longstanding partnerships with military contractors, defense organizations, and intelligence agencies. Research funded by these institutions may directly contribute to the development of weapons or military technologies, some of which are used in conflicts around the world. 

The Higher Education Inquirer investigates how these partnerships influence the direction of research, as well as the ethical implications of universities prioritizing military contracts over other forms of academic inquiry. Similarly, university programs train future leaders who will shape foreign policy or lead military operations, and HEI will hold them accountable for the potential consequences of those actions. 

On the other hand, universities can be spaces where peace studies, conflict resolution programs, and global diplomacy are taught—an important counterbalance that HEI highlights, showing how academia can be a force for peace amidst the militarization of knowledge.

Genocide:

Genocides are often preceded by a climate of division and dehumanization, and universities are often the breeding grounds for ideologies that either challenge or perpetuate these dynamics. Throughout history, some academic institutions have provided intellectual support to regimes that perpetrate genocide, whether through the training of military officers or the dissemination of harmful nationalist ideologies. 

Conversely, universities can also serve as platforms for the resistance against genocide, with professors and students leading efforts to expose atrocities, advocate for human rights, and prevent violence.  

The Higher Education Inquirer investigates how universities have both been complicit in, and resisted, the ideologies that fuel genocide. HEI explores the ways in which certain university-funded research or prominent academic figures have either contributed to genocidal narratives or become strong advocates for justice and reconciliation in the aftermath of such horrors.

Global Climate Change:

Climate change represents a massive, existential crisis that touches every part of society, and universities are both contributors to and leaders in tackling this challenge. 

HEI investigates how universities have been complicit in exacerbating the climate crisis—whether through fossil fuel investments, ties to unsustainable industries, or research that furthers environmentally harmful practices. At the same time, universities are also at the cutting edge of climate science, sustainable technologies, and environmental activism.  

The Higher Education Inquirer investigates whether universities are doing enough to address their own carbon footprints, promote sustainable practices on campus, and foster a generation of leaders who are committed to climate justice. In a world where universities are increasingly seen as both perpetrators of environmental degradation and potential agents of change, HEI’s investigative reporting is crucial in holding these institutions accountable.

Mass Incarceration:

The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and universities are deeply involved in the systems that perpetuate this crisis. Many universities participate in research that supports law enforcement, surveillance technologies, or criminal justice policies, which can fuel the growth of the prison-industrial complex.  

The Higher Education Inquirer examines how higher education sustains and challenges mass incarceration. For instance, some universities benefit from partnerships with prisons, offering education programs to incarcerated individuals, but also facing criticism for their indirect role in perpetuating a system that disproportionately targets people of color.  

HEI investigates whether universities are actively working to dismantle mass incarceration through programs that promote restorative justice, education in prisons, or advocacy for systemic reform, or whether they are complicit in perpetuating the status quo through research and policy influence that supports harsh criminal justice policies.

Uniting These Issues:

The Higher Education Inquirer brings these issues together by demonstrating how universities are not isolated entities but integral parts of a global system that influences war, human rights, the environment, and justice. 

For example, universities that are heavily funded by military contracts should be implicated in fueling global conflict and war, while also contributing to climate change through the development of harmful technologies. At the same time, these same universities often fail to adequately address the ways in which their research, policies, and curricula shape or reinforce systemic racism and mass incarceration.

By following the muckraker tradition of exposing corruption and exploitation, HEI investigates how the pursuit of profit, power, and prestige within academia intersects with larger global crises. 

Investigative journalism that connects the dots between higher education, war, genocide, climate change, and mass incarceration is crucial to fully understanding these issues and holding institutions accountable for their roles in perpetuating or mitigating them. 

In the 2020s, when universities hold immense cultural, political, and economic power, the Higher Education Inquirer continues the legacy of the muckrakers by pushing for a more ethical, transparent, and socially responsible approach to higher education—one that reveals the problems of the world and to its solutions.

Essays in the Transformation of Higher Education (Dan Morris and Harry Targ)

From Upton Sinclair's 'Goose Step' to the Neoliberal University (lulu.com)

Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter One: Macro and Micro Analyses of Higher Education
Chapter Two: Discourses On Ideology
Chapter Three: Branding
Chapter Four: What Do Universities Do?
Chapter Five: Universities and War:
Conclusion
Appendix

Introduction

In the following pages, you are going to find a lot of specific information about what is happening at one major public research university, but we believe what is happening at Purdue is analogous to a canary in a coal mine. We believe that Purdue under Mitch Daniels, a former George Walker Bush administrator and Governor of Indiana, is becoming a high profile and influential spokesperson for the transformation of public higher education in the 21st century in directions that we find dangerous and that go against how we value higher education. We realize that, while we address extensively institutional changes and policies at Purdue, Indiana’s Land Grant University, our interest is in using this case study to illustrate larger patterns and issues that should be of concern to readers who care about the future of higher education in a broader sense.

Harry Targ's pieces do tend towards a wider-angle perspective than do those by Dan Morris, although both of us rely on our "boots on the ground" level understanding of Purdue to counteract and contest official media versions of what is happening at Purdue. We write at a moment when there is something of a "media desert" in terms of local news coverage of higher education in small markets such as Lafayette, Indiana. We have both tried to work to rectify the "media desert" landscape in our community by contributing to the Lafayette Independent, an electronic newsletter. We appreciate efforts by local journalists such as Dave Bangert and the student staff of the Purdue Exponent to offer coverage of the university in ways that are more substantial, and, often, more critical, than what one finds in the area's only mainstream newspaper, the Journal and Courier, and main local TV news source, and the Purdue NPR radio station, whose ownership in the last year has been mysteriously transferred to an Indianapolis corporation. Paradoxically the richest data for many of the essays below come from the official daily public relations newsletter from Purdue called Purdue Today. This public relations source celebrates Purdue’s latest connections with multinational corporations, the military, and state politics, and provides links to editorials published by Purdue’s President and other officials in the national press. Ironically, oftentimes what Purdue celebrates becomes the data for our more analytical and discursive writings.

Like alternative media sources, we see this book as another intervention in offering an alternative view of what is happening at our campus, but we also write with the hope that readers can apply the readings we bring to Purdue to begin conversations about the promise and problems of contemporary higher education on campuses. The authors wish to praise and encourage further research and activism around the transformations of higher education in general. We identify with what some scholars have referred to as Critical University Studies (CUS). The essays below, we believe, are part of this emerging tradition of critical and self-reflective scholarship.

The authors also wish to identify at least three major elements of the transformation of higher education. First, Purdue, like many other universities, is once again pursuing research contracts with huge corporations, and perhaps most importantly, the Department of Defense. As essays below suggest, Purdue research is increasingly justified as serving the interests of United States “national security.” Often this is conceptualized as helping the United States respond to “the Chinese threat,” rarely identifying what exactly is the threat, or considering the possibility that contributing to a new arms race with a perceived adversary may increase, rather than reduce, the possibility for conflict between nations.

Second, the work below and other writings in CUS, highlight the purposive transformation of the content of higher education. Universities are moving resources away from the liberal arts, creating new programs in “artificial intelligence” and “data science,” and in response to political pressures are diminishing programs that emphasize interdisciplinarity, intersectionality, and the structural problems of race, class, gender, and sexual preference in history and contemporary society. Essays below on “civics literacy” suggest that leading administrators at Purdue, while refusing to defend its universally praised Writing Lab after it was ridiculed on Fox News for its recommendation that student writers select gender-neutral terms such as postal worker when writing about occupations, seek to avoid the controversaries around Critical Race Theory by requiring all students to study in some fashion “civics literacy.” President Daniels has made it clear that the study of civics literacy will illustrate the “vitality” of US political institutions (as opposed to over-emphasizing the slaughter of the original inhabitants of the North American continent or the history of slavery and white supremacy).

Third, the essays below do not dwell enough on the transformation of the university as a workplace. While there have been attacks for years on the tenure system, a system of job security which was initially designed to protect faculty from external political pressures, recent additions to the transformations of the university as a work site should be noted.

Adjunctification is a term that refers to the qualitative increase in the hiring of various forms of part time instructors: full-time instructors for a set time period, instructors to teach less than a full complement of courses, and instructors with various arrangements that limit their work life, their ability to do research and prepare for their class time, and their time to serve the many needs of students. The fundamental trend in higher education is to “cheapen” and make insecure instructors, ultimately to destroy the job security that comes with academic tenure. In many cases this impacts negatively on the quality of the educational experience. (In colleges and universities in general about 70 percent of classes now are taught by instructors who are not tenure-line faculty).

And finally, every effort is made by universities to limit and derail the workplace concerns of non-teaching staff, particularly opposing their right to form unions.

One positive development from all of this-destroying the tenure system and job security, adjunctification, increased exploitation of graduate students, and finally restricting the rights and the wages and benefits of staff has been the rise of labor militancy. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and various unions such as the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the United Electrical Workers (UE) with a history of militancy have been organizing graduate students and staff.

Finally, the authors acknowledge that in the months after we completed our manuscript, Purdue administrators and trustees have announced a series of initiatives without an appropriate level of input from university stakeholders and the wider Lafayette area community:

1. Purdue is building a housing complex near the Discovery Park part of campus to attract higher income earning technologists to relocate in West Lafayette. To encourage new high-income residents, the West Lafayette city government has authorized $5,000 cash incentives for any purchasers of these new housing units adjacent to Purdue. Such offers are not available to lower income earners or students.

2. To deal with record enrollments, Purdue has purchased a privately constructed apartment complex across from campus at a price well more than the cost of its construction.

3. Purdue officials have expanded partnerships with Saab, Rolls Royce, the Raytheon Corporation, one of the world’s five largest military contractors, and undertaken a controversial business mission with the Indiana governor to Taiwan to pursue research and production of semi-conductors, in part to respond to what Purdue officials have described as a ”Chinese threat” to national security in the United States.

4.The College of Liberal Arts has announced it will be partnering with the College of Science to develop a new interdisciplinary degree program in artificial intelligence. CLA calls its “new field” of interest, “sociogenomics.”

5. Purdue received an award recognizing its “excellence in counterintelligence,” one of only four such award recipients in 2022. Purdue joins those few universities which protect “sensitive national information from foreign adversaries.” The award announced in Purdue Today, August 24, 2022, noted that the university continues to work with the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and the FBI.

In short, the transformation of Indiana’s Land Grant university continues at a rapid pace. And while the essays below concentrate on the developments and forces leading to these changes, the broader point of this collection of essays is to suggest that higher education in the twenty-first century is changing in a rapid and largely deleterious way. The appended essay by Carl Davidson reflects a similar critique of the university during the height of the Cold War. What we are witnessing today is a revitalization of that trend.

For those who value the university as a site for informing students about the world and debating the value of changes occurring in it, the developments highlighted in these essays are a warning. And for faculty and students alike the antidote to the militarization of the university, the transformation of the curricula, and the disempowering of those who work in universities is organizing against those elements of change that are antithetical to the educational process.

And More:

“The Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue has created a category of its own. As part of the nation’s leading national security university, it is rapidly becoming the world’s premier institution focused on Tech Statecraft, a new model of diplomacy bridging the gap between technology experts, government officials and policymakers, and business leaders to ensure tomorrow’s tech secures our freedoms,” said (Daniel) Kurtenbach. ‘I’m excited to contribute to the Krach Institute’s already-impressive momentum by enhancing and building its innovative partnerships and relationships to achieve our shared vision of a future that prizes individual freedom through trusted technology.’ ”

https://www.citybiz.co/article/378157/krach-institute-for-tech-diplomacy-at-purdue-names-daniel-kurtenbach-as-chief-growth-officer/

Homepage - Tech Statecraft (techdiplomacy.org)

How University of Arizona Global Campus’ Online Recruitment Ads Drain Its Finances (Jeremy Bauer-Wolf)

In 2020, the University of Arizona acquired Ashford University, an online for-profit college that a California court later found guilty of having deceived students about job prospects, transfer opportunities, and degree costs.

Feeling pressured to better compete in the online education market — especially as Arizona State University broadened its virtual options — University of Arizona leaders recast Ashford as the University of Arizona Global Campus, or UAGC.

Administrators pledged to rehabilitate UAGC and abandon the exploitation that landed the former Ashford in legal hot water. UAGC, as its president said in 2022, is “well-positioned to provide adult learners with affordable college credentials that can better prepare them for careers in a rapidly evolving global economy.”

But beneath the rebranding efforts, problems remain. The University of Arizona has spent massively on marketing UAGC, as an audit that consultancy EY conducted last year revealed, a hallmark tactic of predatory for-profit institutions that dress up their junk degrees as prestigious offerings.

UAGC runs extensive and expensive ad campaigns on Google and Facebook, yet fewer than 1% of those reached enroll. This amounts to the university paying $11,521 for every student enrolled from those campaigns, the audit shows.

For context, this is almost as much as the University of Arizona’s in-state tuition and fees per student in the 2023-24 academic year, which federal data estimates to be about $13,000.

And one higher ed consultancy, RNL, found that in 2022, the median cost of recruiting an undergraduate student, minus personnel expenses, was only $1,652 for a four-year private college and $282 at a four-year public institution (though proponents of online education argue this is comparing apples to oranges).

But ultimately, UAGC’s investment has not improved enrollment. It continues to bleed, as it did in Ashford’s later days, dropping from about 107,000 students in fiscal year 2015 to 51,000 in fiscal year 2023.

Criticism from some of the University of Arizona’s faculty has also erupted. In the waning days of 2024, Nolan Cabrera, a professor at the university’s Center for the Study of Higher Education, wrote a public warning to students, urging them not to enroll in UAGC.

Cabrera told New America in a later interview he went public with his criticisms to protect students — and the University of Arizona’s reputation. UAGC, he said, is only hurting students with poor-quality programs, draining resources and sullying its standing as a top-class, R1 institution.

Blake Naughton, UAGC’s vice provost for academic affairs, teaching, and learning for online initiatives said in an emailed statement that “accreditors, government agencies, and other external reviewers” recognize “UAGC’s commitment to the quality of its degree programs.”

“UAGC has developed an innovative model that is validated through reaffirmations of quality by UAGC’s institutional and programmatic accreditors, which includes Quality Matters certification representing the gold standard in online courses, and enthusiastic partnerships with businesses and military employers,” Naughton said. “Further, UAGC faculty are leaders in the scholarship of online teaching and learning, regularly publishing and presenting on the efficacy of its ‘quality at scale’ model.”

The Creation of UAGC

Those inside and out of University of Arizona — state officials, faculty, college students and their advocates — were immediately skeptical of UAGC’s potential quality and value when the university acquired Ashford in 2020. The deal was a complex one that involved the University of Arizona creating a new nonprofit entity, which bought Ashford for $1. In return, UAGC would provide almost 20% of annual tuition revenue to Ashford’s former parent company, Zovio, though that arrangement later fell apart in 2022.

Before the acquisition, Ashford followed the blueprint of one of the most notorious for-profit colleges in American history: the University of Phoenix. Andrew S. Clark — an executive who contributed to the University of Phoenix’s rise — and the company he later worked for, Bridgepoint, replicated deceptive practices around credit transfers, financial aid, and recruitment at Ashford.

In 2017, California’s attorney general alleged Ashford misled prospective students about their chances of securing financial aid, the cost of attendance, the transferability of credits, and how well its programs prepared them for certain careers. The attorney general also accused it of deceiving investors and the public by exaggerating the percentage of working alumni who said their degree helped them in their current jobs.

This complaint was still unresolved by the time University of Arizona acquired it in 2020.

In 2022, the court ruled against Ashford and Zovio. The judge in the case was persuaded by estimates that Zovio made roughly 1.2 million misleading calls to potential students from March 2009 to April 2020.

The University of Arizona painstakingly crafted a public relations campaign to try to cleave UAGC’s reputation from Ashford’s. This was despite widespread concerns among its faculty and staff about Ashford, Cabrera said in an interview.

The administration never truly responded to those fears that Ashford was still peddling poor-quality education, he said. In fact, negotiations surrounding Ashford were so secretive that University of Arizona representatives who were involved with them signed non-disclosure agreements, obfuscating details of the deal, Cabrera argued. (The University of Arizona has said because Zovio was a publicly traded company, the institution “was required to undertake its work on a confidential and ‘need to know’ basis.”)

“You know the old adage, ‘you get what you pay for’?,” Cabrera said, referring to the $1 price tag of the acquisition. “That should tell you everything you need to know.”

UAGC has maintained an anemic graduation rate, only reaching 15% to 20% after the University of Arizona’s acquisition, according to the audit. The University of Arizona’s graduation rate stands between 60% to 70%. The retention rate of full-time students has also only improved modestly, from 24% in 2019 to 30% in 2022, according to federal data.

Mitch Zak, a University of Arizona spokesperson, said in a statement that it and UAGC have different academic models, thus their graduation rates aren’t comparable.

“The majority of UAGC students are working adults and military service members with varying priorities and responsibilities, which results in their taking fewer courses per year than traditional U of A students,” Zak said. “Non-traditional online students nationwide are not expected to graduate in the same timeframe as traditional university undergraduates.”

Recent news reports have also detailed how, like Ashford’s graduates, some UAGC students have said they can’t find sound jobs after leaving and alleged that the institution misled them about the value and cost of their degrees.

Cabrera said the University of Arizona’s leaders have not prioritized improving student outcomes, but rather an online education arms race and particularly beating out Arizona State, reflecting the longstanding rivalry between the two most prominent public universities in the state.

Cabrera said the two institutions are in constant competition — in public college rankings, like U.S. News & World Report’s, in enrolling more students, and other peripheral aspects of their academics, such as who employs more Nobel Prize laureates.

But if the University of Arizona’s leadership was so worried about its reputation, it shouldn’t have scooped up Ashford, Cabrera argued. Its association with Ashford and its shoddy education demeans the value of a University of Arizona degree, too, he said.

Zak pushed back against Cabrera’s allegation, saying that “priority is to ensure that UAGC is meeting the needs of its students, most of whom could not access traditional higher education.”

He also separately in his statement criticized Cabrera, saying the professor is not an expert in online education and did not reach out to UAGC leaders or faculty “to learn more about the differences between the U of A and UAGC as well as the complexities associated with providing access to higher education to working professionals.”

Major Marketing Costs

Amid this firestorm, UAGC’s enrollments continue to slip.

Zak argued this decline “was expected and planned for during the transitional period” as the institution works to integrate the former Ashford into the University of Arizona. He said UAGC is trying to lift enrollment, including through programs that help stopped out students return to college.

Still, the enrollment downturn raises questions in particular about the efficiency of its marketing efforts.

While the analysis doesn’t reveal the full extent of UAGC’s marketing splurge, it likely devotes hundreds of millions of dollars to it, based on figures in the EY audit. A similar institution to UAGC, the University of Maryland Global Campus, also dropped $500 million on just two six-year advertising contracts, according to a separate audit.

UAGC is investing significantly in lead generation, a strategy colleges have tried for more than a decade. They pay for advertisements to appear on webpages, particularly social media platforms, that typically summarize a program and also try to entice prospective students to click a new link for more information.

That ad takes prospects to a separate webpage, where they can fill in their name and other information, becoming a “lead” that a college can try to convince them to enroll.

Yet UAGC’s use of lead generation has been astonishingly fruitless, the audit shows.

Fewer than 1% of students reached through UAGC’s top five paid marketing sources, including Google and Facebook, actually enroll. The numbers concerning Facebook are particularly bleak — only 0.5% of prospective students end up enrolling at UAGC after clicking an advertisement on the platform. The auditor said this means it effectively costs the university more than $34,000 in marketing dollars just for one person to enroll from Facebook.

Even UAGC’s most successful lead generation source — Google search ads — converted just 3% of prospects, with each enrollment costing more than $7,500.

These figures are even more staggering considering UAGC pays to find 85% of its prospects, according to the audit. By contrast, Arizona Online — the university’s self-created online program, which still operates, in parallel to UAGC — buys just 50% of its student leads.

Zak said that UAGC has since “refined” its marketing to “prioritize efficiency and effectiveness,” but did not go into greater detail.

“UAGC has implemented a targeted approach in alignment with its mission of serving non-traditional learners,” Zak said. “UAGC is focused on retention and success and focuses on students who are most likely to benefit from a flexible and supportive learning environment. UAGC leverages data analytics, audience segmentation, and advanced tracking mechanisms to help improve conversion rates and reduce marketing costs.”

He later said that UAGC serves nontraditional students like working adults, military members and first-generation college attendees.

“Reaching those students in a competitive marketplace requires a different approach than traditional four-year universities,” Zak said.

The University of Arizona has faced budget problems broadly and last year said it had a $177 million budget deficit, which it has since reduced significantly.

But for all the university’s publicity efforts around UAGC, prospective students recognize Arizona Online as part of the institution’s brand, more so than UAGC, the audit said. Maintaining both platforms has actually spurred “market confusion,” according to the audit.

To remedy this, the University of Arizona has angled to integrate UAGC and Arizona Online, and Zak pointed to a university statement last year that said the audit findings validate this merger.

Still, this “confusion” underscores broader marketing challenges, like relying heavily on lead generation, a strategy UAGC has leaned into despite the fact that experts have said it’s inefficient to boost enrollment.

In part, that’s because institutions don’t recognize that students won’t make life-altering choices, like where to attend college, based on what’s essentially a pop-up ad, two marketing experts wrote in a 2022 essay.

“Prospective students prudently take their time researching your programs’ offerings in addition to many others,’” they wrote. “They are not naïve, impatient or easily persuaded by glitzy ads and copy. They spend many months researching and deliberating.”

Worse, lead generation can be used for nefarious or even predatory recruitment efforts. Some lead generation companies, for instance, have caught consequences from the Federal Trade Commission, particularly those that target current and former military members.

What To Do Now?

Thus far, the University of Arizona Global Campus is a failed experiment, Cabrera said. He was inspired to publish his concerns about UAGC publicly after students enrolled in its programs began to reach out to him.

Students were distressed. They told him in emails and direct messages on social media that UAGC faculty in education programs couldn’t guide them properly. He said he lost count of how many students contacted him — he estimated more than 20 over an 18-month period.

“For all the political bickering, real students are getting hurt, real students getting harmed here,” Cabrera said. “They’re making a bet, but students are getting hurt in the process.”

The University of Arizona declined to comment on the UAGC students who contacted Cabrera. UAGC faculty later wrote a public rebuttal to Cabrera, arguing his piece was based on his “rather than on facts and thus lacked the academic rigor of factual data from credible sources.”

But the UAGC faculty piece did not refute specifically any data Cabrera cited, including numbers from the EY audit.

In Zak’s emailed statement, he said UAGC students “have access to academic support teams, career services, student access and wellness support teams, and a combination of tools, technology, and guidance to help them progress.”

Cabrera remains unconvinced.

He said the University of Arizona’s leaders have not fulfilled their promise to purge the educational sins of Ashford. The reality is that enrollment continues to plummet, while UAGC’s exorbitant spending on lead generation, with little return, highlights a systemic issue: UAGC, Cabrera said, has seemingly prioritized its push for new students over reforming Ashford’s remnants, which is still making headlines.

This month, the U.S. Department of Education announced it would cancel $4.5 billion in loans for 261,000 students who attended Ashford. And last year, the Education Department discharged $72 million in loan obligations for more than 2,300 former Ashford students.

In light of some of the continued problems, the University of Arizona should reassess its fundamentals of online education. It should prioritize meeting the core principles of academic quality and comprehensive student support over marketing its new venture. A stronger focus on student needs would drive more meaningful outcomes and enhance the university’s reputation in the online education space.

As Cabrera suggested, without a realignment of priorities, UAGC risks being an expensive endeavor with little impact. Its reliance on extensive marketing campaigns, like flashy Facebook ads, may eventually draw attention but will struggle to make up for the gaps in delivering long-term value to students.

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

Coalition for Mutual Liberation at Cornell University

WHO WE ARE

The Coalition for Mutual Liberation (CML) is a broad-based coalition of over 40 organizations on Cornell University's Ithaca Campus and in the surrounding community. Many of these orgnizations are publicly members of CML; the others wish to remain anonymous.
 

COALITION MEMBERS

The Arab Graduate Student Association
Asian Pacific Americans for Action
The Basic Needs Coalition
Black Students United
The Buddhist Sangha
The Cadre Journal
Climate Justice Cornell
Cornell Progressives
Ithaca Ceasefire Now
Jewish Voice for Peace at Cornell
The Mass Education Campaign
The Muslim Educational and Cultural Association
El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx at de Aztlán
Native American and Indigenous Students at Cornell
The People’s Organizing Collective Cornell, United Students Against Sweatshops Local 3
The South Asian Council
Students for Justice in Palestine
Young Democratic Socialists of America

OUR MISSION

Our mission is to educate, empower, and organize our community to take action against imperialism, settler colonialism, and all other forms of oppression. Our struggles are deeply interconnected, and it is only through our collective resistance that we will achieve mutual liberation.

OUR FOCUS

Today, we join international humanitarian organizations, political leaders, scholars, activists, and most recently the state of South Africa incondemning Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people. We come together in solidarity with the people of Palestine in particular because Palestine is among the clearest manifestations of American economic and military hegemony—the force that perpetuates imperialism, racism, white supremacy, transphobia, homophobia, as well as religious- and gender-based violence across the world's historically exploited nations and populations.

DIVESTMENT DEMANDS

We find Cornell University complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people through its endowment investments in weapons manufacturers and military technology developers, its corporate and institutional partnerships with the producers of these technologies, and its lack of screening procedures and transparency around these ties. Cornell must take immediate action to sever its ties with the US-backed Israeli siege on Palestine which has already left more than 30,000 Palestinians dead. We demand:

1. Divestment from any company complicit in genocide, apartheid, or systematic cruelty against children perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, in accordance with Cornell's 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration. As outlined in Cornell's 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration, the Board of Trustees must consider divestment from companies whose actions constitute "genocide, apartheid, or systemic cruelty to children." By doing business with Israel as it conducts its genocide, responsibility for these three morally reprehensible actions fall on the shoulders of the following weapons companies: BAE Systems, Boeing, Elbit Systems, General Dynamics, L3Harris Technologies, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp. In order for Cornell to abide by its own divestment standards and precedents for divestment (in the cases of the Sudanese genocide and the fossil fuels industry), the university must immediately liquidate all of its holdings in the companies listed above and enact a moratorium on all investments in arms manufacturers that supply weapons, munitions, and other military supplies to Israel.

2. The termination of all corporate partnerships with companies complicit in the genocide, apartheid, or systematic cruelty towards children perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Cornell currently maintains corporate partnerships with a number of weapons companies whose products have been used against civilians in Gaza. These companies include BAE Systems, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin. Cornell Systems Engineering also partners with RTX (Raytheon), which is described as being “an extended part of the Cornell Systems Engineering community.” Cornell’s partnerships with these weapons companies amounts to complicity in the genocide of the Palestinian people. We are therefore calling on Cornell University to sever their corporate partnerships with these companies as soon as possible. We call on Cornell University to begin this process immediately and to have fully dissolved these partnerships by the end of the 2024 calendar year.

3. A comprehensive ban on the research and development of any technologies used by the Israeli Offensive Forces at the Jacobs Cornell-Technion Institute in New York City. The Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, a partnership between Cornell University and the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion), is part of Cornell Tech, a campus for graduate research in New York City. Independently of Cornell Tech, Technion researches and develops geospatial, intelligence, and weapons technologies used by the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Cornell Tech’s publicly stated founding purpose is “to advance technology as a means to a better quality of life for all communities [...] around the world.” Its “Diversity and Inclusion” mission includes “[engaging] in research that promotes justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion” and “[educating and training] ethical technology leaders of the future.” In light of Technion’s numerous connections to Israel’s occupation and genocide in Palestine, Cornell Tech’s supposed commitment to ethical and just technological development rings hollow. We demand a comprehensive ban on the research and development of any technologies used by the Israel Offensive Forces at the Cornell Tech/Technion Campus in New York City.

As Israel continues its relentless genocide in Gaza and further militarizes its occupation of the West Bank, the world watches as Palestinians are displaced, starved, and killed every day. The horrors of Israel’s siege on Gaza are broadcast in full display across multiple news outlets and social media platforms, and yet, the American institutions that fuel this violence refuse to act.

Thirty years ago, when over fifty other universities across the country divested from South African apartheid, Cornell faltered in its commitment to humanity and never severed its ties with a state dependent on the perpetuation of horrific racial violence. Today, the global community once again stands at a crossroad—Cornell University has the opportunity to do what it couldn’t three decades ago.

Cornell University must make a choice: to toe the line drawn by a foreign nation and remain complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people, or to establish itself as a leader among elite educational institutions by being the first to materially recognize the Palestinian right to life and dignity.

We envision a future for Cornell University that does not fund and partner with the corporate entities responsible for the decimation of an entire people, their cultural artifacts, and the land they inhabit. The Board of Trustees must have the courage and moral fortitude to cut ties with Israel’s unrelenting campaign of violence against Palestine so that Cornell may truly do the greatest good.

For more information about our divestment demands, the companies listed as divestment targets, Cornell's complicity in Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people, and Cornell's violation of its own standards, procedures, and values, see CML's full Divestment Report. 

DEMANDS FROM LIBERATED ZONE

Cornell students, staff, faculty, and community members join the cross-campus wave of organizers establishing liberated zones in solidarity with Gaza. The campers' ongoing act of nonviolent resistance will include teach-ins, art builds, and other activities to highlight the urgency with which Cornell must act in response to the Israeli government's genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Students from across the globe have joined together to protest the genocide in Gaza during which the Israeli Offensive Forces have murdered over 34,000 Indigenous Palestinians in under seven months. Students are organizing in outrage that Palestinian universities have been obliterated with weapons funded and developed through Cornell University's partnerships and investments. Distinctly, the Cornell University Board of Trustees adopted a commitment in 2016 to divest from companies engaged in "genocide, apartheid, and systematic cruelty against children.” Cornell's failure to divest is not only a violation of the university's stated policies, but also an act of genocide denialism.

Cornell’s refusal to cut ties to Palestinian genocide reflects its history of profiteering from the violent dispossession of Indigenous Peoples across North America. Cornell is the largest beneficiary of the Morrill Act of 1862, which redistributed Indigenous land as public domain to states to establish and endow land-grant institutions. Through the dispossession, Cornell accrued nearly 1 million acres of land, some of which it sold for profit, and some to which it currently retains the rights. Today, Cornell showcases its land-grant status—its status as an institution supposedly dedicated to the promotion of practical disciplines such as agriculture, mining, and engineering—to signal its commitment to accessible higher education and mask its refusal to provide reparations or restitution to the 251 tribal nations affected by land-grant dispossession. Cornell's settler colonial project in the United States is the foundation for its settler colonial interests in Palestine. Through this encampment, students highlight Cornell's role in dispossession and genocide across the globe.

The encampment on the oldest commons on Cornell's campus invites all members of the community to support the students' demands that Cornell University:

1. Acknowledge its role in the national genocide of Indigenous Peoples through the Morrill Act and its sale of 977,909 acres of Indigenous land; return all mineral interests to Tribal Nations dispossessed by the Morrill Act; provide restitution for the dispossessed nations; provide restitution for the Cayuga Nation; establish an Indigenous Studies department; and return surplus land in New York state to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Lenni Lenape, and their descendants who have been forced out of New York.

2. Annually disclose a comprehensive account of its endowment and land holdings, and divest from entities involved in “morally reprehensible activities,” in accordance with Cornell’s 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration.

3. End profit-generating partnerships, volunteer arrangements, and other significant corporate and academic affiliations with institutions involved in “morally reprehensible activities,” including but not limited to the dissolution of the Jacobs-Technion Cornell Institute and all other partnerships with the Technion Israel Institute of Technology.

4. Call for an unconditional, permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

5. Establish a Palestinian Studies program housed in the College of Arts and Sciences, along with an accredited minor that is available to all undergraduate and graduate students. Representatives from Cornell’s chapter of “Students for Justice in Palestine” and “Cornell Collective for Justice in Palestine” must serve on the committees that oversee the hiring of the program’s faculty.

6. Publicly acknowledge and protect anti-Zionist speech, viewpoints, and histories in both religious and academic contexts. Recognize the legitimate and historical claim that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

7. Remove all police from campus, beginning with the elimination of police presence at demonstrations. Replace police with an emergency response team composed of healthcare workers and first responders trained in de-escalation. A majority of team members must be providers who share lived experiences and identities with Cornell’s diverse student body.

8. Ensure total legal and academic amnesty for all individuals involved with the Liberated Zone and related demonstrations.
 

POINTS OF UNITY

1. The principal contradiction of our world is that between the exploited nations and the exploiters in the imperial core: imperialism.

2. The underdevelopment of the exploited nations was and is the dialectical necessity for the development of the exploiters.

3. Capitalism has always been a global, racialized system—primitive accumulation could not have occurred without genocide, enslavement, and ecocide.

4.Imperialism creates a stratification that rewards some proletarians as settlers and/or citizens, thus forming a labor aristocracy.

5. The labor aristocracy’s wages and incorporation into the nation-state allow them to benefit from the exploitation of the low-waged labor of the exploited nations, intensifying imperialism in the form of unequal exchange.

6. Unequal exchange precludes the universality and internationalism of the proletariat, and hinders the solidarity of the “workers of the world”.

7. Imperialism manifests itself in a variety of other ways today, in sanctions regimes, indebtedness, military intervention, nuclear aggression, extractivism, and other forms.

8. Capitalism cannot be defeated globally while imperialism persists—without anti-imperialism, efforts at socialism in the exploiting nations can only produce social imperialism.

9. The obligation of revolutionaries today is to challenge imperialism by any means necessary. In the exploiting nations, that primarily means acting in solidarity with anti-imperialist movements in the exploited nations.

10. Solidarity cannot be simply symbolic—it must be material; it must be something we can hold in our hands.
 

CONTACT US
Information address: cml.information@proton.me
Press address: cml.press@proton.me