University of Florida Rejects Santa Ono in Favor of Right-Wing Conformity

In a stunning rebuke that underscores the escalating politicization of public higher education, the Florida State University System’s Board of Governors has rejected Santa Ono, the sole finalist to become president of the University of Florida, after hours of grilling over his past support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The 10-to-6 vote came despite Ono’s public disavowal of DEI and a pivot toward conservative values that aligned with the policies of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his allies.

Ono, a seasoned academic leader with past presidencies at the University of Cincinnati, the University of British Columbia, and most recently the University of Michigan, was offered a package reportedly worth up to $3 million annually. But that wasn’t enough to satisfy Florida's right-wing political apparatus, which has increasingly treated university leadership as an arm of the culture wars.

“This is a guy who by all accounts was a true believer,” said Paul Renner, a DeSantis appointee to the board and former Republican Speaker of the Florida House. “Only after he comes to Florida does he do a complete, whiplash-style 180.” Renner and others said Ono’s reversal wasn’t convincing and lacked authenticity — a surprising take given that he had already dismantled the DEI infrastructure at Michigan under political pressure.

In Florida, however, even ideological surrender is not enough. What matters most is loyalty to a hardline version of conservatism, and Ono’s intellectual pedigree and past advocacy were red flags that could not be erased. Prominent GOP voices, including Rep. Byron Donalds (a Trump-endorsed gubernatorial candidate) and Donald Trump Jr., lobbied against his appointment, seeing it as an opportunity to further purge public universities of any perceived “wokeness.”

The University of Florida’s Board of Trustees had already selected Ono in May. But this week’s rejection by the Board of Governors — a higher body stacked with political appointees — is another clear example of how higher education in Florida has become a battleground for ideological purification rather than academic excellence or professional leadership.

A Troubled Exit and Reinvention

Ono’s rejection in Florida follows his abrupt and unexplained resignation from the University of Michigan earlier this year — a departure The Higher Education Inquirer previously reported as puzzling and suspiciously timed. As noted in our May 2025 article "Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run", his exit came amid growing pressure from anti-DEI forces, alumni dissatisfaction with his leadership, and internal upheaval within the Board of Regents.

Sources close to Michigan’s administration suggested that Ono’s “resignation” may have been forced, with pressure mounting after he slashed DEI budgets and issued a controversial column disavowing DEI as “more about ideology, division and bureaucracy, not student success.” Despite these moves, his attempts to pivot politically appear to have satisfied no one. Progressive critics accused him of betrayal; conservatives dismissed his conversion as opportunistic.

Ono’s shifting stance, from playing cello tributes to George Floyd as president of the University of British Columbia to abandoning DEI at Michigan, appears to reflect broader national political realignments. However, his experience now serves as a case study in how rapid repositioning in a hyper-partisan environment can backfire.

Academic Fallout

Faculty leaders in Florida have expressed concern that rejecting a candidate of Ono’s stature — one of the most experienced and internationally recognized university leaders in North America — will make it significantly more difficult to attract top-tier talent in the future.

“This means we can expect the continued politicization of the state university system,” said Amanda Phalin, a UF professor and former member of the Board of Governors, who warned the rejection could open the door for a purely political appointment — someone with more allegiance to DeSantis than to higher education itself.

The University of Florida declined to comment.

The Bigger Picture

At stake is not just one university presidency but the autonomy and credibility of public education in a climate where loyalty tests are replacing merit. Florida’s aggressive stance — gutting DEI programs, installing ideological loyalists, and rejecting leaders who fail to toe the line — reflects a broader authoritarian shift that is spreading to other Republican-controlled states.

Santa Ono’s rejection is not just about DEI. It’s about the closing of the Overton Window for what is acceptable in higher education leadership under a regime that demands ideological alignment above all else. The message is clear: even if you change your views, it might already be too late — unless you were always one of them.

Mergers in U.S. Higher Education: A Sign of the Times

Over the past five years, the American higher education landscape has undergone profound structural changes, as financial pressures, demographic shifts, and political headwinds have forced dozens of colleges and universities to consider mergers, consolidations, or outright closures. Among the most significant and telling of these developments is the proposed merger of two of New Jersey’s public institutions: New Jersey City University (NJCU) and Kean University—a deal emblematic of the broader realignment reshaping higher education across the country.

The New Jersey Merger: A Case Study in Crisis and Adaptation

In March 2025, NJCU and Kean University signed a letter of intent to merge, a move that drew praise from financial watchdogs and marked a pivotal step in NJCU's long road to fiscal recovery. NJCU, with approximately 5,500 students, had faced a steep financial decline over several years, prompting the state of New Jersey to direct the institution to find a fiscally sound partner by April 1, 2025. Kean University, with around 17,000 students and a more stable balance sheet, emerged as that partner.

Just four days after the announcement, Moody’s Investors Service upgraded NJCU’s financial outlook from “stable” to “positive,” citing the planned merger as a major factor. This marked the university’s second ratings boost in just over a year; Moody’s had previously raised its outlook from “negative” to “stable” in early 2024. The credit agency’s report highlighted NJCU’s improved financial strategy, risk management, and leadership credibility—factors that strengthened its standing as a viable merger partner.

NJCU interim president Andrés Acebo called the upgrade “a powerful affirmation of what is possible when a university chooses resilience over retreat, and purpose over paralysis.” Under the terms of the proposed merger, NJCU would be renamed “Kean Jersey City,” and Kean University would assume its assets, liabilities, and executive oversight. A newly appointed chancellor would lead the Jersey City campus.

While the merger is still pending regulatory and accreditation approvals, it could take up to 24 months to finalize. The universities have not yet disclosed whether staffing cuts will be part of the consolidation.

A National Trend Accelerated by Crisis

The NJCU–Kean merger is part of a larger wave of institutional consolidation across the United States—a trend driven by declining enrollment, rising operational costs, shrinking public investment, and demographic shifts, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest.

In Pennsylvania, the state’s system of higher education launched a major consolidation effort in 2021, combining six universities into two new institutions: Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania (a merger of Bloomsburg, Lock Haven, and Mansfield) and PennWest University (California, Clarion, and Edinboro). These mergers, finalized in 2022, were seen as necessary to stem the financial bleeding in a system that had lost nearly 25% of its enrollment over the prior decade.

Similarly, in Georgia, the University System of Georgia has continued its consolidation trend that began in the 2010s. By 2023, the number of public institutions in the state had been reduced from 35 to 26 through various mergers—moves aimed at cutting administrative overhead and reallocating resources.

Private Colleges Under Pressure

Private institutions, particularly small liberal arts colleges with modest endowments, have also been swept up in the merger wave. Mills College in California, a historically women’s college, merged with Northeastern University in 2022 after years of financial instability. The new institution, Mills College at Northeastern University, maintained some of Mills’ legacy programming while benefiting from Northeastern’s expansive infrastructure and global brand.

Similarly, Vermont’s Goddard College and the School of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston have either merged or been absorbed into larger institutions as stand-alone viability faltered.

In many cases, mergers have been cast as “strategic alliances” or “transformations,” but the underlying impetus has often been survival.

The Role of Credit Agencies and Political Climate

Credit rating agencies like Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch have played an increasingly influential role in shaping merger activity. By downgrading institutions at financial risk and upgrading those pursuing sound partnerships, they are guiding policy decisions and shaping public narratives.

Moody’s March 2025 sector-wide downgrade of U.S. higher education from “stable” to “negative” reflects broader concerns: cuts to research funding, increasing scrutiny of endowments, policy shifts around foreign students, and partisan attacks on academic freedom and diversity initiatives. In this context, even public institutions—once considered relatively safe—are under heightened pressure to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and political neutrality.

The Future of Mergers in Higher Ed

While mergers offer a path forward for some institutions, they are not without risk. Critics point to potential job losses, cultural clashes, mission dilution, and loss of community identity. Supporters argue that, if done thoughtfully, mergers can preserve academic programs, improve financial health, and extend access to underserved populations.

The proposed NJCU–Kean University merger, backed by both state officials and financial markets, may serve as a model—or a cautionary tale—for similar efforts across the country. In an era when higher education is being reshaped by economics, politics, and evolving student needs, mergers are likely to remain a defining feature of the post-pandemic academic landscape.

---

This story is part of the Higher Education Inquirer’s continuing coverage of structural changes in U.S. higher education. For more on campus mergers, closures, and the future of public institutions, follow our investigative series on higher ed austerity. 

We (still) can't be neutral.

The Higher Education Inquirer cannot be neutral, not in times like these. These times, 2025 and beyond, demand that working-class folks, including journalists, expose the truth as we perceive it, just as other media outlets present the truth through the lens of those in power: the neoliberal elites and the Trumpian elites. We cannot pretend we do not see the climate chaos ahead or the next man-made economic crisis. And we cannot believe we are as important or as courageous as the muckrakers of the 20th century, women and men like Ida B. Wells, Ida Tarbell, and Upton Sinclair. But we do hope we have made a difference, ever so slight.  We believe our readers can do the same. #NoKings

The War on Thought: Higher Education and the Fight Against Authoritarianism (Henry Giroux)

According to the 2024 Democracy Index, approximately 45% of the world's population now resides in democracies, yet only 8% live in full democracies. The rise in authoritarian regimes is particularly alarming, with over 35% of the global population living under such systems. This backslide is attributed to factors such as authoritarian crackdowns, increasing political polarization, and geopolitical tensions. Regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have seen marked declines, while even historically stable democracies like the U.S. face concerns over institutional erosion and political divisiveness. The data calls for a reevaluation of global political trends, urging a commitment to reinforcing democratic principles in the face of rising authoritarianism and instability, a task made all the more challenging by far-right attacks on higher education in the U.S., Hungary, and India.

For those of us shaped in the revolutionary democratic spirit of the sixties, it is both painful and disheartening to witness the rise of fascism in the U.S. and the slow, tragic unraveling of democracy around the world. Decades of neoliberalism have relentlessly eroded higher education, with a few notable exceptions. The once-cherished notion that the university is a vital advocate for democracy and the public good now seems like a distant memory. What we face today is the collapse of education into mere training, an institution dominated by regressive instrumentalism, hedge-fund administrators, and the growing threat of transforming higher education into spaces of ideological conformity, pedagogical repression, and corporate servitude.

We have seen this before in other authoritarian regimes, where the outcome was the death not only of academic freedom but also of democracy itself.

In the face of the current attacks on higher education, especially in the U.S., it becomes more difficult for faculty to make thought matter, to encourage students to ask important questions, and to view thinking as a form of political engagement, to think the unthinkable in the service of justice and equality. Yet despite these overwhelming challenges, higher education remains one of the few remaining spaces where critical thought can still flourish, serving as a bulwark against authoritarianism. As scholars Heba Gowayed and Jessica Halliday Hardie have noted, despite the deep flaws of academic institutions, they remain vital spaces for critical thought and civic learning, making them prime targets for authoritarian attacks. They write:

While academic institutions are deeply flawed, they are also, in their ideal form, bastions for thought and pedagogy. They are where students can make mistakes and learn from one another. They are also crucial spaces of learning for the citizenry. This is why they are the longtime targets of rightwing attack.

As Hannah Arendt once said, “What really makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other kind of dictatorship to rule is that the people are not informed”. This lack of information and historical awareness is precisely what authoritarians seek to exploit. The need for intellectual autonomy and historical consciousness is paramount in resisting these threats. Arendt's work on the erosion of thinking under totalitarian regimes remains incredibly relevant. It was quite clear to her that a government that lies deprives people of their capacity to think, act, and judge. She writes: “If everyone always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but that no one believes anything at all anymore, and rightly so, because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, to be ‘re-lied,’ so to speak”.

Under the Trump regime, we are witnessing the erosion of critical thought, a deliberate rewriting of history, and the paralyzing of intellectual autonomy, each a direct manifestation of authoritarian tactics. We live in an authoritarian society where the truth itself is under attack, along with the institutions that allow citizens to differentiate between truth and lies, thereby holding power accountable. This is more than an act of irrationality; it is a fundamental element of fascism.  This is a signpost for revealing the damaged passions and delusions of invincibility that characterize a culture’s descent  into authoritarianism and the crime of what Arendt called “the deprivation of citizenship.” The erosion of intellectual autonomy inevitably leads to a denial of citizenship, as Arendt warns. In the face of this, higher education, traditionally a site of critical engagement, is now under siege.

Higher education, traditionally a space for critical thinking and civic engagement, however limited, is now under a savage assault by the global far-right. International students face detentions and deportations without cause, and professors are silenced for speaking out against injustice. The state, right-wing mobs, and even university administrations perpetuate this attack on the university, a situation reminiscent of McCarthy-era repression, though more deeply embedded in the system.

The emerging fascism across the globe underscores the need to educate young people, and the wider public, on the importance of critical thinking. Understanding the threat of authoritarianism is more crucial than ever. Ethics matters, civic education matters, and the humanities matter, especially today. Political consciousness, a crucial element of democracy, must be nurtured, it does not emerge automatically. In a culture that devalues public education, silences dissent, and commodifies expression, many youth feel abandoned. They are hyper-visible as threats but invisible as citizens.

The horror of fascist violence is back, though it is now draped in AI-guided bombs, ethnic cleansing, and white supremacists basking in their project of racial cleansing while destroying every vestige of decency, human rights, and democracy. As global fascism rises, youth have taken center stage in the resistance, challenging forces that threaten both democracy and justice. This emerging youth-led movement, from Indigenous land defenders to climate activists and campus protesters, is pivotal in shaping the future.

Against the rise of fascism globally and its attack on any institution that supports critical thinking and a crucial form of pedagogical citizenship, youth are leading resistance movements around the world. From Indigenous land defenders to climate activists and campus protesters, young people are naming the violences shaping their lives and imagining alternatives. This demands a broad, interconnected movement to unite struggles against ecological destruction, systemic racism, economic inequality, and the transformation of democracy into an authoritarian state.

Education must be central to these efforts, not just formal schooling, but a deeper political and ethical education that links knowledge to action. Authoritarian regimes fear such education, which is why they attack libraries, ban books, and silence educators. They understand what is often forgotten: education is the foundation for both defending and enabling democracy.

This is not a time for despair, but for militant hope, rooted in resistance, collective care, and the belief that youth are not disposable but vital to a democratic future. They are not the problem; they are the possibility. In a time when universities face racist, anti-intellectual assaults from demagogues like Trump, Stephen Miller, and Kristi Noem, epitomized by the recent attack on Harvard, it is crucial for educators, students, administrators, and those who believe in democracy to rise against the authoritarian forces threatening the U.S. and emerging democracies alike. It is absolutely essential to stand against genocidal warmongers, ethnic cleansing, and state-sanctioned violence, at home and abroad. It is fundamental to fight for civic courage, social responsibility, and dignity, values that sustain a thriving democracy.

We must learn from history, to prevent Trump and his merry crew of authoritarians from turning higher education into laboratories of dehumanization and indoctrination. To the students delivering graduation speeches in the name of justice and freedom, such as Logan Rozos, and being punished by university administrators for speaking out, such courage stands as a model of hope. These brave students, along with the student protesters fighting for Palestinian freedom, make clear that education is a crucial bulwark against what the conservative Spanish think tank, Foro de Sevilla, has called the "dark paths of neo-Nazism," which are with us once again. What must be fought in the realm of culture and on the streets at all costs is the silence surrounding the thousands of children killed in Gaza, the erasure of historical memory, and the war on youth in our own land, exemplified by a GOP budget soaked in blood.

Fascism is more than a distant moment in history; it is a breathing threat and wound that has emerged in different forms once again. And the endpoint of such savagery is always the same, racial and ethnic hatred that ends with broken and bloodied bodies in the camps, detention centers, and mass graves.

Any viable call to resistance must stand in stark contrast to the hollow platitudes of right-wing figures, compromised politicians, and celebrities who serve the status quo. Their words and policies echo a complicit silence in the face of government corruption, student abductions, and tax cuts for the wealthy funded by the poor. This is gangster capitalism at its worst.

Hopefully, in such dark times, there will emerge a language of critique and hope, the power of collective struggle, and an education rooted in justice and empowerment. One that fuels a call to mass action, civic courage, and the relentless pursuit of democracy through unity and defiance. 

Moolenaar, Walberg Call on Duke to Terminate China-Based Campus Over National Security Risks (House Select Committee on China)

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Moolenaar, Walberg Call on Duke to Terminate China-Based Campus Over National Security Risks

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) are calling on Duke University President Vincent Price to end the Duke Kunshan University (DKU) in China. Through its partnership with Chinese entities, DKU enabled the CCP to access sensitive U.S. technology, including Department of Defense-funded research into advanced camera systems—now used to surveil Tiananmen Square and track millions of people across China. The university has also allowed American students to be exploited in CCP propaganda and showcases imagery of DKU students participating in military-style training on its website. This partnership raises serious concerns about research security, academic freedom, technology transfer, and the manipulation of U.S. students for authoritarian purposes. In their letter, Moolenaar and Walberg write: “DKU, established in 2018 in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), now enrolls over 3,000 students across undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs and specializes in high-technology fields with direct military applications, including data science, artificial intelligence, and materials science. As part of these programs, many DKU students spend time at Duke University, gaining access to federally funded U.S. research. Given the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) well-documented efforts to exploit academic openness, this partnership creates a direct pipeline between U.S. innovation and China’s military-industrial complex…" “…Students were coached to recite “I love China” in Mandarin on camera, while others were repeatedly pressed to “sa[y] what they wanted [students] to say” about Chinese climate policies. Students described feeling “used” as part of a “traveling circus” that was “paraded in front of local press”—their faces later appearing on state media. This was not education but exploitation: a calculated component of Xi Jinping’s “50,000 Initiative” with “no genuine cultural exchange.” Your university’s partnership with Wuhan University directly facilitated the use of these American students as pawns for CCP propaganda." Additional Background: DKU was established as a joint institute between Duke and Wuhan University in 2018.  Wuhan University conducts research in at least five designated defense research areas, trains People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cyber warfare specialists, and plays a central role in China’s Beidou satellite system, which supports missile guidance and military intelligence operations. In February, Duke student Jacqueline Cole wrote an article for the North Carolina news site The Assembly detailing how she and her fellow students were used for CCP propaganda purposes during a DKU-sponsored trip to China. Finally, in a report released in September of 2024, titled “CCP on the Quad,” the House Select Committee on China and the House Education and Workforce Committee listed 21 American universities that have STEM focused joint institutes with Chinese universities. The report identified concerns about Defense Department funded research furthering the PRC's national security goals in areas including high-performance explosives, drone operation networks, nuclear and high-energy physics, artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and hypersonics. So far, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of California -Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and Oakland University are universities named in the report that have ended their joint institutes.

Liberty University in Black and White

Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the world, presents a striking contrast between its largely white residential campus and a more diverse, working-class population studying online. This divide highlights ongoing questions about race, access, and culture in American higher education—especially in religious institutions that promote traditional values while navigating a changing demographic and social landscape.

A Whiter Campus

As of 2021, Liberty’s Lynchburg, Virginia, residential campus remains overwhelmingly white. Seventy-four percent of students living and studying on campus are white, with only 4% identifying as Black or African American, 5% as Latino, and 2% as Asian or Pacific Islander. Less than 1% of residential students identify as Native American. In contrast to the national trend of increasing diversity on college campuses, Liberty appears to be growing whiter. In fact, the number of African American students on campus has declined in recent years, raising concerns about how welcoming the university is to students of color.

This demographic imbalance is not new. Liberty University has a long history of racial segregation and discrimination, particularly in its formative years under founder Jerry Falwell Sr., who defended segregation in the 1960s and opposed civil rights legislation. While Liberty’s public stance has changed over the decades, the legacy of those positions still casts a long shadow.

A More Diverse Virtual World

Meanwhile, Liberty University Online (LUO) paints a different picture. In 2017, only 51% of its undergraduate population identified as white, compared to 15.4% who were Black or African American. Hispanic and Latino students made up 1.7%, and students of two or more races, 2.3%. A significant 26.5% of LUO students were categorized as “race/ethnicity unknown,” potentially obscuring additional diversity. These students come from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and 86 countries, with more than 30,000 military students and over 850 international students among them.

LUO students are also disproportionately older, more likely to be working full-time, and often seeking degrees for career advancement or personal growth rather than the traditional “college experience.” Many are first-generation college students or part of the educated working-class navigating life through faith, family, and financial constraints. In contrast to the traditional campus, LUO's virtual classrooms are where Liberty more closely resembles the multiracial and socioeconomically diverse America it often claims to serve.

The Racial and Class Divide

This bifurcation between Liberty’s on-campus and online populations underscores a larger tension within the university: a cultural and racial divide that mirrors the broader fissures in U.S. society. The residential campus, steeped in conservative Christian traditions and a homogeneous student body, promotes a culture aligned with white evangelicalism. Meanwhile, its online division serves a more varied student population—many of whom are drawn to Liberty for its affordability, flexibility, and religious identity, but may not share in the campus culture or feel represented by its leadership and branding.

Reports of problems faced by Black students on campus—including concerns over campus climate, lack of representation among faculty, and curriculum that minimizes racial history—suggest that Liberty’s commitment to diversity is uneven at best. While the university has made modest gestures toward inclusion, critics argue that these efforts are often performative and fail to address systemic issues rooted in the institution’s founding principles.

Conclusion

Liberty University’s dual identity—as a white-dominated, conservative campus and a more diverse, online workforce training hub—raises difficult but necessary questions about race, class, and the role of religion in higher education. For an institution that claims to train “Champions for Christ,” the challenge remains whether it can reconcile these differences or if the divide will only grow starker in the years ahead.

Clashes at Columbia: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Arrested in Butler Library Standoff

On the evening of May 7, 2025, the ongoing student protest movement at Columbia University reached a new flashpoint, as dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators occupied Butler Library, prompting the university to summon the New York Police Department. According to multiple reports, approximately 76 individuals were removed in handcuffs after a tense standoff, raising fresh concerns about civil liberties, campus governance, and escalating political pressure from the federal government.

The occupation, which unfolded during Columbia’s reading week, was part of a wave of student-led actions protesting Israel's military campaign in Gaza and what activists call institutional complicity through academic and financial ties. Video footage and eyewitness accounts show masked individuals entering Butler Library, hanging banners, and clashing with public safety officers. One banner reportedly displayed a map of Israel with the words “There is only one state,” a message critics argue denies Israel’s right to exist.

While Columbia officials have condemned the action as disruptive and dangerous, the heavy-handed response—and the invocation of police force on an Ivy League campus—has reignited longstanding debates about academic freedom, student dissent, and the criminalization of protest.

“We had no choice but to ask for the assistance of the NYPD,” said Acting President Claire Shipman in a video statement. “These actions... posed a serious risk to our students and campus safety.”

Shipman reported that two public safety officers were injured as demonstrators surged through the building, and one individual was later removed by stretcher. In a post-incident response, the university implemented tighter access controls, requiring ID checks at campus entrances and suspending alumni and guest access.

Meanwhile, city and state officials swiftly voiced their support for the crackdown. Mayor Eric Adams stated that lawlessness would not be tolerated and urged non-students to leave the campus. Governor Kathy Hochul echoed that sentiment, praising law enforcement for “keeping students safe.” Senator Marco Rubio went further, announcing a federal review of the visa status of any non-citizen participants.

But from the protestors’ perspective, the events told a different story. A message posted by students inside the library alleged that public safety officers “choked and beaten us,” and that protestors were refusing to show IDs or leave under “militarized arrest.” The group rejected characterizations of violence and said they were exercising their rights to peaceful protest.

The administration’s response is occurring under heightened scrutiny from the Trump administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funding from universities perceived as allowing “antisemitic or anti-American” protests. Columbia, once seen as a stronghold of progressive activism, has become a political battleground in the broader culture war over speech, protest, and Zionism.

A controversial university guideline—announced earlier this year under pressure from the Trump White House—requires masked protestors to present identification upon request. Civil liberties groups argue the rule infringes on students’ rights and makes peaceful protest vulnerable to legal and administrative reprisal.

As students prepare for final exams, Columbia remains a campus under siege—caught between its own history of student activism and an increasingly authoritarian political climate. What happened inside Butler Library was more than a student protest gone awry; it was the collision of global politics, domestic surveillance, and higher education’s complicity in both.

What’s next for the Columbia protest movement remains uncertain, but the crackdown at Butler is unlikely to be its final chapter. Rather, it may serve as a blueprint—either for suppression or resistance—for how universities across the country respond to the growing tension between conscience and compliance.

Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run

In a stunning development that has sent ripples through the world of higher education, University of Michigan President Santa J. Ono announced he will step down this summer to take the helm at the University of Florida. The announcement comes just seven months after he signed a lucrative contract extension at U-M—one that brought his salary to $1.3 million per year and was among the most generous in the nation.

Ono’s exit will mark the shortest presidential tenure in University of Michigan history—just two and a half years. And it’s happening at a moment of profound political and institutional tension, with many in Ann Arbor voicing frustration at what they perceive as the university's muted resistance to a suite of controversial measures emanating from the Trump administration.

From Rising Star to Abrupt Exit

When Santa Ono arrived in Ann Arbor in late 2022, he brought with him a sterling academic pedigree and a reputation as a charismatic, student-focused leader. His hiring was seen as a stabilizing move after years of controversy surrounding his predecessor.

But beneath the surface, Ono’s relationship with the university community frayed. Faculty members and students alike cite his increasing absence from public discourse in 2024, particularly as the federal government—under a resurgent Trump administration—moved to slash research funding, roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, and scrutinize university partnerships, including U-M’s involvement with The PhD Project, which aims to diversify business faculty.

“He’s been more or less invisible particularly this year,” said Faculty Senate Chair Derek Peterson. “What we need is a fighter, not a conformer.”

The Florida Move

Ono’s move to the University of Florida has sparked speculation about his motivations. On paper, Michigan is more prestigious, enjoys greater autonomy thanks to a unique governance structure, and has a massive $19.2 billion endowment. Florida, by contrast, is under the thumb of a politically active governor and a centralized board that has exerted pressure on universities to conform to ideological mandates.

Yet the financial allure may have been too great to ignore: reports suggest Florida’s presidential compensation could total $3 million annually—more than double Ono’s current pay.

Brendan Cantwell, a professor of higher education policy at Michigan State University, noted the irony: “He’s leaving a more prestigious, more autonomous institution. That says a lot about the pressures he faced.”

A State Under Fire: The Regressive Politics of Higher Education in Florida

For those familiar with the political climate in Florida, Ono’s move to the University of Florida is far from surprising. Over the past few years, Florida has become a hotbed for right-wing political maneuvering in higher education, with Governor Ron DeSantis spearheading efforts to reshape universities in line with his conservative agenda.

From banning certain books to defunding DEI programs and trying to control academic curriculum, DeSantis has made it clear that higher education in Florida is now a battleground for ideological warfare. His administration has launched aggressive campaigns against what he describes as “woke” politics in academia, citing the need to root out “liberal indoctrination” and promote “freedom” from progressive influences.

Florida’s approach to higher education has included an unprecedented wave of budget cuts to diversity programs, particularly those aimed at supporting historically underrepresented students. The state’s universities are now grappling with the loss of funding for programs designed to increase access for Black, Latino, and Indigenous students. DeSantis has also pushed for "anti-woke" laws that bar universities from offering certain courses or diversity-related initiatives. This is not only affecting the curriculum, but also the very way in which faculty and staff are hired and evaluated.

In 2023, the University of Florida eliminated many of its DEI programs under pressure from the state. The state’s Board of Governors is now actively involved in scrutinizing university curriculums, and its influence extends even to hiring practices, where faculty members are increasingly expected to align with a more conservative view of American history and culture. These moves have drawn ire from academics nationwide, who argue that Florida’s political leadership is attempting to stifle intellectual freedom and academic independence.

Moreover, Florida’s universities face a severe erosion of academic freedom, as DeSantis has sought to impose strict guidelines on speech and research. This includes revising what can and cannot be taught in classrooms and restricting discussions around race, gender, and political identity. The state's newly imposed curriculum laws have made it more difficult for universities to engage in meaningful discourse about topics such as climate change, systemic racism, and gender equality.

For Ono, stepping into this highly charged, politicized environment will represent a dramatic shift from his more moderate, research-focused tenure at Michigan. His leadership will likely be tested not just by university-level challenges but also by the state's political apparatus, which has shown a willingness to intervene in nearly every facet of higher education.

Institutional Challenges Ahead

Ono’s departure leaves U-M with significant challenges. The Board of Regents announced that he will remain in Ann Arbor until an interim president is named—a process that may take weeks. But finding a long-term leader capable of navigating the rapidly shifting higher education landscape could take much longer.

The next president will have to address:

• Federal Research Cuts: The loss of federal contracts—particularly from agencies like the National Institutes of Health—has cost Michigan and its peer institutions hundreds of millions of dollars. A $15 million Social Security study was among the casualties. U-M is using endowment funds to plug gaps, but that is not a sustainable strategy.

• DEI Backlash and Retrenchment: The university recently shuttered two DEI offices and scaled back programming, citing political and legal risks. While Ono promised to bolster financial aid and mental health support, many faculty and students felt betrayed by the move.

• Campus Unrest and Free Speech: Protests over the Gaza war led to harsh disciplinary action against student groups, including the suspension of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE). Critics say the campus has become increasingly authoritarian, and several lawsuits have been filed by terminated employees alleging First Amendment violations.

• Board Relations and Governance: U-M’s elected Board of Regents is ideologically divided. While five Democratic regents penned a passionate op-ed in defense of academic independence, the board’s stance on DEI and other political flashpoints appears fractured.

A Bigger Crisis in Public Higher Ed?

Beyond the immediate concerns, the university’s upheaval reflects deeper anxieties about the future of public higher education in America. Declining public trust, rising tuition, and the politicization of universities—especially around issues of race, gender, and free speech—have created an atmosphere of volatility.

While the University of Michigan continues to see strong application numbers, including from international students, enrollment of in-state high school graduates is dropping. The university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free tuition to families earning under $125,000, is a step toward addressing affordability concerns. But will it be enough?

Sandy Baruah of the Detroit Regional Chamber sees a broader mission: “Our research universities all have a responsibility to make the case for higher education. The value of higher ed is critical to the state of Michigan.”

What’s Next?

The Faculty Senate has passed resolutions urging the university to join a “mutual defense pact” with other Big Ten schools to resist political interference and defend academic freedom. But U-M is not obligated to act on those resolutions.

Interim leadership will be announced soon, and the search for a permanent successor will follow. Whoever takes the reins next will need to be a deft political operator—someone capable of rebuilding trust internally while weathering mounting external threats.

In the words of Cantwell: “Whoever they hire has to be prepared to be under intense scrutiny—locally, federally, ideologically. The next leader of Michigan must have both a spine and a strategy.”

As the University of Michigan enters this uncertain chapter, one thing is clear: the battle over the soul of public higher education is far from over.

Trump’s War on Intellectualism Is a Threat to Democracy—But Elite Universities Aren’t Innocent Victims

When Donald Trump and his political allies go after elite universities like Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, it’s easy—too easy—for defenders of higher education to circle the wagons. We’re told that these attacks are a threat to academic freedom, to knowledge, even to democracy itself.

There’s some truth to that. But let’s not romanticize the institutions being targeted. Elite universities are not innocent victims in America’s democratic unraveling. They have, for decades, cultivated privilege, preserved inequality, and insulated themselves from the real-world consequences of their decisions. If we’re going to talk honestly about the dangers of anti-intellectualism, we must also confront the failures of the so-called intellectual elite.

That said, the Trump movement’s war on expertise, critical thinking, and education isn't aimed at reforming these institutions—it’s about dismantling the very idea of an informed, questioning citizenry. And that’s where the true danger lies.

Elite Universities: Power Without Accountability

Let’s start with the obvious: the Ivy League and its peers are deeply complicit in America’s meritocratic mythology. They’ve served as finishing schools for the ruling class, minting the bankers, judges, presidents, and policymakers who have overseen widening inequality, endless wars, mass incarceration, and climate inaction.

These schools have protected legacy admissions, turned a blind eye to labor exploitation on their campuses, and sat on billion-dollar endowments while adjunct faculty and graduate workers scrape by. They have not been champions of democracy so much as guardians of a highly stratified status quo.

So when critics accuse them of elitism, they’re not entirely wrong. But the Trump-era populism that claims to speak for “the people” doesn’t aim to democratize education—it aims to destroy its democratic function altogether.

The Real Target: Critical Thought

The Trump Administration's true grievance isn’t with elite universities per se; it’s with what these institutions represent in the public imagination: facts, complexity, and the right to question power. This resentment manifests in everything from attacks on “woke” curricula to efforts to ban books and gut public education.

The Trumpist strategy is clear: discredit intellectual institutions not to make them more accountable, but to replace expertise with loyalty, and dialogue with propaganda. This isn’t about fixing higher education. It’s about gutting the tools people need to resist authoritarianism—tools like historical context, scientific reasoning, and moral imagination.

And while elite universities may have failed to democratize knowledge, they are still among the few places where critical inquiry is possible. For all their hypocrisy, they produce some of the research and dialogue that fuels social progress. That’s precisely why they’re under attack.

The Cost of Cynicism

It's tempting to dismiss the fight over academia as a clash between out-of-touch elites and performative populists. But this is bigger than a feud between two privileged factions. At stake is whether truth itself still matters in American political life.

Yes, universities need to be held accountable—for their exclusivity, for their economic entrenchment, for their detachment from working-class realities. But that critique must be grounded in a desire to expand and democratize knowledge, not to destroy it.

Trumpism offers no such vision. It’s not trying to fix a broken higher ed system; it’s trying to ensure fewer people can question the system at all.

A Choice for the Future

We shouldn’t fall into the trap of defending elite universities just because Trump attacks them. Nor should we accept the false populism that scapegoats education while consolidating power in the hands of the ignorant and the loyal.

The choice we face is not between Ivy League hypocrisy and Trumpian anti-intellectualism. It’s between a democracy that values critical thought and a movement that seeks to suppress it—between a flawed system that can be reformed and an ideology that rejects the very notion of reform.

If we care about democracy, we must critique our institutions honestly—and defend the democratic values they too often betray but must ultimately uphold.

US Higher Education's Move to the Right

In recent years, the political landscape of U.S. higher education has undergone a noticeable shift, with universities, faculty, and academic discourse increasingly moving toward more conservative positions. This transformation, which some see as a response to growing societal polarization, has raised important questions about the future of academic freedom, diversity of thought, and the role of universities in shaping the ideological future of the nation. At its core, however, the rise of right-wing ideology within higher education is beginning to present a larger existential threat to the future of the United States itself—its democratic values, global influence, and even the sustainability of its political system.

The Rise of Conservative Voices on Campus

Historically, U.S. higher education has been perceived as a bastion of liberal thought. The overwhelming majority of faculty members, especially in the humanities and social sciences, lean left politically, and university campuses have often been hotbeds of progressive activism. However, recent trends suggest that conservative voices are gaining traction in academic spaces, and their influence is becoming more apparent.

One of the key indicators of this shift is the increasing number of conservative professors and scholars. While conservative scholars have long been underrepresented in academia, a growing number of universities are seeing new initiatives to diversify intellectual perspectives. Some schools have even created specific programs to attract conservative or libertarian thinkers, with the goal of ensuring a broader ideological representation in faculty and curriculum.

Further fueling this rise in conservative thought on campus is the growing prominence of organizations like Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk, TPUSA has become one of the leading organizations promoting conservative views among students. The organization’s influence has been a significant force in reshaping the political climate on U.S. campuses, advocating for free markets, limited government, and traditional values, while also fiercely opposing what it sees as left-wing indoctrination in higher education.

Turning Point USA has launched a variety of initiatives to spread conservative ideas, from organizing campus chapters to hosting events and debates aimed at fostering a more balanced discourse on issues like free speech, political correctness, and social justice. TPUSA’s “#DefundTheUniversities” campaign, for example, highlights the organization’s belief that public universities have become ideological echo chambers that perpetuate liberal views while stifling conservative opinions. Through their grassroots activism, TPUSA has successfully mobilized thousands of students across the nation to challenge what they perceive as a political monoculture on campus.

The Political and National Security Implications

The increasing dominance of conservative ideology on campuses isn't just a shift in academic discourse—it also has broader implications for the future of the United States as a democracy and a global superpower. As universities play a critical role in shaping the next generation of leaders, scientists, policymakers, and innovators, a marked shift toward the right could reshape American political identity in ways that undermine core democratic values, international standing, and future prosperity.

As political polarization deepens in the U.S., the growing influence of right-wing thought on college campuses is contributing to a narrowing of intellectual diversity. This ideological homogenization threatens to stifle critical thinking and open dialogue, both of which are essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. In the face of global challenges—ranging from climate change and economic inequality to international conflicts—the U.S. needs universities to foster broad-minded, evidence-based perspectives, not ideological echo chambers that prioritize partisan loyalty over reasoned debate.

Moreover, as some conservative voices increasingly advocate for a rollback of certain civil rights, a stricter immigration policy, and policies that privilege nationalism over globalism, the move to the right within academia risks undermining the very ideals that have helped maintain the U.S.’s status as a democratic superpower. With more conservative policies influencing everything from the teaching of history to the shaping of economic and environmental policy, the United States risks retreating from its role as a leader in global affairs.

The Role of Natalism: A Cultural and Ideological Shift

At the same time, some conservative ideologues are placing increasing emphasis on the idea of natalism, a policy of encouraging higher birth rates in order to ensure the future of the nation’s population and economic vitality. This has gained traction in right-wing political circles, partly as a reaction to what they perceive as declining birth rates and societal shifts toward individualism over traditional family values.

Natalist arguments often center on the need to preserve a strong national identity and to ensure that future generations of Americans are capable of maintaining the country’s global dominance. Some conservatives argue that America’s declining birth rates, alongside growing concerns over immigration and cultural shifts, pose a threat to its long-term strength as both a democracy and a superpower.

From this perspective, universities may come under increasing pressure to align their policies with a more natalist agenda—encouraging families to have more children and ensuring that the nation’s cultural values are passed on to future generations. In practice, this could lead to an emphasis on traditional family structures and ideologies that prioritize reproduction, national loyalty, and the consolidation of conservative cultural values.

Such a move could further stoke division in the U.S., as liberals, progressives, and more moderate thinkers push back against efforts to center population growth as a national priority. It also raises concerns about women’s rights and reproductive freedoms, areas where the U.S. has seen significant political battles over the past several years. By pushing a natalist agenda, the right may inadvertently push American society toward greater social and cultural conservatism, while alienating the diverse, inclusive values that have long been the hallmark of American democracy.

Anti-Intellectualism and the Decline of History, Humanities, and Social Sciences

One of the most concerning aspects of this ideological shift within American higher education is the rise of anti-intellectualism—a growing sentiment that dismisses intellectual pursuits, scholarly inquiry, and academic rigor, particularly in fields like the humanities, social sciences, and history. At a time when the U.S. needs to foster critical thinking, nuanced debate, and cross-disciplinary solutions to pressing global problems, anti-intellectualism threatens to undermine the very foundation of higher education and democratic citizenship.

Anti-intellectualism in U.S. education often manifests as an outright rejection of academia in favor of populist rhetoric that prioritizes "common sense" over expert knowledge. This attitude is part of a broader cultural movement that discredits scientific consensus, historical analysis, and nuanced social inquiry, particularly in areas related to race, gender, and social justice. In an environment where truth is increasingly seen as subjective and knowledge is often dismissed as ideological, universities face the difficult challenge of defending the very principles that make academic inquiry valuable.

The decline of the humanities and social sciences has been a major casualty of this trend. These disciplines, which include history, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and literature, are often viewed as elitist or politically left-leaning, and thus subject to attack by conservative critics who prefer a more utilitarian and economically driven education system. Programs in history and the humanities have been increasingly underfunded and undervalued, particularly in state schools, as the demand for vocational programs and STEM degrees (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) has surged. This shift away from critical analysis of human culture, society, and history may have long-term consequences for society’s ability to confront complex global challenges, as these fields are essential to understanding the historical context of political, social, and economic crises.

Furthermore, subjects like critical race theory and gender studies have become lightning rods for conservative attacks on higher education. Critics argue that these fields promote divisive ideologies and undermine national unity, while supporters argue that they offer critical insights into the structures of inequality and power in modern society. The backlash against these disciplines reflects a broader cultural rejection of intellectualism—one that sees scholarship as inherently biased and politically charged, rather than objective and necessary for understanding the world.

This erosion of the humanities and social sciences, alongside a growing disdain for intellectualism, threatens the intellectual foundation of American democracy. Universities, which have traditionally been spaces for critical thought, interdisciplinary exploration, and the fostering of informed citizenship, risk becoming ideological battlegrounds where the pursuit of knowledge is subordinated to political agendas. In the long term, this could result in a generation less capable of engaging in thoughtful, reasoned debate about the nation's most pressing issues, ultimately weakening democratic institutions and the capacity for the U.S. to lead on the global stage.

The Paranoia and Uncritical Support for Police, Mass Incarceration, and Lack of Due Process

Another disturbing trend within the move to the right in higher education is the rising paranoia that underpins much of the conservative political discourse on campus. A growing fear of left-wing influence, social change, and external threats to traditional values has led to a distrust of institutions such as the media, academia, and the government. This paranoia has become a driving force behind conservative student groups, with their rhetoric often centered on an exaggerated fear of cultural and ideological warfare.

This sense of paranoia also extends to issues of law enforcement and criminal justice. Conservatives have increasingly positioned themselves as staunch defenders of the police, often failing to acknowledge the systemic issues of police violence and mass incarceration that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. In many cases, this has led to an uncritical view of the police and the criminal justice system, overlooking the need for reform and the widespread calls for accountability.

The rise of this uncritical approach, paired with growing distrust in institutions of justice, has serious consequences for higher education’s ability to foster meaningful dialogue about these pressing issues. Universities that fail to engage in critical discussions about mass incarceration, police brutality, and the lack of due process risk sending students into the world without the knowledge or tools necessary to address the flaws within the U.S. justice system.

The lack of due process for many accused individuals, particularly in the context of racial and socio-economic inequalities, remains a fundamental issue that is frequently overlooked in right-wing political discourse. Instead of confronting the structural issues in policing and the judicial system, some conservative groups have opted for a rhetoric that places an overwhelming emphasis on law and order, often at the expense of basic civil liberties.

By failing to address the flaws in the system, conservative movements within higher education inadvertently perpetuate a cycle of injustice and inequality, undermining the democratic principles of fairness and accountability.

The Threat to American Democracy and Global Power

In this context, the move to the right within higher education could signal a deeper crisis for the future of American democracy and its place on the global stage. A shift toward conservative ideologies at universities, coupled with efforts to limit academic freedom and increase ideological control over education, could erode the very foundations of democratic governance. The core principles of democracy—such as free speech, the rule of law, and respect for individual rights—rely on open inquiry, the free exchange of ideas, and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning.

If U.S. higher education increasingly becomes a tool for political socialization rather than a space for independent thought, the future of U.S. democracy could be at risk. A populace raised on narrow ideological frameworks—whether left or right—will lack the critical thinking skills necessary for civic engagement, informed voting, and democratic participation. This, in turn, could erode the strength of U.S. institutions and the nation’s ability to adapt to global challenges.

In the context of the U.S.'s status as a global superpower, this ideological shift could also undermine its ability to lead in international diplomacy, science, technology, and economic innovation. The U.S. has traditionally led the world in fostering innovation, research, and academic collaboration. However, as conservative ideologies increasingly dominate American academia, it risks isolating itself from the rest of the world, particularly in areas like climate science, social justice, and global trade. A nation that turns inward and prioritizes conservative ideologies at the expense of international cooperation risks diminishing its own democratic values and its power as a global leader.

Social Reality: Is Needed Justice Reform in America Possible?

Reforming the U.S. legal profession and improving access to justice is a daunting, nearly impossible challenge. The (in)justice system is increasingly overwhelmed by massive case backlogs and a growing pattern of decisions that disproportionately disadvantage working-class individuals, raising serious concerns about equal access to justice and the erosion of public trust in legal institutions. Despite the pressing need for change, the entrenched interests and structural flaws within the system have created a legal landscape that is resistant to meaningful reform. While there are various proposals for change, they often run headfirst into the vast power of those who benefit from the current system, making true progress an uphill battle.

Reforming Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) Laws

The UPL laws, which are intended to protect consumers from unqualified legal advice, are often wielded as a weapon to preserve the monopoly that licensed lawyers have on legal services. While reform proposals suggest allowing non-lawyers, such as paralegals, to provide more services or revising enforcement to make it easier for people to access affordable help, these changes face steep opposition. Law firms, bar associations, and the established legal profession are unlikely to willingly give up the control they have over legal services, even if it means denying access to justice for those who cannot afford traditional legal representation. These reforms threaten their profitable business models, and as such, they are fiercely guarded by the very people who would be most affected by their implementation. Any meaningful reform would have to overcome a deeply entrenched system that profits off maintaining high barriers to entry and costly services.

Expanding Access to Affordable Legal Services

The idea of expanding legal aid or incentivizing pro bono work to improve access to legal services is a noble one, but it does little to address the core issues of systemic inefficiency. Legal aid organizations are underfunded and overburdened, often unable to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. While pro bono work is often lauded as a solution, it is not a reliable or sustainable path forward. Law firms that participate in pro bono work typically do so on their terms, taking on cases that have high visibility or public interest, while the overwhelming majority of low-income individuals continue to be left without adequate representation.

Furthermore, proposals for sliding-scale fees or flat-rate pricing models for legal services are unlikely to disrupt the deeply embedded billable-hour model. Law firms and lawyers are incentivized to keep clients in the system for as long as possible, maximizing profits rather than minimizing the cost of services. Until there is substantial reform to the way legal services are priced and delivered, accessibility will remain a distant dream for those who need it most.

Legal Technology and Innovation

Technological innovation has been touted as a potential solution to the access-to-justice crisis, with companies like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer offering affordable alternatives to traditional legal services. However, these platforms, while helpful for basic services, only scratch the surface of the larger problem. They focus on simple tasks like document preparation, leaving individuals with complex legal issues still in the dark. The reality is that these tools often do more to reinforce the current system than to dismantle it.

Moreover, the reliance on technology fails to account for the digital divide. Many low-income individuals, particularly in rural areas, do not have access to the necessary tools or internet connections to utilize these services effectively. In addition, these services still do not provide the level of personalized, professional legal representation that many people require. As such, legal technology remains an inadequate solution to the underlying problems of accessibility and affordability.

Reforming Legal Education

The exorbitant cost of law school remains one of the most significant barriers to diversifying the legal profession and addressing the oversupply of lawyers. While proposals to reduce tuition or offer more affordable paths to the profession, such as apprenticeships or clerkships, sound appealing, the reality is that the legal education system is unlikely to change without substantial disruption. Law schools, driven by high tuition fees, have little incentive to lower costs, and the established power structures within the profession work to preserve the current educational model.

Diversity initiatives in law schools, while important, often fail to address the broader issues of accessibility. The overwhelming cost of legal education prevents many individuals from underrepresented communities from entering the profession, despite efforts to provide scholarships and outreach programs. Until the cost of legal education is addressed on a systemic level, any attempts at increasing diversity in the profession will be little more than a Band-Aid solution to a much larger problem.

Strengthening Anti-SLAPP Legislation

Anti-SLAPP laws, which protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech, are essential for ensuring that individuals can criticize powerful interests without fear of retribution. However, these laws are not universally applied, and in many states, they are weak or difficult to enforce. The reality is that powerful corporations and wealthy individuals often use their resources to exploit the legal system, silencing critics with the threat of costly litigation.

The expansion of Anti-SLAPP protections nationwide is an uphill battle, especially given the powerful lobbying interests that benefit from the status quo. Even when such laws exist, they are often undermined by a system that favors the wealthy and the powerful. Stronger enforcement measures are needed to deter the use of lawsuits as a tool for silencing dissent, but the legal system remains far too vulnerable to exploitation by those with the resources to manipulate it.

Policy and Legislative Advocacy: A Stale Battle

Advocating for comprehensive legal reforms in the current political climate seems like a futile endeavor. Lawmakers are entrenched in partisan battles, with little interest in tackling the structural problems within the legal profession. While some reforms, such as revising UPL laws or increasing funding for legal aid, might garner some support, the overall political environment makes it exceedingly difficult to achieve anything substantial.

Powerful lobbying groups, including the American Bar Association, hold significant sway over the legislative process, ensuring that any efforts to reform the legal system are watered down or blocked altogether. Those who would benefit from reform—namely, low-income individuals and marginalized communities—have little political power compared to the well-funded entities that protect the status quo.

Rethinking the Role of Law Firms

The idea of encouraging law firms to adopt new business models—such as flat fees or subscription services—has gained some traction, but it faces considerable opposition. Traditional law firms, particularly large ones, rely heavily on billable hours and high fees. The financial incentives built into the legal system make it difficult for firms to move away from these models, even if it means improving access for the public. Any attempts to make legal services more affordable are met with resistance from the industry, which benefits from its highly profitable business model.

Collaborations between law firms and nonprofits to provide legal services to underserved communities are a step in the right direction, but they are often limited in scope. Nonprofit legal organizations are themselves underfunded and overburdened, and the ability of law firms to significantly alter the landscape of legal access is hindered by the systemic forces working against change.

How is Legal Reform Possible?

Reforming the legal profession in today’s political climate is a near-impossible task. The systemic issues within the profession—entrenched business models, political polarization, and the deep financial interests that benefit from the current system—make significant reform highly unlikely. Though there are some proposals for change, they often face immense resistance from the very entities that stand to lose from these changes.

While the need for reform is urgent, meaningful change will not come easily. The road to reform is littered with powerful vested interests, both within and outside the legal profession, that will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. Despite the calls for a more accessible, affordable, and equitable legal system, the reality is that, without major disruption, the legal system will continue to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful, leaving the rest to fend for themselves.

In a system that so often seems to work against the people it is meant to serve, the prospects for true reform remain distant, and the barriers to achieving it are higher than ever. Until the broader political environment shifts to support fundamental change, the legal profession will remain one of the most entrenched, self-serving industries in America.