Higher Education Inquirer : Search results for VA

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

Monday, August 25, 2025

HEI Resources Fall 2025

[Editor's Note: Please let us know of any additions or corrections.]

Books

Alexander, Bryan (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.
Alexander, Bryan (2023). Universities on Fire. Johns Hopkins Press.
Angulo, A. (2016). Diploma Mills: How For-profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Apthekar, Bettina (1966) Big Business and the American University. New Outlook Publishers.
Apthekar, Bettina (1969). Higher education and the student rebellion in the United States, 1960-1969 : a bibliography.
Archibald, R. and Feldman, D. (2017). The Road Ahead for America's Colleges & Universities. Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, E. and Hamilton, L. (2015). Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Harvard University Press.
Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. University of Chicago Press.
Baldwin, Davarian (2021). In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities. Bold Type Books.
Bennett, W. and Wilezol, D. (2013). Is College Worth It?: A Former United States Secretary of Education and a Liberal Arts Graduate Expose the Broken Promise of Higher Education. Thomas Nelson.
Berg, I. (1970). "The Great Training Robbery: Education and Jobs." Praeger.
Berman, Elizabeth P. (2012). Creating the Market University. Princeton University Press.
Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education. Monthly Review Press.
Best, J. and Best, E. (2014) The Student Loan Mess: How Good Intentions Created a Trillion-Dollar Problem. Atkinson Family Foundation.

Bledstein, Burton J. (1976). The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. Norton.

Bogue, E. Grady and Aper, Jeffrey. (2000). Exploring the Heritage of American Higher Education: The Evolution of Philosophy and Policy.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace : The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton University Press.
Bousquet, M. (2008). How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low Wage Nation. NYU Press.
Brennan, J & Magness, P. (2019). Cracks in the Ivory Tower. Oxford University Press.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. The Diverted Dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press. (1989).
Cabrera, Nolan L. (2024) Whiteness in the Ivory Tower: Why Don't We Notice the White Students Sitting Together in the Quad? Teachers College Press.
Cabrera, Nolan L. (2018). White Guys on Campus: Racism, White Immunity, and the Myth of "Post-Racial" Higher Education. Rutgers University Press.
Caplan, B. (2018). The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. Princeton University Press.
Cappelli, P. (2015). Will College Pay Off?: A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You'll Ever Make. Public Affairs.
Cassuto, Leonard (2015). The Graduate School Mess. Harvard University Press.
Caterine, Christopher (2020). Leaving Academia. Princeton Press.
Carney, Cary Michael (1999). Native American Higher Education in the United States. Transaction.
Childress, H. (2019). The Adjunct Underclass: How America's Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students, and Their Mission University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, Arthur M. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, Randall. (1979/2019) The Credential Society. Academic Press. Columbia University Press.
Cottom, T. (2016). Lower Ed: How For-profit Colleges Deepen Inequality in America
Domhoff, G. William (2021). Who Rules America? 8th Edition. Routledge.
Donoghue, F. (2008). The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities.
Dorn, Charles. (2017) For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America Cornell University Press.
Eaton, Charlie. (2022) Bankers in the Ivory Tower: The Troubling Rise of Financiers in US Higher Education. University of Chicago Press.
Eisenmann, Linda. (2006) Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945–1965. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
Espenshade, T., Walton Radford, A.(2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.
Faragher, John Mack and Howe, Florence, ed. (1988). Women and Higher Education in American History. Norton.
Farber, Jerry (1972). The University of Tomorrowland. Pocket Books.
Freeman, Richard B. (1976). The Overeducated American. Academic Press.
Gaston, P. (2014). Higher Education Accreditation. Stylus.
Ginsberg, B. (2013). The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All Administrative University and Why It Matters
Giroux, Henry (1983). Theory and Resistance in Education. Bergin and Garvey Press

Giroux, Henry (2022). Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance. Bloomsbury Academic

Gleason, Philip (1995). Contending with Modernity: Catholic Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. Oxford U.
Golden, D. (2006). The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys its Way into Elite Colleges — and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream.
Graeber, David (2018) Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Simon and Schuster.

Groeger, Cristina Viviana (2021). The Education Trap: Schools and the Remaking of Inequality in Boston. Harvard Press.

Hamilton, Laura T. and Kelly Nielson (2021) Broke: The Racial Consequences of Underfunding Public Universities
Johnson, B. et al. (2003). Steal This University: The Rise of the Corporate University and the Academic Labor Movement
Keats, John (1965) The Sheepskin Psychosis. Lippincott.
Kelchen, Robert. (2018). Higher Education Accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kezar, A., DePaola, T, and Scott, D. The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University. Johns Hopkins Press.
Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street: The Transformation of For-profit Higher Education
Kozol, Jonathan (2006). The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Crown.
Kozol, Jonathan (1992). Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. Harper Perennial.
Labaree, David F. (2017). A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Labaree, David (1997) How to Succeed in School without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education, Yale University Press.
Lafer, Gordon (2004). The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press.
Loehen, James (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me. The New Press.
Lohse, Andrew (2014). Confessions of an Ivy League Frat Boy: A Memoir. Thomas Dunne Books.
Lucas, C.J. American higher education: A history. (1994).
Lukianoff, Greg and Jonathan Haidt (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.
Maire, Quentin (2021). Credential Market. Springer.
Mandery, Evan (2022) . Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us. New Press.
Marti, Eduardo (2016). America's Broken Promise: Bridging the Community College Achievement Gap. Excelsior College Press.
Mettler, Suzanne 'Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream. Basic Books. (2014)

From Upton Sinclair's 'Goose Step' to the Neoliberal University:

Newfeld, C. (2011). Unmaking the Public University.
Newfeld, C. (2016). The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them.
Paulsen, M. and J.C. Smart (2001). The Finance of Higher Education: Theory, Research, Policy & Practice. Agathon Press.
Rosen, A.S. (2011). Change.edu. Kaplan Publishing.
Reynolds, G. (2012). The Higher Education Bubble. Encounter Books.
Roth, G. (2019) The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press
Ruben, Julie. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University Of Chicago Press. (1996).
Rudolph, F. (1991) The American College and University: A History.
Rushdoony, R. (1972). The Messianic Character of American Education. The Craig Press.
Selingo, J. (2013). College Unbound: The Future of Higher Education and What It Means for Students.
Shelton, Jon (2023). The Education Myth: How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy. Cornell University Press.
Simpson, Christopher (1999). Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. New Press.
Sinclair, U. (1923). The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education.
Stein, Sharon (2022). Unsettling the University: Confronting the Colonial Foundations of US Higher Education, Johns Hopkins Press.
Stevens, Mitchell L. (2009). Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Harvard University Press.
Stodghill, R. (2015). Where Everybody Looks Like Me: At the Crossroads of America's Black Colleges and Culture.
Tamanaha, B. (2012). Failing Law Schools. The University of Chicago Press.
Tatum, Beverly (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria. Basic Books
Taylor, Barret J. and Brendan Cantwell (2019). Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status and Student Opportunity. Rutgers University Press.
Thelin, John R. (2019) A History of American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
Tolley, K. (2018). Professors in the Gig Economy: Unionizing Adjunct Faculty in America. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Twitchell, James B. (2005). Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld. Simon and Schuster.
Vedder, R. (2004). Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much.
Veysey Lawrence R. (1965).The emergence of the American university.
Washburn, J. (2006). University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education
Washington, Harriet A. (2008). Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. Anchor.
Whitman, David (2021). The Profits of Failure: For-Profit Colleges and the Closing of the Conservative Mind. Cypress House.
Wilder, C.D. (2013). Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities.
Winks, Robin (1996). Cloak and Gown:Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961. Yale University Press.
Woodson, Carter D. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro.
Zaloom, Caitlin (2019). Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost. Princeton University Press.
Zemsky, Robert, Susan Shaman, and Susan Campbell Baldridge (2020). The College Stress Test:Tracking Institutional Futures across a Crowded Market. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Activists, Coalitions, Innovators, and Alternative Voices

College Choice and Career Planning Tools

Innovation and Reform

Higher Education Policy

Data Sources

Trade publications

Saturday, August 2, 2025

Time to Shut Off the Tap: The Case for Ending DoD Tuition Assistance to Predatory Colleges

On July 3, 2025, the Higher Education Inquirer received the latest response from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) regarding FOIA request 22-F-1203—our most recent effort in a nearly eight-year campaign to uncover how subprime and for-profit colleges have preyed on military servicemembers, veterans, and their families.

The response included confirmation that 1,420 pages of documents were located. But of those, 306 pages were withheld in full, and 1,114 were released only with heavy redactions. A few for-profit colleges—Trident University International, Grand Canyon University, DeVry University, and American Public University System (which includes American Military University and American Public University)—were specifically mentioned in the partially visible content.

And yet the larger truth remains hidden. The names of other institutions known to have exploited military-connected students—University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, American InterContinental University, Purdue University Global, and Liberty University Online, among others—were nowhere to be found in the documents we received. Their absence is conspicuous.

We have been pursuing the truth since December 2017, demanding records that would reveal how the DoD enabled these schools to thrive. We sought the list of the 50 worst-performing colleges receiving Tuition Assistance (TA) funds, based on data compiled under Executive Order 13607 during the Obama Administration. That list was never released. When the Trump Administration took power in 2017, they quietly abandoned the protective measures meant to hold these colleges accountable. Our FOIA request DOD OIG-2019-000702 was denied, with the Pentagon claiming that no such list existed. A second request in 2021 (21-F-0411) was also rejected. And now, more than three years after we filed our 2022 request, the DoD continues to deny the public full access to the truth.

The records we did receive are riddled with legal exemptions: internal deliberations, privacy claims, and most notably, references to 10 U.S.C. § 4021, a law that allows the DoD to withhold details of research transactions outside of traditional grants and contracts. In other words, the Pentagon has built legal firewalls around its relationships with for-profit education providers—and continues to shield bad actors from scrutiny.

But the complicity doesn’t end there. It extends deep into the institutional fabric of how the military interfaces with higher education.

Decades of Systemic Corruption

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Defense has worked hand-in-glove with for-profit colleges through a nonprofit called the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). What began in the 1970s as a noble initiative to expand access to education for military personnel was hijacked by predatory colleges—including the University of Phoenix—that used the organization as a lobbying front.

These schools infiltrated CCME events, using them to curry favor with military officials, often by hiring veterans as on-base sales agents and even providing alcohol to loosen up potential gatekeepers. While CCME publicly maintained the appearance of academic integrity and service, behind the scenes it served as a conduit for lobbying, influence, and enrollment schemes. Military education officers were schmoozed, manipulated, and in some cases, quietly co-opted. This is something you won’t find in CCME’s official history.

We have been told by multiple insiders that the partnership between DoD and these schools was not just tolerated but actively nurtured. Attempts at reform came and went. Investigations were buried. Promises to "do better" evaporated. No one was held accountable. No one went to jail. But the damage has been lasting—measured in ruined credit, wasted benefits, and lives derailed by fraudulent degrees and broken promises.

The Trump-Hegseth Department of Defense

And still, new scandals—except those uncovered by us—go largely unreported. The media has moved on. Congressional attention has shifted. And the same schools, or their rebranded successors, continue to operate freely, often under the protective shadow of military partnerships.

Today, the DoD continues to deny that the DODOIG-2019-000702 list of the 50 worst schools even exists. But we know otherwise. Based on VA data, whistleblower accounts, and independent reporting, we are confident that this list was compiled—and buried. The question is why. And the answer may very well lie in the unredacted names of institutions too politically connected or too legally protected to be exposed.

The Evidence Is Overwhelming

The most damning proof of institutional complicity remains publicly available. In GAO Report GAO-14-855, published in 2014, the Government Accountability Office detailed the deep flaws in DoD’s oversight of its Tuition Assistance program. The report highlighted inconsistent evaluations, unqualified contractor reviewers, vague standards, and incomplete data collection. The DoD had spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on schools without ensuring quality or protecting students. In response, DoD temporarily halted its school evaluations—then quietly resumed business as usual.

PwC audits from 2015 and 2018 confirmed widespread noncompliance with DoD’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Schools violated marketing guidelines, offered misleading transfer information, and failed to provide basic academic counseling. Few were sanctioned, and even fewer were removed from eligibility lists.

Gatehouse Strategies, in its 2022 report, reinforced these conclusions. It warned of “a lack of consistent enforcement mechanisms,” and found that even institutions under investigation continued to receive DoD TA funding. The system appeared designed not to punish misconduct, but to tolerate and obscure it.

The Cost of Inaction

Meanwhile, service members seeking education are left exposed. Many receive low-value credentials, accumulate debt, and waste their limited benefits at schools that offer little academic rigor and even less career mobility. When those credits don’t transfer—or worse, when degrees are rejected by employers—the burden falls squarely on the individual.

Institutions like American Public University System, University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, DeVry, and Purdue Global have collected tens of millions in DoD TA funding. Some are under state or federal investigation. Others have quietly changed ownership or rebranded. But the underlying model—targeting military students with high-volume, low-quality online programs—remains largely intact.

We Don’t Need Another Report

The time for reflection is over. The data from GAO, PwC, Gatehouse, and from our own FOIA investigations are clear. What remains is the political will to act.

The Department of Defense should immediately:

– Revoke TA eligibility for schools with documented abuse, federal scrutiny, or repeat MOU violations.
– Release the suppressed list of the worst-performing colleges, as identified under Executive Order 13607.
– Mandate transparent outcome reporting—including transferability, job placement, and default rates—for every school in the TA program.
– Sever ties with lobbyist conduits like CCME that have enabled predatory behavior for decades.

This is not just a matter of bureaucratic reform—it is about justice. For the servicemembers who were deceived. For the families who sacrificed. For the taxpayers who unknowingly foot the bill for failure.

The Higher Education Inquirer will not stop pushing for those names, those documents, and that accountability. Behind every redaction is a veteran who trusted the system—and got scammed. Behind every delay is another student targeted by the same exploitative machinery. Behind every refusal to act is a government more loyal to profit than to people.

Related Reading
GAO-14-855: DoD Education Benefits Oversight Lacking
Military Times (2018): DoD review finds 0% of schools following TA rules
Military Times (2019): Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why.

Monday, July 28, 2025

A Broken Promise: Why the GI Bill Demands Major Reform

The GI Bill was meant to be a pathway to economic opportunity for those who served. But behind the patriotic language and glossy marketing lies a deeply flawed system—one that routinely fails to deliver on its promise. The Higher Education Inquirer’s own investigations, including Blue Falcons: Politicians, Government Agencies, and Nonprofits Serve Themselves, Not Those Who Have Served, have exposed how a powerful network of politicians, government agencies, and nonprofit actors have prioritized institutional profit over veterans' well-being. These actors cloak themselves in red, white, and blue, while steering billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of subprime and for-profit colleges that consistently produce poor educational and economic outcomes.

In Veterans Left Behind: How Oversight Failures Harm Veterans in Higher Education, Michael Hainline recounts his personal experience of being misled by a federally approved training program in commercial trucking. The program used outdated, dangerous equipment. He was injured, left without the credentials he was promised, and unable to work in the field. Despite numerous formal complaints, the State Approving Agency and Department of Veterans Affairs failed to act. His story is not unique. Thousands of veterans have lost valuable time, their health, and their benefits to programs that were supposed to help them reintegrate into civilian life.

These anecdotes are supported by hard data. A 2021 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, covered by Forbes, found that veterans who used the Post‑9/11 GI Bill earned $900 less per year, nine years after service, than peers who did not use the benefit. While the GI Bill slightly increased college enrollment and bachelor’s degree attainment, the economic return was negative for most users. The worst outcomes were concentrated among those who attended for-profit colleges, as well as those who had lower Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores or served in lower-skilled military roles. Instead of launching veterans into thriving careers, the GI Bill has too often led them into low-value programs that waste time, drain benefits, and reduce long-term earnings.

The scale of the issue is enormous. GI Bill expenditures now exceed $13 billion annually—more than all state-funded scholarships and Pell Grants combined. Yet for each marginal bachelor’s degree produced, the GI Bill program spends between $486,000 and $590,000. For-profit colleges, despite their poor outcomes and frequent legal troubles, continue to absorb a disproportionate share of these funds. Their business model depends heavily on recruiting veterans, aided by a legal loophole that allows GI Bill funds to be excluded from the federal 90–10 funding cap. That exemption incentivizes aggressive marketing campaigns targeting veterans and military families, while institutions offer minimal support and poor instruction in return.

Veterans deserve better, and the American public deserves transparency and accountability for how billions of dollars are spent. Reform begins with policy rooted in results. That means requiring schools to meet minimum thresholds for graduation rates, job placement, and post-graduation earnings before receiving GI Bill funds. The 90–10 loophole must be closed, and federal agencies must reinstate the gainful employment rules that were gutted under previous administrations. Oversight bodies like the VA’s Office of Inspector General and State Approving Agencies need resources and independence to investigate, enforce, and shut down bad actors. Just as importantly, veterans need access to transparent, comprehensible data on outcomes before they enroll—data about job placement rates, average earnings, completion rates, and institutional accreditation.

The obsession with four-year degrees also needs to be reexamined. Many veterans would be better served by career-aligned certificates, apprenticeships, and credentialing programs that build directly on their military experience. These programs often provide faster, cheaper, and more secure pathways into the labor market, especially in fields like skilled trades, technology, and logistics.

Problem	Proposed Reform
Predatory institutions and marketing practices drain GI Bill funds and deliver poor outcomes	Enforce outcomes-based funding, limiting GI support to programs with strong results
Legal loopholes allow evasion of accountability	Close the 90–10 exemption and restore gainful employment rules
Oversight is fragmented and ineffective	Fund and empower federal and state oversight agencies to act decisively
Veterans lack guidance in a confusing marketplace	Mandate counseling and public reporting of school-level outcome data
Degree inflation and misalignment with the job market	Expand alternative credentialing pathways tied to real workforce demand

The GI Bill is more than a financial benefit—it is a symbol of the nation’s promise to those who have served. When that promise is broken, it not only damages individual veterans, but undermines trust in the institutions meant to serve the public good. Reforming the GI Bill is not just a budgetary concern—it is a moral imperative.

The Higher Education Inquirer calls for immediate, systemic reform. Veterans have earned more than shallow rhetoric and exploitation. They deserve an education system that works. That system must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in reality—not nostalgia or false promises. It must reward service with genuine opportunity, not debt and disappointment. Until then, we will continue to investigate and expose the truth—and stand with veterans who are being left behind.

Saturday, July 12, 2025

From Public Good to Target of Sabotage: The Long Decline of the U.S. Postal Service

The United States Postal Service (USPS), long a pillar of American public life and a gateway to middle-class stability, is under siege. While Donald Trump’s administration played a pivotal role in accelerating its recent dysfunction, the erosion of the USPS began decades earlier—through bipartisan policy decisions, creeping privatization, technological change, and ideological hostility toward public institutions. The destruction of the USPS is not a moment, but a process. And its consequences are being felt by workers, communities, and the democratic fabric of the country.

A People’s Institution

The USPS has deep roots in American democracy and labor history. Established in 1775 with Benjamin Franklin as its first postmaster general, the service has operated under a mandate of universal delivery, regardless of geography or profitability. It became a vehicle for social and economic mobility—especially for Black Americans, veterans, immigrants, and rural citizens.

For much of the 20th century, the Postal Service was a stable, unionized employer offering family-sustaining wages. Even as industrial jobs declined, USPS employment remained a critical bridge into the middle class, particularly for African Americans. By the early 1980s, the USPS employed nearly 800,000 people—offering pensions, job security, and federal health benefits.

The Turn Toward Privatization and Market Competition

The seeds of decline were planted in the late 20th century with the rise of neoliberal economics and a bipartisan push for government efficiency, austerity, and deregulation.

In 1970, the old Post Office Department was restructured into a semi-independent entity— the U.S. Postal Service—after a massive wildcat postal strike. While the Postal Reorganization Act modernized the institution, it also removed many public-service obligations from congressional oversight, laying the groundwork for future financial manipulation.

Beginning in the 1980s and accelerating in the 1990s, the growth of private carriers like FedEx and UPS—both supported by favorable legislation and lobbying power—ate into USPS’s most profitable markets: overnight and package delivery. Rather than being forced to compete on a level playing field, USPS was legally barred from underpricing private competitors or expanding into new revenue-generating areas like banking or logistics.

Then came the internet. Email, online bill pay, and digital communications began replacing First-Class mail, which historically covered much of the USPS's operating costs. USPS mail volume peaked in 2006 at 213 billion pieces and has declined nearly 40 percent since. In 2024, total mail volume stood at just over 127 billion pieces.

The 2006 PAEA: A Manufactured Crisis

Perhaps the most destructive blow came in 2006 with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. The law required USPS to pre-fund 75 years’ worth of retiree health benefits within a 10-year window—a $5.5 billion annual burden not imposed on any other federal agency or private company.

This manufactured debt crisis gave political cover to critics who claimed the Postal Service was financially unsustainable. It also starved the institution of capital needed for modernization, infrastructure, and workforce development. For over a decade, this artificial shortfall served as justification for hiring freezes, facility closures, and service cuts.

Enter Trump: Sabotage with a Smile

By the time Donald Trump took office in 2017, USPS had already been weakened. But Trump weaponized its vulnerabilities for political gain. In 2020, amid a global pandemic and a presidential election that relied heavily on mail-in voting, Trump launched a public attack on the USPS, falsely claiming mail-in ballots were a source of massive voter fraud.

He appointed Louis DeJoy—a logistics executive and Republican megadonor—as Postmaster General. DeJoy’s appointment was rubber-stamped by a Trump-controlled USPS Board of Governors. Under DeJoy, the USPS eliminated overtime, removed sorting machines, slashed delivery routes, and cut post office hours. Predictably, mail delivery slowed, especially in swing states and communities dependent on timely postal service.

The slowdowns weren’t just political—they were material. Seniors reported late medications. Veterans didn’t receive their VA checks. Ballots were delayed. And postal workers were pushed to the brink. In Detroit and Philadelphia, on-time First-Class mail delivery dropped to below 65 percent in the summer of 2020.

Workforce Impact and Labor Erosion

The USPS has lost tens of thousands of jobs since DeJoy’s tenure began. Over 30,000 positions were eliminated between 2021 and 2024. In early 2025, the agency announced plans to cut 10,000 more jobs, many through early retirement. For a workforce that had already endured years of hiring freezes, consolidation, and low morale, these were devastating blows.

Postal unions, including the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), have denounced the cuts as part of a long-term strategy to hollow out the institution and pave the way for privatization.

Service Cuts and a Two-Tier America

As the USPS has weakened, its ability to provide universal service has eroded. In urban centers, lines at post offices have grown longer. In rural America, post offices have been closed or had their hours slashed. Mail delivery has become slower, less reliable, and less equitable. For millions of Americans, especially those in marginalized communities, the erosion of USPS services represents a withdrawal of the federal government from public life.

At the same time, private carriers have expanded their market share—but only where profits justify service. This has created a two-tier system: fast, expensive delivery for the wealthy and corporations; slow, underfunded service for the rest.

The Broader War on Public Infrastructure

What has happened to the U.S. Postal Service is not an isolated story. It is part of a broader neoliberal assault on public institutions and the working class. From public education to public housing, from transit systems to social security offices, the U.S. has seen a systematic hollowing out of civic infrastructure under the banner of "efficiency" and "market competition."

Trump’s actions—both deliberate and reckless—pushed the Postal Service further down a path of institutional decay. But the responsibility lies with decades of policymakers who devalued public service, dismantled regulatory protections, and enabled privatization without accountability.

A Line in the Sand

The USPS remains one of the few institutions that touches nearly every American. It has survived war, depression, technological revolution, and political sabotage. But its future is not guaranteed.

Saving the Postal Service will require not just reversing Trump-era policies, but confronting decades of bipartisan neglect. It will mean repealing harmful laws like the PAEA, investing in modernization, expanding services (like postal banking), and defending postal jobs and unions.

In a time of deep inequality and civic fragmentation, preserving the USPS is about more than mail. It’s about restoring the public good—and remembering that some things should not be for sale.

Sources:

U.S. Postal Service 2024 Annual Report to Congress
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics
Congressional Research Service: The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act
The Guardian: “USPS mail slowdowns raise fears of election interference”
AP News: “Trump says he may take control of USPS”
Business Insider: “Privatization of USPS could harm rural areas”
Teen Vogue: “The U.S. Postal Service and the Working Class”
American Postal Workers Union (apwu.org)

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

A Critical Look at Charlie Kirk’s Hypothesis on Male Happiness

Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has repeatedly asserted that men are most fulfilled when they marry and have children. This idea, rooted in a traditionalist worldview, has gained traction among some segments of the population, particularly those seeking a return to what they perceive as the moral and social stability of the past. But does the scientific evidence support this claim? A closer look at research from sociology, psychology, and economics suggests a more complex and less ideologically convenient reality.

Marriage and Happiness: The Nuanced Evidence

It is true that some studies show a correlation between marriage and higher reported levels of happiness and well-being. For example, a 2002 study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that married individuals reported higher happiness levels than their unmarried counterparts. However, the effect size was relatively modest, and subsequent research has nuanced these findings.

A 2012 meta-analysis by Lucas and Dyrenforth in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggested that the happiness boost associated with marriage is temporary. On average, individuals experience a honeymoon period after marriage, followed by a return to baseline happiness levels within a few years. This phenomenon, known as hedonic adaptation, undermines the idea that marriage itself produces sustained happiness.

Moreover, the benefits of marriage appear to be highly contingent on the quality of the relationship. A study published in Journal of Family Psychology (Carr et al., 2014) found that people in high-conflict marriages reported significantly lower well-being than unmarried individuals. Men in unhappy marriages often experience increased psychological distress, which may lead to health problems, substance abuse, and even premature death (Whisman et al., 2006).

Children and Male Well-being: A Complicated Relationship

Kirk’s view also hinges on the assumption that fatherhood enhances male happiness. While parenthood is often meaningful and rewarding, the scientific literature offers mixed findings regarding its impact on overall well-being.

A major study by Nelson et al. (2014) in Psychological Bulletin found that the association between parenthood and well-being is neither universally positive nor negative. The effects depend heavily on contextual factors like marital status, socioeconomic resources, and the age of the children. Fathers in stable, supportive relationships often report satisfaction from parenting, but those facing financial stress, lack of social support, or conflict with a co-parent frequently experience declines in mental health.

Another longitudinal study by Herbst and Ifcher (2016) found that fathers experience both gains and losses in subjective well-being. While they may report a greater sense of purpose and life meaning, they also experience declines in leisure time, sleep quality, and perceived freedom—all factors associated with lower happiness levels. Notably, single fathers and those in contentious co-parenting arrangements report lower life satisfaction than child-free men.

The Importance of Autonomy and Purpose

Perhaps most revealing are studies showing that autonomy and life purpose are stronger predictors of long-term happiness than marital or parental status alone. Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, which has been widely validated across cultures, suggests that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are the key psychological needs for well-being. Marriage and children can contribute to these needs, but they can also undermine them, especially if the roles are imposed or filled with conflict.

Research from the Pew Research Center and Gallup also shows that life satisfaction is more closely tied to financial security, meaningful work, physical health, and strong social networks than to marital or parental status alone. Men who are engaged in purposeful careers, maintain close friendships, and have control over their time report higher levels of happiness—even if they are single or child-free.

The Rise of Alternative Lifestyles

Recent demographic trends reflect changing attitudes about what constitutes a fulfilling life. Census data show that marriage rates among men have declined steadily over the past 50 years. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of men are choosing to remain child-free or delay fatherhood. A 2021 Pew Research Center report found that 44% of men under 50 without children expected to remain child-free, a marked increase from previous decades.

While some conservatives view these changes as signs of cultural decline, others interpret them as evidence that men are exercising greater personal agency in crafting their lives outside traditional expectations. Men who reject marriage and fatherhood are not necessarily unhappy or aimless. For many, this path allows greater freedom to travel, pursue creative or intellectual goals, contribute to their communities, or engage in activism and caregiving in non-familial forms.

What About Mental Health?

Importantly, mental health outcomes among men do not uniformly improve with marriage and children. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, men in high-conflict or financially strained marriages report elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Fatherhood under conditions of instability or poverty can exacerbate stress levels. Conversely, single men who cultivate strong support systems and engage in regular exercise, therapy, or meaningful social activities often show comparable or better mental health outcomes than married peers.

Beyond Simplistic Narratives

Charlie Kirk’s assertion that men are “happiest” when married with children oversimplifies a set of deeply personal and variable life experiences. While marriage and fatherhood can be sources of joy, meaning, and fulfillment, they are not universal prescriptions for happiness. The scientific consensus indicates that well-being is shaped by a complex interplay of autonomy, relationship quality, health, socioeconomic status, and personal values.

Higher education—particularly in the social sciences—has a role to play in challenging ideological assumptions with empirical research. In a pluralistic society, young men deserve the freedom to critically examine diverse paths to meaning and well-being, without being pressured into a one-size-fits-all model of masculinity. If anything, the data reveal that the happiest men are not necessarily husbands and fathers, but those who are allowed to define their own lives on their own terms.

Sources:

Lucas, R. E., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2012). Does the honeymoon last? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Carr, D., Freedman, V. A., Cornman, J. C., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Happy marriage, happy life? Journal of Family Psychology.
Nelson, S. K., Kushlev, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). Is parenthood associated with well-being? Psychological Bulletin.
Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., & Weinstock, L. M. (2006). Marital distress and mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry.
Pew Research Center. (2021). More Americans say they are unlikely to have children.
Herbst, C. M., & Ifcher, J. (2016). The increasing happiness of U.S. parents. Review of Economics of the Household.
National Institute of Mental Health. (2023). Mental Health and Marriage.
Gallup (2022). Global Emotions Report.

Monday, July 7, 2025

Trump Team Weakens Bipartisan Law That Protects Students and Veterans From Predatory Colleges (David Halperin)

On the eve of the 4th of July holiday, when they probably hoped no one was paying attention, the Trump Department of Education issued an Interpretive Rule that will make it easier for for-profit colleges to evade regulations aimed at protecting students, and especially student veterans and military service members, from low-quality schools.

The Department’s 90-10 rule, created by Congress, requires for-profit colleges to obtain at least ten percent of their revenue from sources other than taxpayer-funded federal student grants and loans, or else — if they flunk two years in a row — lose eligibility for federal aid. The purpose is to remove from federal aid those schools of such poor quality that few students, employers, or scholarship programs would put their own money into them.

For decades, low quality schools have been able to avoid accountability through a giant loophole: only Department of Education funding counted on the federal side of the 90-10 ledger, while other government funding, including GI Bill money from the VA, and tuition assistance for active duty troops and their families from the Pentagon, counted as non-federal. That situation was particularly bad because it motivated low-quality predatory schools, worried about their 90-10 ratios, to aggressively target U.S. veterans and service members for recruitment.

After years of efforts by veterans organizations and other advocates to close the loophole, Congress in 2021 passed, on a bipartisan basis, and President Biden signed, legislation that appropriately put all federal education aid, including VA and Defense Department money, on the federal side of the ledger.

The Department was required by the new law to issue regulations specifying in detail how this realignment would work, and the Department under the Biden administration did so in 2022, after engaging in a legally-mandated negotiated rulemaking that brought together representatives of relevant stakeholders. In an unusual development, that rulemaking actually achieved consensus among the groups at the table, from veterans organizations to the for-profit schools themselves, on what the final revised 90-10 rule should be.

The new rule took effect in 2023, and when the Department released the latest 90-10 calculations, for the 2023-24 academic year, sixteen for-profit colleges had flunked, compared with just five the previous year. These were mostly smaller schools, led by West Virginia’s Martinsburg College, which got 98.73 percent of its revenue from federal taxpayer dollars, and Washington DC’s Career Technical Institute, which reported 98.68 percent. Another 36 schools, including major institutions such as DeVry University, Strayer University, and American Public University, came perilously close to the line, at 89 percent or higher.

The education department last week altered the calculation by effectively restoring an old loophole that allowed for-profit colleges to use revenue from programs that are ineligible for federal aid to count on the non-federal side. That loophole was expressly addressed, via a compromise agreement, after Department officials discussed the details with representatives of for-profit colleges, during the 2022 negotiated rulemaking meetings.

All the flunking or near-flunking schools can now get a new, potentially more favorable, calculation of their 90-10 ratio under the Trump administration’s re-interpretation of the rule.

In the lawless fashion of the Trump regime, the Department has now undermined a provision of its own regulation without going through the required negotiated rulemaking process. (The Department’s notice last week included a labored argument about why its action was lawful.)

As it has done multiple times over its first six months, the Trump Department of Education, under Secretary Linda McMahon, has again taken a step that allows poor-quality predatory for-profit colleges to rip off students and taxpayers.

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

Friday, July 4, 2025

Blue Falcons: Politicians, Government Agencies, and Nonprofits Serve Themselves, Not Those Who Have Served

“Blue Falcon”—military slang for a “Buddy F****r”—refers to someone who betrays their comrades to get ahead. It’s a fitting label for disgraced U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter, a Marine Corps veteran convicted of misusing campaign funds while cloaking himself in patriotic rhetoric. But Hunter isn’t alone. He’s emblematic of a broader betrayal—one that involves politicians, bureaucrats, predatory schools, and veteran-serving nonprofits. Together, they form an ecosystem where self-interest thrives, and veterans are left behind.

Despite endless platitudes about “supporting our troops,” the systems designed to serve veterans—especially in education—are failing. Two of the most generous and ambitious benefits ever created for veterans, the Post-9/11 GI Bill (PGIB) and Department of Defense Tuition Assistance (TA), are now riddled with waste, abuse, and profiteering. The real beneficiaries aren’t veterans, but an extensive network of for-profit colleges, lobbying firms, and institutions that exploit them.

The GI Bill and DOD Tuition Assistance: A Pipeline for Predators

The Post-9/11 GI Bill was supposed to be a transformative benefit—a way to reward veterans with the chance to reintegrate, retrain, and succeed in the civilian world. At more than $13 billion annually, it is the single most generous higher education grant program in the country. According to a report highlighted by Derek Newton in Forbes, the GI Bill now costs more than all state scholarships and grants combined and represents half of all Pell Grant spending.

And yet, it isn’t working.

A groundbreaking study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)—conducted by researchers from Texas A&M, the University of Michigan, Dartmouth, William & Mary, and even the U.S. Department of the Treasury—delivers a scathing indictment of the program’s effectiveness. According to the report, veterans who used PGIB benefits actually earned less nine years after separating from the military than peers who didn’t attend college at all. The researchers found:

“The PGIB reduced average annual earnings nine years after separation from the Army by $900 (on a base of $32,000). Under a variety of conservative assumptions, veterans are unlikely to recoup these reduced earnings during their working careers.”

The reason? Too many veterans are enrolling in heavily marketed, low-value schools—institutions that offer little return and often leave students without degrees or meaningful credentials. Veterans from lower-skilled military occupations and those with lower test scores were particularly likely to fall into this trap. These “less advantaged” veterans not only saw worse labor market outcomes but were more likely to spend their GI Bill benefits at for-profit schools with dismal outcomes.

Even worse, the report estimated that the cost to taxpayers for every additional marginal bachelor’s degree produced by PGIB is between $486,000 and $590,000. That’s beyond inefficient—it’s exploitative.

In the Forbes article we put it bluntly:

“This is sad to say, that the GI Bill does not work for many servicemembers, veterans and their families. What's even sadder is that if you drill into the data, to the institutional and program level, it will likely be worse. There are many programs, for-profit and non-profit, that do not work out for servicemembers, veterans, and their families.”

Tuition Assistance and the DOD’s Open Wallet

The Department of Defense’s Tuition Assistance program also faces exploitation. With few controls, it serves as an open faucet for bad actors who aggressively recruit active-duty service members through deceptive advertising, partnerships with base education offices, and endorsements from shady nonprofits. Just as with the GI Bill, predatory institutions see DOD TA not as an education resource, but as a predictable stream of federal cash.

Military leadership has done little to intervene. The same institutions flagged for fraud and poor outcomes continue to operate freely, bolstered by industry lobbyists and revolving-door influence in Washington.

Nonprofits and Politicians: Wolves in Patriotic Clothing

The betrayal doesn’t stop with colleges. Many large veteran-serving nonprofits and “military-friendly” initiatives exist more for image than impact. Instead of helping veterans, they prop up harmful systems and launder legitimacy for the very institutions exploiting the military community.

Meanwhile, Congress talks a big game but routinely fails to act. Lawmakers from both parties show up for ribbon cuttings and Veterans Day speeches, but many take campaign donations from subprime colleges and education conglomerates that prey on veterans. They refuse to close known loopholes—like the infamous 90/10 rule—that incentivize for-profit schools to chase GI Bill funds with deceptive tactics.

And all the while, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—underfunded, overburdened, and politically manipulated—struggles to provide the basic services veterans were promised.

A Sad Reality, and a Call to Action

It’s a bitter irony that programs designed to lift up veterans often lead them into deeper debt, poorer job prospects, and wasted years. The data from NBER, the findings from watchdogs like Derek Newton, and the lived experience of thousands of veterans all point to one conclusion: the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as currently administered, is failing. And so is the broader system around it.

Veterans deserve better. They deserve:

Strict oversight of predatory colleges and training programs
Transparency in outcomes for veteran-serving nonprofits
Accountability from lawmakers and government agencies
Equitable investment in public and community college options
A fundamental shift from patriotic lip service to real systemic reform

Until then, the Blue Falcons will continue to circle—posing as allies while feasting on the very benefits veterans fought to earn.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue exposing the policies, institutions, and individuals who exploit veterans under the guise of service. If you have insider information or want to share your story, contact us confidentially at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

What the Pentagon Doesn’t Want You to See: For-Profit Colleges in the Military-Industrial-Education Complex

[Editor's note: The Higher Education Inquirer has emailed these FOIA documents to ProPublica and the Republic Report. We will send these documents to any additional media and any individuals who request for the information. We are also seeking experts who can help us review and decipher the information that has been released.]

The response included confirmation that 1,420 pages of documents were located. But of those, 306 pages were withheld in full, and 1,114 were released only with heavy redactions. A few for-profit colleges—Trident University International, Grand Canyon University, DeVry University, and American Public University System (which includes American Military University and American Public University)—were specifically mentioned in the partially visible content.

And yet the larger truth remains hidden. The names of other institutions known to have exploited military-connected students—University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, American InterContinental University, Purdue University Global, and Liberty University Online, among others—were nowhere to be found in the documents we received. Their absence is conspicuous.

We have been pursuing the truth since December 2017, demanding records that would reveal how the DoD enabled these schools to thrive. We sought the list of the 50 worst-performing colleges receiving Tuition Assistance (TA) funds, based on data compiled under Executive Order 13607 during the Obama Administration. That list was never released. When the Trump Administration took power in 2017, they quietly abandoned the protective measures meant to hold these colleges accountable. Our FOIA request DOD OIG-2019-000702 was denied, with the Pentagon claiming that no such list existed. A second request in 2021 (21-F-0411) was also rejected. And now, more than three years after we filed our 2022 request, the DoD continues to deny the public full access to the truth.

But the complicity doesn’t end there. It extends deep into the institutional fabric of how the military interfaces with higher education.

Decades of Systemic Corruption

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Defense has worked hand-in-glove with for-profit colleges through a nonprofit called the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). What began in the 1970s as a noble initiative to expand access to education for military personnel was hijacked by predatory colleges—including the University of Phoenix—that used the organization as a lobbying front.

The Trump-Hegseth Department of Defense

Today, the DoD continues to deny that the DODOIG-2019-000702 list of the 50 worst schools even exists. But we know otherwise. Based on VA data, whistleblower accounts, and independent reporting, we are confident that this list was compiled—and buried. The question is why. And the answer may very well lie in the unredacted names of institutions too politically connected or too legally protected to be exposed.

The Higher Education Inquirer will not stop pushing for those names, those communications, and that accountability. Because behind every redaction is a servicemember who trusted the system—and got scammed. Behind every delay is a taxpayer footing the bill for worthless credentials. Behind every refusal to act is a government too intertwined with profit to protect its own people.

This is not just a story of bureaucratic inertia. It is a story of complicity at the highest levels. And it is ongoing.

Related links:
DoD review: 0% of schools following TA rules (Military Times, 2018)
Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why. (Military Times, 2019)

Search This Blog

Monday, August 25, 2025

Saturday, August 2, 2025

Monday, July 28, 2025

Saturday, July 12, 2025

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Marriage and Happiness: The Nuanced Evidence

Children and Male Well-being: A Complicated Relationship

The Importance of Autonomy and Purpose

The Rise of Alternative Lifestyles

What About Mental Health?

Beyond Simplistic Narratives

Monday, July 7, 2025

Friday, July 4, 2025

The GI Bill and DOD Tuition Assistance: A Pipeline for Predators

Tuition Assistance and the DOD’s Open Wallet

Nonprofits and Politicians: Wolves in Patriotic Clothing

A Sad Reality, and a Call to Action