Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by date for query South University. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query South University. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, March 28, 2025

Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

Columbia University’s interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, resigned on Friday, just days after the university made significant concessions to the Trump administration in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal research funding. Armstrong's resignation follows a tumultuous period for the institution, already reeling from the departure of her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, in August 2024.

Armstrong, who had stepped into the role of interim president during a time of political and social unrest, faced mounting pressure over the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian student activism, which sparked national controversy and calls for accountability from political leaders, including former President Donald Trump and his administration. Armstrong’s resignation marks the latest chapter in a series of leadership shifts at Columbia as it navigates the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding campus protests.

 

Effective immediately, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, has been appointed acting president. David J. Greenwald, chair of the Board of Trustees, praised Armstrong for her dedication to the university, acknowledging her hard work during a time of “great uncertainty.” Greenwald’s statement highlighted Armstrong’s contributions to the university, saying, “Katrina has always given her heart and soul to Columbia. We appreciate her service and look forward to her continued contributions to the University.” Armstrong, who will return to lead the Irving Medical Center, had taken on the interim presidency in a period marked by increasing tensions on campus over political activism and its fallout.

Political Pressure and Concessions to the Trump Administration

The resignation comes amid significant political pressure, as the Trump administration imposed a set of demands on Columbia in exchange for the release of crucial federal funding. Earlier this month, the administration presented the university with nine conditions to restore the $400 million in research grants that had been frozen over accusations of antisemitism linked to campus protests.

In an effort to regain the funding, Columbia conceded to these demands, which included a ban on students wearing masks to conceal their identities during protests, except for religious or health reasons. Additionally, Columbia agreed to hire 36 new campus security officers with the authority to arrest students involved in protests. The university also committed to increasing institutional oversight by appointing a new senior vice provost to monitor the university's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.

Perhaps most notably, Columbia pledged to adopt a stance of “greater institutional neutrality,” a policy that the university said would be implemented after working with a faculty committee. The decision was seen as an attempt to quell political tensions while navigating the contentious issues surrounding student activism.

A Leadership Crisis at Columbia University

Armstrong’s resignation follows the departure of Minouche Shafik, who faced widespread criticism for her handling of campus protests against the war in Gaza. Under Shafik’s leadership, Columbia became a focal point of national debates about free speech, activism, and the role of universities in responding to global conflicts. Shafik ultimately resigned after facing intense scrutiny for her handling of the protests and the occupation of an academic building by students, an incident that ended with NYPD officers forcibly removing the students.

In Armstrong’s case, her tenure was similarly marred by controversies surrounding the university’s response to the growing political activism on campus. The university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests, particularly those related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, led to calls for stronger action from political figures, especially within the Republican Party. Armstrong’s decision to oversee negotiations with the Trump administration over the university’s federal funding placed her at the center of a storm of political and social unrest, further intensifying the pressure on her leadership.

Columbia's Future Amidst Political Turmoil

The resignation of Armstrong is a significant moment for Columbia, as the institution grapples with the broader implications of political activism within academia and the increasing role of government in shaping university policies. As the university enters another phase of leadership instability, the question remains: how will the next president balance the competing demands of activism, free speech, and political pressures from outside forces?

Columbia’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and increase security measures reflects the complex and polarized environment that universities are navigating in today’s political climate. The growing influence of political figures like Trump and the scrutiny placed on universities over their responses to student protests signal a new era for higher education, one where the lines between campus activism and political power are increasingly blurred.

As the search for a permanent president continues, Columbia University will need to chart a course that both addresses the concerns of its diverse student body and faculty while navigating the external pressures that have shaped the university’s recent trajectory. The role of universities in fostering open dialogue, supporting activism, and protecting the rights of students will likely continue to be a central issue in higher education for years to come.

Conclusion

The resignation of Katrina Armstrong adds to a growing list of university presidents who have faced intense political pressure and scrutiny over campus activism, particularly surrounding Middle Eastern and global conflicts. Columbia’s next steps will be crucial not only for the future of the institution but also as a bellwether for how universities across the country navigate the increasingly complex landscape of political activism, academic freedom, and government intervention. The institution’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the role of higher education in a polarized society.

Trump's Growing Crackdown of Dissenters on Campus

In recent weeks, a growing number of international students and green card holders at prestigious universities, including Cornell, Columbia, Georgetown, and Tufts, have been arrested and detained by federal immigration authorities. These actions appear to be part of a broader crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism within U.S. academic institutions and against dissent in general.  

Tufts University

On March 26, 2025, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University, was detained by federal agents who revoked her student visa. Ozturk had co-authored an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper condemning investments in companies linked to Israel and referring to the "Palestinian genocide" in Gaza. Her detention occurred as she was heading to an iftar dinner during Ramadan.

Columbia University

Earlier this month, Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested in his university housing. Khalil's participation in pro-Palestinian protests led to allegations of supporting Hamas, resulting in the revocation of his green card. He is currently detained while challenging the deportation order.

Subsequently, Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia junior from South Korea holding a green card, was targeted for deportation due to her involvement in similar protests. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing her detention while she contests the deportation order.

Georgetown University

Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow on a student visa, was detained on March 17, 2025, under accusations of spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism. His attorney disputes these claims, suggesting that Suri is being targeted because of his Palestinian wife's heritage and their perceived opposition to U.S. foreign policy.

Cornell University

Momodou Taal, a Cornell graduate student with dual British and Gambian citizenship, was instructed to surrender to ICE authorities on March 22, 2025. Taal's legal team preemptively filed a lawsuit challenging the deportation order, citing concerns over potential surveillance and targeting due to his activism.

These incidents have raised significant concerns among civil rights organizations, university officials, and international communities. Critics argue that the Trump administration's actions infringe upon First Amendment rights and target individuals based on their political views. In response, legal challenges are underway, with courts issuing orders to halt certain deportations and detentions.

As this situation develops, universities and advocacy groups continue to monitor and respond to the evolving landscape of immigration enforcement affecting international students and green card holders across the nation.

Friday, March 14, 2025

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. 

Tuesday, March 11, 2025

US Department of Education accuses 60 universities of antisemitism. Here's the list of those publicly threatened.

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Sends Letters to 60 Universities Under Investigation for Antisemitic Discrimination and Harassment

Letters warn of potential enforcement actions if institutions do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus.

March 10, 2025 

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent letters to 60 institutions of higher education warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities. The letters are addressed to all U.S. universities that are presently under investigation for Title VI violations relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination. 

“The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”  

The schools that received letters from the Office for Civil Rights include:  

  1. American University 
  2. Arizona State University 
  3. Boston University 
  4. Brown University 
  5. California State University, Sacramento 
  6. Chapman University 
  7. Columbia University 
  8. Cornell University 
  9. Drexel University 
  10. Eastern Washington University 
  11. Emerson College 
  12. George Mason University 
  13. Harvard University 
  14. Illinois Wesleyan University 
  15. Indiana University, Bloomington 
  16. Johns Hopkins University 
  17. Lafayette College 
  18. Lehigh University 
  19. Middlebury College 
  20. Muhlenberg College 
  21. Northwestern University 
  22. Ohio State University 
  23. Pacific Lutheran University     
  24. Pomona College 
  25. Portland State University 
  26. Princeton University 
  27. Rutgers University 
  28. Rutgers University-Newark
  29. Santa Monica College 
  30. Sarah Lawrence College 
  31. Stanford University 
  32. State University of New York Binghamton 
  33. State University of New York Rockland 
  34. State University of New York, Purchase 
  35. Swarthmore College 
  36. Temple University 
  37. The New School 
  38. Tufts University 
  39. Tulane University 
  40. Union College 
  41. University of California Davis 
  42. University of California San Diego 
  43. University of California Santa Barbara 
  44. University of California, Berkeley
  45. University of Cincinnati 
  46. University of Hawaii at Manoa 
  47. University of Massachusetts Amherst 
  48. University of Michigan 
  49. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 
  50. University of North Carolina 
  51. University of South Florida 
  52. University of Southern California 
  53. University of Tampa 
  54. University of Tennessee 
  55. University of Virginia 
  56. University of Washington-Seattle 
  57. University of Wisconsin, Madison 
  58. Wellesley College 
  59. Whitman College 
  60. Yale University 

Background: 

The Department’s OCR sent these letters under its authority to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which prohibits any institution that receives federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color, and national origin. National origin includes shared (Jewish) ancestry. 

Pursuant to Title VI and in furtherance of President Trump’s Executive Order “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism,” the Department launched directed investigations into five universities where widespread antisemitic harassment has been reported. The 55 additional universities are under investigation or monitoring in response to complaints filed with OCR. Last week, the Department, alongside fellow members of the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism including the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. General Services Administration, announced the immediate cancelation of $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University due to the school’s continued inaction to protect Jewish students from discrimination. Last Friday, OCR directed its enforcement staff to make resolving the backlog of complaints alleging antisemitic violence and harassment, many which were allowed to languish unresolved under the previous administration, an immediate priority.

Contact

Press Office
press@ed.gov
(202) 401-1576


Monday, March 10, 2025

For-Profit College Barons Backed Trump, But Now May Be Scared (David Halperin)

Many top for-profit college industry owners supported Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House. They had benefitted when, during Trump’s first term, his education secretary, Betsy DeVos, largely ended federal regulatory and enforcement efforts to hold for-profit schools accountable for deceiving students and ripping off taxpayers. But some industry barons, having contributed to the Trump 2024 campaign, now may be scared by efforts of the new Trump administration, including Elon Musk’s DOGE team, to disrupt operations of the U.S. Department of Education. Both Trump and his new Secretary of Education Linda McMahon publicly suggested last week that the Department will be abolished.

Although the for-profit college industry endlessly complained that the Biden and Obama education departments were unfairly targeting the industry with regulations and enforcement actions, they now seem concerned about the possibility that the Trump administration will shutter the Department entirely, abandon the federal role in higher education oversight, and leave regulation to the states. They likely are even more frightened that the proposed gutting of the Department will interfere with the flow of billions in federal taxpayer dollars to their schools.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Jason Altmire, the former congressman who is now the CEO of the largest lobbying group of for-profit colleges, Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU), says that his schools are worried about the potential disruption of funding for federal student grants and loans. Altmire apparently also expressed concern that turning regulation over to the states could create problems for online schools that operate in multiple states, especially because some states have relatively strong accountability rules.

Many for-profit colleges receive most of their revenue — as much as the 90 percent maximum allowed by U.S. law — from federal taxpayer-supported student grants and loans. For-profit schools have received literally hundreds of billions in these taxpayer dollars over the past two decades, as much as $32 billion at the industry’s peak around 2010, and around $20 billion annually n0w.

But many for-profit schools have used deceptive advertising and recruiting to sell high-priced low quality college and career training programs that leave many students worse off than when they started, deep in debt and without the career advancement they sought. Dozens of for-profit schools have faced federal and state law enforcement actions over their abuses.

CECU (previously called APSCU and before that CCA) has included in its membership over the years many of the most abusive, deceptive school operations, including Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, Education Management Corp., Perdoceo, Center for Excellence in Higher Education, DeVry, Kaplan (now called Purdue University Global), and Ashford University (now called University of Arizona Global Campus). (Republic Report highlighted the bad actors on CECU’s membership list for many years; CECU removed the list from its website about four years ago.)

Florida couple Arthur and Belinda Keiser are among those who have benefited the most from CECU lobbying and taxpayer funding. The Keisers run for-profit Southeastern College and non-profit Keiser University, which collectively have received hundreds of million in federal education dollars over the years. They also are among the most politically active owners in the career college industry.

While Belinda Keiser has run, unsuccessfully, for the state legislature, Arthur Keiser has been one of the most aggressive lobbyists for the career college industry in Washington. He has been a dominant figure on the board of CECU, and he hired expensive lawyers to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a failed effort to block a settlement that provides debt relief to students who attended deceptive colleges, including Keiser University. During Trump’s first term, Arthur Keiser chaired NACIQI, the Department of Education’s advisory committee reviewing the performance of college accreditors.

The Keisers created controversy and were eventually penalized by the IRS for a shady 2011 conversion of Keiser University from for-profit to non-profit, in a deal that allowed the couple to continue making big money off the school. Keiser University has also settled cases with the Justice Department and the Florida attorney general over deceptive practices.

In the two years leading up to the November 2024 election, according to Federal Election Committee records, Belinda Keiser donated more than $250,000 to various Republican candidates and political committees, including $35,000 to the Trump 47 Committee, $10,300 to the Trump-affiliated Save America PAC, $3300 to the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, and $33,400 to the Republican National Committee.

Ultra-wealthy college owner Carl Barney was another big Trump 2024 donor. Barney operated the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, another troubling conversion from for-profit to non-profit that kept taxpayer money flowing into his bank accounts, for schools including CollegeAmerica and Independence University. Barney’s schools lost their accreditation, and then their federal aid, after the Colorado attorney general in 2020 won a lawsuit accusing CollegeAmerica of deceptive practices. (The case is still pending after an appeal.)

Amid a torrent of donations to Republican committees last fall totaling over $1.6 million, Barney donated $924,600 to the Trump 47 Committee, $74,500 to the Trump-supporting Make America Great Again PAC, and $247,800 to the Republican National Committee, according to federal records.

In a September post on his personal website, Barney explained that he liked that Trump “wants to work with Elon Musk to reduce spending, regulations, waste, and fraud in the federal government.”

What exactly waste, fraud, and abuse seems to mean in the context of the Trump/Musk effort is troubling. There is little evidence that what DOGE has found and shut down relates to actual fraud, abuse, or corruption.

Instead it appears that much of what Musk and DOGE have focused on is weakening or eliminating either (1) federal agencies that have been investigating Musk businesses, or businesses of other top Trump donors; or (2) agencies that work on priorities — such as equal opportunity for Americans or alleviation of poverty or disease overseas — that Trump or Musk dislike.

And the Trump team has been firing, across multiple federal agencies, the inspectors general, ethics watchdogs, and other top officials actually charged with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse — further undermining the claim that the Trump team is trying to bring about more honest and efficient government.

It’s doubtful that even the heaviest sledgehammer DOGE attack would eliminate the federal student grants and loans that Congress has mandated to give low and moderate income Americans of all backgrounds a better chance to improve their lives through higher education. Assuming such financial aid will continue, then if Trump, Musk, and DOGE truly wanted to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and save big money for taxpayers, one thing they could do is strengthen, rather than abolish, the Department of Education — not to keep the money flowing to all for-profit colleges, as CECU seems to want, but to advance efforts to ensure that taxpayer dollars go only to those colleges that are creating real benefits for students and for our economy.

That would mean enforcing and building on, not destroying, the Department of Education rules put in place by the Biden administration, including: the gainful employment rule, which creates performance standards to cut off aid to for-profit and career programs that consistently leave graduates with insurmountable debt; the borrower defense rule, which cancels the debts of students scammed by their schools and empowers the Department to go after those predatory schools to recoup the taxpayer money; and the 90-10 rule, which helps keep low-quality programs out of the federal aid program and reduces the risk that poor quality schools will target U.S. veterans and service members.

It would also mean continuing the Biden administration’s efforts to more aggressively evaluate the performance of the private college accrediting agencies that oversee colleges and serve as gatekeepers for federal student grants and loans.

Fighting waste, fraud, and abuse would also mean strengthening, not gutting, efforts to investigate and fight predatory college abuses by enforcement teams at the Department of Education, Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Justice Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense. Many deceptive school operations remain in business today, recruiting veterans, single parents, and others into low-quality, over-priced college programs; they include Perdoceo’s American Intercontinental and Colorado Technical University, Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global Campus, DeVry University, Walden University, the University of Phoenix, South University, Ultimate Medical Academy, and UEI College.

Fighting waste, fraud, and abuse also would likely require a different higher ed leader at the Department than Nicholas Kent, the Virginia state official whom Trump has nominated to serve as Under Secretary of Education. Kent previously worked at CECU as a lobbyist advancing the interests of for-profit schools. Prior to that, he worked at Education Affiliates, a for-profit college operation that faced civil and criminal investigation and actions by the Justice Department for deceptive practices.

Diane Auer Jones, who held the same job in the first Trump administration, had a career background similar to Kent’s, and she twisted Department policies and actions to benefit predatory colleges. That is presumably the world CECU and its for-profit college barons want to restore: All the money, none of the accountability rules.

In the end, the predatory college owners may get what they want. Given the brazen self-dealing, and fealty to corporate donors, of the Trump-Musk administration, and the sharp elbows of paid-for congressional backers of the for-profit college industry like Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), we will probably end up with the worst of all outcomes: the destruction of the Department of Education but a continued flow of taxpayer billions to for-profit schools, without meaningful accountability measures to ensure that everyday Americans are actually protected from waste, fraud, and abuse.

Americans should demand from Trump and Secretary McMahon a different course — one that provides educational opportunity for all and strengthens the U.S. economy by investing in higher education, while removing from the federal aid program the abusive colleges that rip off students and scam taxpayers.

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

Tuesday, February 25, 2025

U.S. Law Schools: Perpetuating Inequality and Injustice, Serving the Billionaire Class

As the nation grapples with profound social and economic inequities, U.S. law schools have become a critical yet overlooked institution in perpetuating these disparities. From shaping the legal minds that go on to influence policy to training future attorneys who occupy the nation's corridors of power, law schools are playing an outsized role in entrenching systems of privilege, rather than dismantling them.

One of the most glaring manifestations of this failure is the Trump-era Supreme Court, whose composition has shifted dramatically due to the influence of elite law schools. Justices such as Brett Kavanaugh (Yale Law), Neil Gorsuch (Harvard Law), and Amy Coney Barrett (Notre Dame Law) have reshaped the Court in the image of conservative ideologies. These justices, primarily from elite institutions, have consistently sided with corporate interests over public welfare. Their rulings on critical issues like voting rights (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013), abortion access (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 2022), and corporate regulation (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 2018) have had profound consequences, amplifying inequalities and reducing access to justice for marginalized communities. The legal minds trained in these prestigious law schools have moved away from serving the public, instead reinforcing the status quo and further consolidating power in the hands of the wealthy elite.

This trend is compounded by the overwhelming concentration of law school graduates in a handful of sectors, particularly Washington, D.C., and on Wall Street. A report from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) reveals that nearly 70% of graduates from top law schools—such as Harvard, Yale, and Columbia—secure positions in large corporate law firms or government roles. Meanwhile, those who enter public service or work in underfunded legal fields such as public defense face a starkly different reality. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the average starting salary for a public defender in 2020 was around $50,000, compared to $190,000 in major corporate law firms. This disparity highlights the economic realities facing graduates who pursue careers in public interest law.

Law schools exacerbate these inequities through their admissions processes, which heavily favor students from affluent backgrounds. A 2019 study by the Equality of Opportunity Project found that 70% of students attending Harvard Law, Yale Law, and other Ivy League law schools come from families in the top 20% income bracket, while less than 5% come from the bottom 20%. This financial divide is perpetuated by high tuition costs—Harvard Law's tuition and fees for the 2024 academic year exceed $70,000 annually—making it inaccessible to many who might otherwise have the talent and potential to succeed in law.

Furthermore, law schools’ connections with corporate sponsors and wealthy alumni networks often shape the curriculum and career pathways offered to students. As a result, legal education has become increasingly oriented toward corporate law, perpetuating a system that values prestige and financial gain over social justice. A 2021 report from the American Bar Foundation indicated that nearly half of law school graduates work in the private sector within the first ten years of their careers, most of them in high-paying corporate firms or lobbying groups, which further concentrates legal power in the hands of the elite.

The oversupply of lawyers entering corporate sectors—many of whom attend the nation’s top law schools—has created a system where elite law firms and government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice and major regulatory bodies, dominate legal decision-making. This trend is also visible in the disproportionate representation of law school graduates in Washington, D.C., where they shape policy in ways that benefit large corporations and financial institutions, while leaving the needs of the general public unmet.

A central aspect of the legal system that perpetuates inequality is the way the billionaire class profits from the injustice system itself. Wealthy individuals and corporate entities have found ways to exploit the legal system to their advantage, contributing to the concentration of wealth and power. Many billionaires and large corporations fund legal battles designed to weaken regulations, block labor rights, and influence policy decisions that benefit their financial interests.

For example, major private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group, both of which have ties to influential law firms, profit from the mass incarceration of predominantly Black and Latino individuals. These private companies lobby for harsher sentencing laws and immigration policies that fill their prisons, creating a cycle of profit that thrives on systemic inequality. Legal professionals trained in elite law schools frequently represent these corporations, further entrenching the power dynamics that keep vulnerable populations incarcerated.

The billionaire class also reaps the benefits of legal loopholes and tax avoidance schemes facilitated by top-tier law firms. Lawyers trained in Ivy League schools often advise wealthy clients on ways to hide their assets, evade taxes, and exploit the legal system for personal gain, which further exacerbates income inequality. Law firms and the lawyers who work in them profit immensely by providing these services, while the broader public bears the burden of underfunded social programs and public services.

The impact of law schools’ role in the legal system is not a new development, but has historical roots. For much of U.S. history, the courts and legal institutions have played a pivotal role in limiting democracy and reinforcing inequalities. However, there have been pivotal moments when the courts, often driven by lawyers trained in the nation's top schools, expanded democracy and fought for justice.

A key moment in the history of expanding democracy was the work of Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston, both of whom were products of Howard University School of Law—a historically Black institution that stood in stark contrast to the elite, mostly white law schools of their time. Marshall, who went on to become the first African American Supreme Court Justice, and Houston, his mentor, fought tirelessly against segregation and racial discrimination. Houston's strategy, dubbed "the 'liberal' approach to civil rights," involved challenging discriminatory laws through the courts, using legal arguments rooted in equal protection and the promise of the 14th Amendment.

Houston's legal battles laid the groundwork for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case, where the Supreme Court, under the influence of Marshall's legal strategies, overturned the doctrine of “separate but equal” and declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This ruling, perhaps one of the most profound examples of the courts expanding democracy, was achieved through the work of legal professionals committed to social justice, many of whom came from institutions outside the mainstream elite law schools.

Unfortunately, the trend of the courts advancing civil rights was not consistent. The Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be citizens, and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld racial segregation, serve as stark reminders of how the legal system can be wielded to entrench inequality and limit democracy. The very law schools that trained many of the justices responsible for these rulings were also responsible for shaping the legal education that upheld the racist and exclusionary structures of the time.

Today, the cycle of legal education serving the interests of the wealthy and powerful continues. While the courts have sometimes played a role in broadening civil rights and democracy, too often they have sided with corporate interests, limiting progress. Lawyers trained in elite law schools continue to occupy spaces where the rules of the game are rigged in favor of those with wealth and influence.

To reverse this trend, law schools must take deliberate action. They must shift their focus from training lawyers for the highest-paying and most prestigious jobs to producing attorneys who are dedicated to the public good. This includes increasing financial accessibility, offering more scholarships for low-income students, and reevaluating the curriculum to emphasize social justice, public interest law, and equitable legal reforms. Moreover, legal education should challenge the structures of wealth and power, ensuring that future lawyers are equipped to dismantle the systems that benefit billionaires and corporations at the expense of justice.

The influence of law schools in perpetuating inequality cannot be overstated. The future of the legal profession—and, by extension, the justice system—depends on whether these institutions can embrace a new mission: one that fosters true equality under the law and dismantles the structures of privilege that continue to shape our society.

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Civil Rights Groups Sue Facebook and Instagram For Targeting Predatory College Ads at Black Users (David Halperin)

A nonprofit advocacy group sued Meta this week, contending that the tech giant’s Facebook and Instagram platforms facilitate the targeting of ads for for-profit colleges to Black users, while disproportionately steering ads for public and non-profit colleges to white users. 

The lawsuit, filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court on behalf of the non-profit Equal Rights Center (ERC), alleges that Meta thus “provides separate and unequal services to Black users in its places of public accommodations.”

In a statement, ERC’s lead lawyers, from the non-profit Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, call Meta’s practices “modern-day digital redlining.” 

Redlining refers to unlawful practices that deny or restrict financial and other services — such as consumer loans and home mortgages — to people based on their race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic. 

ERC’s lawyers allege that Meta’s conduct violates the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act and Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

As the lawyers note, many for-profit colleges have histories of using deceptive advertising and recruiting to draw people into high-priced, low-quality programs that leave many students worse off than when they enroll — deep in debt and without the careers they sought. As a result, ERC’s complaint argues, Black users are disadvantaged by Meta’s alleged practice of pushing them to for-profit schools and denying them communications from higher quality, more affordable schools.

For-profit schools with records of poor student outcomes have frequently been accused of targeting their marketing and recruiting at Black people.

The new complaint accuses Meta of promising to deliver users a “valuable and relevant personalized” ad experience when it has instead “[made] ad delivery decisions based on race.” 

The complaint alleges that Meta collates data that Facebook and Instagram directly collect from users with data from various apps and websites, including, on at least one occasion, reported ethnicity information from the ACT college entrance exam website, and employs the collective data to target individual users.

The complaint references a July 2024  academic paper, describing how researchers submitted to Facebook pairs of ads, one for a for-profit college and the other for a nonprofit school. They found, according the complaint, that Black Facebook and Instagram users “were more likely to get ads for the for-profit colleges, while white Facebook and Instagram users were more likely to get the ads for the public nonprofit schools.” The complaint does not identify the academic study, but the description suggests the lawyers are referencing a report from researchers at Princeton and the University of South California. 

A 2016 report by Pro Publica revealed that Facebook was permitting advertisers on its site to exclude users from their ad campaigns based on race. Facebook ultimately removed that option for advertisers, but further research suggests that Meta’s algorithms still effectively skew ads based on the race of the user.  

Damon T. Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee, the legal group that filed the case, said in a statement, “Separate and unequal services should be remnants of the past, but they are still a present-day reality for Black users on Meta’s platforms.” He added, “Digital redlining, especially in today’s higher education market, sends the unmistakable signal that Black people belong in some institutions but not others. This lawsuit aims to make it clear that no corporation—not even a Big Tech company as powerful as Meta—should be allowed to profit from the discriminatory treatment of Black students and consumers.”

Meta has not responded to our request for comment on the lawsuit.

ERC is also represented in the case by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP.

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

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Campus closures, mergers, cuts, and crises at the start of 2025 (Bryan Alexander)


How are colleges and universities responding to financial pressures?

Today, while Trump continues to flood the zone, I want to establish a sense of what the higher education baseline was before he cut loose.  As the new administration goes even more energetically after academia I’d like to share some data about our sector’s standing.

Last year I tracked cuts and crises afflicting dozens of campuses.  I posted roughly every months, noting program cuts, institutional mergers, and campus closures, as well as financial crises likely to cause same: March 1March 20March 28, April, MayJuneJulySeptember, November. Today I’ll continue that line for the reasons I’ve previously given: to document key stories in higher education; to witness human suffering; to point to possible directions for academia to take.  In addition, I want to help paint a picture of the world Trump is starting to attack.

Some caveats: I’m doing this in haste, between the political chaos and a stack of professional deadlines, which means the following will be more telegraphic than usual.  I may well have missed some stories, so please let me know in comments.

Closing colleges and universities

Philadelphia’s University of the Arts closed in 2024. Now different actors are angling for its physical remains.  Temple University purchased an iconic building, Quadro Bay bought another, and while more bids appear.

Mergers

Gannon University (Catholic, Pennsylvania) and Ursuline College (Catholic, Ohio) agreed to merge by this December.  The idea is to synthesize complementary academic offers and provide institutional stability, it seems.

Seattle University by martinvirtualtours

Seattle University (Jesuit, Washington state) and the Cornish College of the Arts (private, Washington) also agreed to merge.  As with the Lake Erie schools, one motivation is to expand curricular offerings:

Emily Parkhust, Cornish’s interim president, said the deal opens new doors for the tiny school’s nearly 500 students.

“This strategic combination will allow our students opportunities that we simply weren’t able to offer and provide at a small arts college,” she said. “Such as the opportunity to take business classes, computer courses, pursue master’s degree programs, engage in college sports — and even swim in a pool.”

Financial problems also played a role: “Cornish declared it was undergoing a financial emergency in 2020, and this year, Seattle University paused hiring as it faces a $7.5 million deficit.”

The Universidad Andres Bello (Universidad Andrés Bello; private, Chile) purchased Post University (for-profit, Connecticut).

Campuses cutting programs and jobs

In this series I’ve largely focused on the United States for the usual reasons: the sheer size and complexity of the sector; limited time. But in my other writing I’ve noted the epochal crisis hitting Canadian higher education, as the nation’s decision to cut international enrollment has struck institutional finances.   Tony Bates offers a good backgrounder.  Alex Usher’s team set up an excellent website tracking the resulting retrenchment.

British higher education is also suffering, partly for the reasons that nation’s economy is hurting: negative effects of Brexit, energy problems stemming from the Ukraine war, and political fecklessness. For one example I find the University of Hull (public research) which is combining 17 schools into 11 and ending its chemistry program, all for financial reasons. Cardiff University (Prifysgol Caerdydd; public research) cut 400 full time jobs, also for financial reasons:

Vice-Chancellor Professor Wendy Larner defended the decision to cut jobs, saying the university would have become “untenable” without drastic reforms.

The job role cuts are only a proposal, she said, but insisted the university needed to “take difficult decisions” due to the declining international student applications and increasing cost pressures.

Prof Larner said the university is not alone in its financial struggles, with most UK universities grappling with the “broken” funding system.

Back in the United States, Sonoma State University (public university, part of California State University system) announced a massive series of cuts.

“approximately 46 university faculty – both tenured and adjunct – will receive notice that their contracts will not be renewed for 2025-26. Additional lecturers will receive notice that no work will be available in fall 2025… Four management positions and 12 staff positions also will be eliminated.”

The university will shut down a group of departments: “Art History, Economics; Geology; Philosophy; Theater and Dance; and Women and Gender Studies.”

(These are the kind of cuts I’ve referred to as “queen sacrifices,” desperate moves to cut a school’s way to survival.  The term comes from chess, where a player can give up their most powerful piece, the queen. In my analogy tenured faculty represent that level of relative power.)

There will be some consolidation (“The college also plans to merge the Ethnic Studies departments (American Multicultural Studies, Chicano and Latino Studies, and Native American Studies) into one department with one major”) along with ending a raft of programs:

Administrative Services Credential in ELSE; Art History BA; Art Studio BFA; Dance BA; Earth and Environmental Sciences BA; Economics BA; Education Leadership MA; English MA; French BA; Geology BS; German Minor; Global Studies BA; History MA; Interdisciplinary Studies BA; Interdisciplinary Studies MA; Philosophy BA; Physical Science BA; Physics BA; Physics BS; Public Administration MPA; Spanish MA; Theatre Arts BA; Women and Gender Studies BA.

Additionally, and unusually, SSU is also ending student athletics: “The University will be removing NCAA Division II athletics entirely, involving some 11 teams in total.”

What lies behind these cuts?  My readers will not be surprised to learn that enrollment decline plays a role, but might be shocked by the decline’s size: “SSU has experienced a 38% decrease in enrollment.”

More cuts: St. Norbert College (Catholic, liberal arts, Wisconsin) is planning to cut faculty and its theology department. (I posted about an earlier round of cuts there  in 2024.)  Columbia College Chicago (private, arts) will terminate faculty and academic programs.  Portland State University (Oregon) ended contracts for a group of non-tenure-track faculty.

The University of New Orleans (public research) will cut $2.2 million of administration and staff.

The University of Connecticut (public, land grant) is working on closing roughly two dozen academic programs.  According to one account, they include:

master’s degrees in international studies, medieval studies, survey research and educational technology; graduate certificates in adult learning, literacy supports, digital media and design, dementia care, life story practice, addiction science and survey research; a sixth-year certificate in educational technology, and a doctoral degree in medieval studies.

It’s not clear if those terminations will lead to faculty and staff reductions.

Budget crises, programs cut, not laying off people yet

There are also stories of campuses facing financial pressures which haven’t resulted in cuts, mergers, or closures so far, but could lead to those. Saint Augustine’s University (historically black, South Carolina) is struggling to get approval for a campus leasing deal, while moving classes online “to take care of deferred maintenance issues.”  SAU has been facing controversies and financial challenges for nearly a generation.

The president of another HBCU, Tennessee State University, stated that they would run out of money by this spring.  That Higher Ed Dive article notes:

TSU’s financial troubles are steep and immediate. An FAQ page on the university’s website acknowledges that the financial condition has reached crisis levels stemming from missed enrollment targets and operating deficits. This fall, the university posted a projected deficit of $46 million by the end of the fiscal year.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education agreed to hear an accreditation appeal from Keystone College (private, Pennsylvania), while that campus struggles:

Keystone college front page 2025 Feb

From the top of Keystone’s web page right now.

The board of William Jewell University (private liberal arts, Missouri) declared financial exigency.  This gives them emergency powers to act. As the official statement put it, the move “enables reallocation of resources, restructuring of academic programs and scholarships and significant reductions in force.”

Brown University (private research university, Rhode Island) is grappling with a $46 million deficit “that would grow to more than $90 million,” according to provost Francis J. Doyle III and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham.  No cuts are in the offing, although restraining growth is the order of the day. In addition, there’s a plan to increase one sort of program for revenue:

the university will work to “continue to grow master’s [program] revenue, ultimately doubling the number of residential master’s students and increasing online learners to 2,000 in five years.”

KQED reports that other California State University campuses are facing financial stresses, notably Cal State East Bay and San Francisco State University.  The entire CSU system and the University of California system each face massive cuts from the state’s governor.

Reflections

Nearly all of this is occurring before the second Trump administration began its work. Clearly parts of the American post-secondary ecosystem are suffering financially and in terms of enrollment.

It’s important to bear in mind that each school’s trajectory is distinct from the others in key ways. Each has its history, its conditions, its competing strategies, resources, micropolitics, and so on. Each one deserves more exploration than I have time for in this post.

At the same time I think we can make the case that broader national trends are also at work. Operating costs rise for a clutch of reasons (consumer inflation, American health care’s shambles, deferred maintenance being a popular practice, some high compensation practices, etc) and push hard on some budgets. Enrollment continues to be a challenge (I will return to this topic in a future post). The Trump administration does not seem likely to ameliorate those concerns.

Note, too, that many of the institutions I’ve touched on here are not first tier campuses. The existence of some may be news to some readers. As a result, they tend not to get much media attention nor to attract resources.   It is important, though, to point them out if we want to think beyond academia’s deep hierarchical structures.

Last note: this post has focused on statistics and bureaucracy, but these are all stories about real human beings.  The lives of students, faculty, staff and those in surrounding communities are all impacted.  Don’t lose sight of that fact or of these people.

(Seattle University photo by Michael & Sherry Martin; thanks to Karen B on Bluesky, Karen Bellnier otherwise, Mo Pelzel, Peter Shea, and Siva Vaidhyanathan for links; thanks to IHE for doing a solid job of covering these stories)

[Editor's note: This story first appeared at BryanAlexander.org on February 10, 2025] 

Tuesday, February 4, 2025

Robocolleges 2025

Overall, enrollment numbers for online robocolleges have increased as full-time faculty numbers have declined. Four schools now have enrollment numbers exceeding 100,000 students.  

Here's a breakdown of the key characteristics of robocolleges:

  • Technology-Driven: Robocolleges heavily utilize online platforms, pre-recorded lectures, automated grading systems, and limited human interaction.
  • Focus on Profit: These institutions often prioritize generating revenue over providing a high-quality educational experience.
  • Aggressive Marketing: Robocolleges frequently employ aggressive marketing tactics to attract students, sometimes with misleading information.
  • High Tuition Costs: They often charge high tuition fees, leading to significant student debt.
  • Limited Faculty Interaction: Students may have limited access to faculty members for guidance and support.
  • Questionable Job Placement Rates: Graduates of robocolleges may struggle to find employment in their chosen fields.

Concerns:

  • Student Debt Crisis: The high tuition costs and potential for low job placement rates contribute to the student debt crisis.
  • Quality of Education: The emphasis on technology and limited human interaction can raise concerns about the quality of education students receive.
  • Ethical Considerations: The aggressive marketing tactics and potential for misleading students raise ethical concerns.

Here are Fall 2023 numbers (the most recent numbers) from the US Department of Education College Navigator:

Southern New Hampshire University: 129 Full-Time (F/T) instructors for 188,049 students.*
Grand Canyon University 582 F/T instructors for 107,563 students.*
Liberty University: 812 F/T for 103,068 students.*
University of Phoenix: 86 F/T instructors for 101,150 students.*
University of Maryland Global: 168 F/T instructors for 60,084 students.
American Public University System: 341 F/T instructors for 50,187 students.
Purdue University Global: 298 F/T instructors for 44,421 students.
Walden University: 242 F/T for 44,223 students.
Capella University: 168 F/T for 43,915 students.
University of Arizona Global Campus: 97 F/T instructors for 32,604 students.
Devry University online: 66 F/T instructors for 29,346 students.
Colorado Technical University: 100 F/T instructors for 28,852 students.
American Intercontinental University: 82 full-time instructors for 10,997 students.
Colorado State University Global: 26 F/T instructors for 9,507 students.
South University: 37 F/T instructors for 8,816 students.
Aspen University 10 F/T instructors for 5,195 students.
National American University 0 F/T instructors for 1,026 students

*Most F/T faculty serve the ground campuses that profit from the online schools.

Related links:

Wealth and Want Part 4: Robocolleges and Roboworkers (2024) 

Southern New Hampshire University: America's Largest Robocollege Facing Resistance From Human Workers and Student Complaints About Curriculum (2024)

Robocolleges, Artificial Intelligence, and the Dehumanization of Higher Education (2023)


Tuesday, January 28, 2025

The future of the US Department of Education: 8 tips for journalists covering the agency under Trump’s second term

The U.S. Department of Education, one of the federal government’s smallest Cabinet-level agencies, operates programs across every level of education. With an annual budget of about $242 billion, it helps fund approximately 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools serving kindergarten through grade 12 as well as thousands of colleges, universities, vocational schools and other higher education institutions.

During his reelection campaign, President Donald Trump pledged to close the U.S. Department of Education if he returned to the White House. In the months leading to his inauguration on Monday, some Republican state leaders and members of Congress expressed support for his proposal, although it is still unclear how he would implement it.

In Oklahoma, for example, Ryan Walters, the state superintendent of public instruction, has formed a committee to oversee the changes in federal education policy he expects the Trump administration to make.

“The education system has needed these reforms for decades,” Walters told FOX23 News Tulsa in November. “We’re going to be the first state ready to go to enact them.”

Even if the federal Education Department remains intact, which academic researchers and other experts assert is most likely, there probably will be changes. Trump has said he plans to use federal funding as leverage to limit what he considers “left-wing indoctrination” in K-12 schools and higher education institutions.

He has made it clear that he opposes so called “diversity programs” as well as school vaccine requirements, teaching critical race theory in K-12 classrooms and allowing transgender students to participate in sports that align with their gender identity.

“The big question isn’t whether the Department of Education is going to go away -- I think the big question is what it’s going to do,” says education historian Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote the books Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools and The Amateur Hour: A History of College Teaching in America.

We created this tip sheet to help journalists tackle this very complicated issue. Below, we spotlight eight tips to help you better understand the Education Department’s role, put Trump’s plan into historical context, and examine possible consequences for students, families, educators and their communities.

1. Make clear what the U.S. Department of Education does and that most of its funding is spent on programs for adults.

Many people don’t realize the U.S. Department of Education spends most of its budget on education and training for adults, namely college students, students enrolled in career and technical programs, and people with disabilities who need help finding jobs. In fiscal year 2024, the Education Department spent about $161 billion -- 60% of its $268 billion budget -- to fund its office of Federal Student Aid, the country’s largest provider of student financial aid.

Another $2 billion went to the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, which administers a variety of education and training programs for adults, including adults with disabilities and incarcerated individuals. About $4 billion went to the Office of Postsecondary Education, which, among other things, provides grants for colleges controlled by tribal governments and for other minority serving institutions. The Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions maintains a list of MSIs, which are public and private colleges and universities that serve a large percentage of Black, Hispanic, Asian or Indigenous students.

K-12 public schools receive relatively little money from the U.S. Department of Education. In fact, less than 8% of public school revenue came from federal agencies, including the Education Department, before COVID-19 reached the U.S. in 2020. Since then, the federal government has sent schools a combined $189.5 billion in emergency aid to help them deal with the wide-ranging impacts of the pandemic.

This temporary infusion of money bumped the federal government's share of public school funding to 13.7% during the 2021-22 academic year, the most recent year for which data is available.

The U.S. Department of Education’s largest K-12 programs are grant programs, designed to help public schools afford the higher cost of educating certain groups of students. For example, special education grants help schools pay for education and services for students with disabilities until they turn 21 years old. The Title I program, which gets its name from Title I of the federal law known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, provides financial assistance to schools where at least 40% students come from lower-income families.

A key function of the U.S. Department of Education is investigating civil rights complaints at K-12 schools, colleges, universities, trade schools and the other institutions it funds. Meanwhile, the agency’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences, collects a variety of education data and publishes regular reports on topics such as K-12 student demographics, high school graduation rates, college costs and college enrollment trends.

2. Note that some federal education programs are funded by other government agencies.

Much of the public probably does not realize that several major education programs are not run by the U.S. Department of Education. For example:

  • Head Start, which provides education-related services to preschool children from low-income families, is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
  • The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program are funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  • While the Education Department provides some funding for K-12 schools controlled by tribal governments, most comes from the Bureau of Indian Education, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Some K-12 schools located on tribal land are operated and funded by the Bureau of Indian Education, which also funds and operates two tribal higher education institutions: the Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in New Mexico.
  • The GI Bill, which helps military veterans and their family members pay for college and other types of education, is funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
  • The primary federal agencies that provide research funding to colleges and universities are the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Department of Agriculture.

3. Emphasize that closing the U.S. Department of Education has been a goal of conservative politicians for decades.

Several high-ranking Republicans have sought to eliminate the Education Department since it opened in 1980 under Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan, who won the presidential election that year, announced his plan to shutter it during his first State of the Union address.

“In campaigning for the presidency, Mr. Reagan called for the total elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, severe curtailment of bilingual education, and massive cutbacks in the federal role in education,” education historian Gary K. Clabaugh writes in “The Educational Legacy of Ronald Reagan,” published in the academic journal Educational Horizons in 2004.

Bob Dole, the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, also advocated for closure, as did Trump and several other Republicans competing for the U.S. presidency in 2024. Former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy have all said they would eliminate the Education Department.

Shortly after Trump’s reelection in November, U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, introduced the “Returning Education to Our States Act.” The bill seeks to abolish the Department of Education and transfer its programs and responsibilities to other federal agencies. For example, the Department of the Treasury would take over federal financial aid programs and the Department of Health and Human Services would administer the special education program.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced bills in 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2023 to either terminate or reduce the size of the Education Department.

4. Explain what it would take to close the U.S. Department of Education. 

Closing the Education Department would require federal legislation and, likely, a supermajority vote in the U.S. Senate. Although senators can pass bills with a simple majority vote, it takes a supermajority vote to halt discussion on a bill so a vote can take place.

That means that unless the Senate eliminates its filibuster rule, which often has been used to block controversial legislation, three-fifths of senators would have to vote in favor of closing the debate on such a bill to allow a vote. Political observers have said they doubt 60 of the 100 senators would vote in favor of that. Only 53 are Republicans.

Less than two years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives considered a legislative amendment that endorsed moving K-12 education programs out of the Department of Education. It failed, with 60 Republicans and 205 Democrats voting against it.

The Education Department generally enjoys bipartisan support, Pedro Noguera, dean of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, explained recently on a podcast he co-hosts and in an essay he co-wrote for The Hill.

“There are a lot of red states, red communities across the country that benefit from the policies and the programs,” Noguera said on the “Sparking Equity” podcast.

Education scholar Frederick Hess supports closing the department but says it will not happen. Not only do Republicans lack the votes to make the change, they have shown little interest in cutting programs that serve lower-income kids and kids with disabilities, says Hess, an executive editor of the Education Next journal, which, like The Journalist's Resource, is housed at Harvard Kennedy School.

Hess is also director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the author of several books on education policy, including "Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K–12, and College" and "The Great School Rethink."

"What really matters for people who want to shrink the federal role or change it is: What are we changing about spending and rules and regulations?" he says, adding that journalists need to examine how the current rules for spending federal education dollars harm K-12 students. For one, he notes, they create a lot of paperwork for teachers at a time when public schools are struggling to hire and retain teachers, particularly special education teachers.

Says Hess: "There's a real opportunity here to look at the role of federal aid and the use of federal funds -- how are they used and are they actually creating budgetary problems rather than solving them?"

5. Provide your audiences with a realistic sense of how K-12 and higher education could be affected by an Education Department closure.

Educators, school administrators, policymakers and academic researchers have all speculated on how an Education Department closure could impact federal education funding and programs. Ten journalists from the Hechinger Report, a nonprofit news outlet that focuses on education issues, teamed up recently to examine that question. The resulting article is a must-read for journalists covering this topic.

Among its main takeaways: Abolishing the agency would not undo federal laws that established federal funding for K-12 programs that serve some of the nation’s most marginalized students, including students with disabilities and those from lower-income families. “But doling out that money and overseeing it could get messy,” the outlet reports.

Marguerite Roza, a research professor who studies education finances at Georgetown University, has said funding for K-12 schools probably would not change much.

“We've been telling school districts, ‘Don't expect massive changes in your federal dollars,’” Roza, who directs Georgetown’s Edunomics Lab, said in a Dec. 12 interview on a podcast produced by the right-leaning Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies.

Meanwhile, higher education scholars like Marybeth Gasman, the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Endowed Chair in Education at Rutgers University, are concerned about college funding. She’s especially worried about funding aimed at helping marginalized youth get to and through college. Trump and some other conservative lawmakers have expressed disdain for so-called “diversity programs.”

A drop in funding could be devastating for minority serving institutions, which serve close to half of all U.S. college students who are racial or ethnic minorities, says Gasman, who is also executive director of both the Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions and the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Institute for Leadership, Equity & Justice

For example, 25% of Historically Black Colleges and Universities’ revenue came from the federal Education Department in fiscal year 2022, according to a report released last month by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. At the same time, most students enrolled at HBCUs qualify for Pell grants, a type of financial aid the Education Department offers lower-income students that they do not pay back.

Most minority serving institutions, commonly referred to as MSIs, are designated as Hispanic serving institutions because a large percentage of their students are Hispanic. They get 18% of their revenue directly from the Education Department grants. Many of their students also qualify for Pell grants.

“There needs to be more exploration into the ramifications of Trump’s presidency on MSIs,” Gasman says. “If they change loan forgiveness [policies], if they change Pell [grants], if they change aid to MSIs, it will have profound impacts.”

6. Evaluate how well the U.S. Department of Education runs its programs.

When President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, which created the Education Department, he said he wanted to ensure Americans got a better return on their investment in education. He said the new department would, among other things, save tax dollars and make federal education programs more accountable and responsive.

Has the department accomplished those goals? That’s a question journalists should try to answer for their audiences. Here are resources to get you started:

  • Investigative reports from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, often referred to as Congress’ watchdog. The office examines the use of public funds and makes recommendations for improvement.
  • Performance Results Reports and Congressional Reports compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General. The purpose of that office is to “promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations through independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and other activities.”
  • The National Center for Education Statistics provides an assortment of data on various K-12 student groups, including students who participate in Title I, special education and English language acquisition programs. It also provides data on students who participate in federal higher education programs, including the graduation rates of lower-income college students who receive Pell grants, one type of federal financial aid.
  • The Congressional Research Service, which assists Congress in researching issues and creating laws and policies, regularly releases reports focusing on Education Department programs.
  • Researchers have studied the effectiveness of the Title I program specifically, although no academic articles have been published in recent years. An analysis from George Mason University’s School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, updated in 2015, looks at the results of national assessments of the Title I program conducted from 1966 to 2013. It finds “little evidence that Title I has contributed significantly to closing achievement gaps nationwide.” A 2015 analysis by the Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank, asserts that the Title I program “doesn’t work,” in part because Title 1 “is spread so thin that its budget of $14 billion a year turns out not to be much money.”
  • Some school districts have hired the American Institutes for Research to review their special education programs. A handful of recent reviews are posted on the organization’s website, and others could be obtained directly from school districts through public records requests.
  • Several academic journal articles examine the burden of paperwork associated with federal K-12 education programs. In a paper published in 2023, for example, researchers write that “excessive paperwork” is a main reason special education teachers leave the field.
  • A June 2024 analysis from EdSource, a nonprofit news outlet in California, finds that students who are learning to speak English do worse on California’s state exam the longer they are enrolled in the federal English language acquisition program.
  • Many news outlets have reported on the Education Department’s botched rollout of the new FAFSA -- the Free Application for Federal Student Aid -- that students must submit to determine their eligibility for college grants and loans.

7. Find out whether state Education Departments are prepared to take on additional duties if the U.S. Department of Education closes.

Trump and many other influential Republicans want states to oversee their own education programs. But it is unclear which responsibilities would be transferred from the federal Education Department and how changes would be rolled out. What also is unclear is whether individual states are ready and able to take on these new duties.

It’s well known that state and local governments struggled with staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in law enforcement, public health and education. Hiring has picked up recently, but some human resource managers have reported an uptick in resignations and retirements, according to a 2024 analysis conducted on behalf of the National Association of State Personnel Executives and the Public Sector HR Association. Some of the hiring officials surveyed for that report also said they expect a major wave of retirements during the next few years.

Veteran education journalist Daarel Burnette recommends journalists visit state Education Departments and look into how well they are handling their current workloads.

“You can just walk into those buildings and see rows and rows of empty desks -- they look like newsrooms,” says Burnette, a senior editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education and a former assistant managing editor and reporter for Education Week.

He notes that state education officials have been widely criticized for their response to the pandemic and the decline of K-12 students’ test scores in the wake of it. Individual legislators and the American Civil Liberties Union have requested investigations into the alleged misuse of schools’ COVID-19 relief funds.

The federal Education Department’s Office of the Inspector General has released several reports investigating individual state’s use of those funds. In December 2024, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives released a 557-page report examining the nation’s response to the pandemic, indicating that “[t]he unprecedented scale and lack of transparency in COVID-19 pandemic relief programs exposed vulnerabilities for waste, fraud, and abuse.”

8. Ask education experts about angles and issues you have not yet considered.

Even if the Education Department is not dismantled, close federal scrutiny could easily open the door for other conversations about funding cuts and changes to the agency’s programs and procedures. Journalists should ask education researchers and other experts for help identifying issues the public needs to know about.

Laura Enriquez, director of the University of California Collaborative to Promote Immigrant and Student Equity, urges journalists to look beyond their regular sources and ask about students the news media tend to overlook. For example, while journalists frequently report on how public policies affect unauthorized immigrants, their coverage does not often include children born in the U.S. to parents who are unauthorized immigrants, she says.

These individuals can face challenges accessing programs and services that government agencies provide to U.S. citizens. Last year, these students had trouble submitting their FAFSA forms to obtain financial aid for college if their parents did not have social security numbers, says Enriquez, who is also an associate professor of Chicano/Latino studies and director of the Center for Liberation, Anti-racism, and Belonging at the University of California, Irvine. 

“There are so many ways to tinker with aid award formulas and make the process more complicated than it already is for first-generation college students, racial minorities and citizens with undocumented parents,” she says.

She urges journalists to routinely ask themselves who is missing from their coverage. She adds: “The question you need to ask of yourself as a reporter is ‘Who else could be impacted through social ties?’ That’s a guiding question I wish more reporters asked of themselves.”

This article first appeared on The Journalist's Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.