Trump Sends West Virginia National Guard to D.C. Without Consulting Mayor Bowser

President Donald Trump has doubled down on his federal intervention in Washington, D.C., calling in reinforcements from West Virginia’s National Guard. The decision, announced August 16, marks an intensification of Trump’s so-called “Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful” campaign, a project already criticized for its political theater and disregard for local autonomy.

The deployment—300 to 400 West Virginia Guard troops—comes just days after Trump invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act to seize temporary control of the District’s police. This was the first time any president has used that provision. Combined with D.C.’s own Guard, the new arrivals bring the total number of federally-controlled troops patrolling the capital to more than 800.

The move was made without the consent of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has called the intervention “unsettling and unprecedented.” Attorney General Brian Schwalb has already filed suit to block Trump’s attempt to install a federally appointed “emergency police commissioner.” Both argue the administration has violated the spirit, if not the letter, of Home Rule.

---

A Manufactured Emergency—And a Convenient Distraction

The federal escalation follows the sensationalized “Big Balls” assault—an incident Trump quickly used to justify invoking sweeping emergency powers. As Higher Education Inquirer previously reported, Trump has leaned heavily on this case to stir fear and project strength, despite the fact that violent crime in D.C. is currently at a 30-year low.

But there’s another layer: the timing. Trump’s deployment of out-of-state Guard troops comes as media scrutiny of the Epstein case intensifies, including renewed focus on how elite institutions enabled and benefited from Epstein’s money. Harvard, MIT, and other universities took his donations, gave him influence, and in some cases provided a veneer of legitimacy to a man whose connections to Trump and other powerful figures remain politically toxic.

The “crime emergency” narrative serves not only as a pretext for overriding D.C.’s fragile autonomy—it also provides the administration with a diversionary spectacle, drowning out scandals that link Trump to Epstein and, by extension, to the culture of impunity within higher education and elite philanthropy.

---

Projection of Strength at Home, Weakness Abroad

Trump’s militarized display in the capital also serves as a contrast to his failure with Vladimir Putin over Alaska’s northern shipping lanes. As climate change opens new Arctic passages, Russia has aggressively asserted control. Trump’s administration has made bold promises to defend U.S. interests, but negotiations with Putin have yielded little. Instead, Russia continues to expand its military and commercial footprint while the U.S. presence stagnates.

Unable to project strength against Putin in the Arctic, Trump has turned to the symbolic occupation of Washington, D.C., where he can choreograph troops and police on American streets. It is authoritarian theater at home to mask diplomatic impotence abroad.

---

State Militias in the Capital

West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey framed the troop deployment as an act of patriotism, fulfilling a request from the Trump White House. But for many in D.C., the symbolism is chilling: a president calling on a neighboring state’s militia to police residents of a city that already lacks voting representation in Congress.

This arrangement underscores the fragility of D.C.’s democratic status. Residents now face not just local disenfranchisement, but the visible presence of outsiders in military fatigues patrolling their neighborhoods—all while national attention is steered away from elite corruption and foreign policy failure.

---

The Bigger Picture

Trump’s willingness to override the District’s autonomy fits neatly into a broader pattern of authoritarian spectacle. The militarized presence on D.C.’s streets may reassure his supporters, but it raises grave questions about precedent. If a president can federalize a city’s police and import out-of-state Guard troops in a moment of historically low crime, what is to stop him from doing so elsewhere?

And just as important: how many of these “emergencies” are staged diversions to shield him from accountability—not only for his political record, but for his ties to Epstein and his inability to stand up to Putin in Alaska?

For HEI, this story is not just about Washington. It is about how crisis politics and higher education’s complicity in elite networks of power intersect to protect the wealthy and connected, while ordinary citizens and students are left with militarized streets, unpayable debts, and shrinking democratic rights.

---

Sources

• Reuters: West Virginia governor to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. capital

• Politico: West Virginia deploys hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington

• Washington Post: D.C. to see more federal troops as Trump pushes to extend emergency

• Time: White House backs off ‘hostile takeover’ of D.C. police after lawsuit

• HEI: Trump Exploits the ‘Big Balls’ Assault

Alaska’s Colleges at the Meltdown’s Edge—Just as the Arctic Heats Up

Alaska’s higher-ed story is a preview of the national “College Meltdown,” only starker. The University of Alaska (UA) system—Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Southeast—has endured a decade of enrollment erosion and austerity politics, punctuated by a 2019 budget crisis that forced regents to declare financial exigency and consider consolidations. The immediate trigger was a proposed $130+ million state cut, later converted into a three-year reduction compact; the long tail is a weakened public research engine in the very state where climate change is moving fastest.

In 2025 the vise tightened again from Washington. UA’s president told regents that more than $50 million in grants had been frozen or canceled under the Trump administration, warning of staff cuts and program impacts if funds failed to materialize. Those freezes were part of a broader chill: federal agencies stepping back from research that even references climate change, just as the Arctic’s transformation accelerates.

This is not an abstract loss. Alaska is the frontline laboratory of global warming: thawing permafrost, vanishing sea ice, collapsing coastal bluffs. UA’s scientists have documented these trends in successive “Alaska’s Changing Environment” assessments; the 2024 update underscores rapid, measurable shifts across temperature, sea ice, wildfire, hydrology, and ecosystems. When the main public research institution loses people and projects, the United States loses the data and know-how it needs to respond.

Climate denial collides with national security

The contradiction at the heart of federal policy is glaring. On one hand, the Trump administration has proposed opening vast swaths of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to drilling and reversing environmental protections—signaling a bet on fossil expansion in a region already warming at double the global rate. On the other hand, the same administration is curtailing climate and Arctic science, even as military planners warn that the Arctic is becoming a contested theater. You can’t secure what you refuse to measure.

The security stakes are real. Russia has spent the past decade refurbishing Soviet-era bases, deploying ice-capable vessels, and leveraging energy projects along the Northern Sea Route (NSR). China has declared itself a “near-Arctic” power and partnered with Moscow on patrols and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the U.S. remains short on icebreakers and Arctic domain awareness—even as traffic through high-latitude passages grows more plausible in low-ice summers. Analysts project that a meaningful share of global shipping could shift north by mid-century, and recent reporting shows the region is already a strategic flashpoint.

That makes UA’s expertise more than a local asset; it’s a pillar of U.S. national security. The University of Alaska Fairbanks hosts the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (CASR) and degree pathways that fuse climate, emergency management, and security studies—exactly the interdisciplinary skill set defense, Coast Guard, and civil authorities will need as sea lanes open and storms, fires, and thaw-related failures multiply. Undercut these programs, and you undercut America’s ability to see, interpret, and act in the Arctic.

The costs of disinvestment

The 2019 state-level cuts did immediate damage—hiring freezes, program reviews, and fears of accreditation changes—but their larger effect was to signal instability to students, faculty, and funders. Austerity invites a spiral: as programs and personnel disappear, grant competitiveness slips; as labs lose continuity, agencies look elsewhere; as uncertainty grows, students choose out-of-state options. UA leadership has tried to reverse course—prioritizing enrollment, retention, and workforce alignment in recent budgets—but it’s difficult to rebuild a research reputation once the pipeline of projects and people is disrupted.

The 2025 federal freezes amplify that spiral by hitting precisely the projects that matter most: those with “climate” in the title. Researchers report program cancellations and re-scoped solicitations across agencies. That kind of ideological filter doesn’t just reduce funding—it distorts the evidence base that communities, tribal governments, and emergency planners depend on for everything from permafrost-safe housing to coastal relocation plans. It also weakens U.S. credibility in Arctic diplomacy at a time when the Arctic Council is strained and cooperation with Russia is largely stalled.

Why this matters beyond Alaska

Think of UA as America’s northern early-warning system. Its glaciologists, sea-ice modelers, fire scientists, and social scientists collect the longitudinal datasets that turn anecdotes into policy-relevant knowledge. Lose continuity, and you lose the ability to detect regime shifts—abrupt ecosystem changes, cascading infrastructure failures from thaw, new navigation windows that alter shipping economics and risk. Those changes feed directly into maritime safety, domain awareness, and the rules-of-the-road that will govern the NSR and other passages.

Meanwhile, federal moves to expand Arctic drilling create additional operational burdens for emergency response and environmental monitoring—burdens that fall on the same universities being told to do more with less. Opening the door to long-lived oil projects while throttling climate and environmental research is a recipe for higher spill risk, poorer oversight, and costlier disasters.

A pragmatic way forward

Three steps could stabilize UA and, by extension, America’s Arctic posture:

1. Firewall climate science from political interference. Agencies should fund Arctic research on merit, not language policing. Reinstating paused grants and re-issuing climate-related solicitations would immediately restore capacity in labs and field stations.

2. Treat UA as critical national infrastructure. Just as the U.S. is racing to modernize radar and add icebreakers, it should invest in Arctic science and workforce pipelines at UA—scholarships tied to Coast Guard and NOAA service, ship time for sea-ice and fisheries research, and support for Indigenous knowledge partnerships that improve on-the-ground resilience.

3. Align energy decisions with security reality. Every new Arctic extraction project increases environmental and emergency-response exposure in a region where capacity is thin. If policymakers proceed, they owe UA and Alaska communities the monitoring, baseline studies, and response investments that only a healthy public research university can sustain.

The paradox of the College Meltdown is that it hits hardest where public knowledge is most needed. In the Lower 48, that might mean fewer nurses or teachers. In Alaska, it means flying blind in a rapidly changing theater where Russia and China are already maneuvering and where coastlines, sea ice, and permafrost are literally moving under our feet. The University of Alaska is not a nice-to-have. It is how the United States knows what is happening in the Arctic—and how it prepares for what’s next. Weakening it in the name of budget discipline or culture-war messaging is not just shortsighted. It’s a security risk.

---

Sources

• University of Alaska Office of the President, FY2020 budget overview (state veto and reductions).

• University of Alaska Public Affairs timeline (2019 exigency and consolidation actions).

• Alaska Department of Administration, Dunleavy–UA three-year compact (2019).

• Anchorage Daily News, “$50M in grants frozen under Trump administration” (May 28, 2025).

• The Guardian, “Outcry as Trump withdraws support for research that mentions ‘climate’” (Feb. 21, 2025).

• UA/ACCAP, Alaska’s Changing Environment 2.0 (2024 update).

• UAF Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (programs and mission).

• Empower Alaska: UA Arctic expertise overview.

• Wall Street Journal, Russia/China Arctic power projection and U.S. capability gaps (Feb. 2025).

• The Arctic Institute, shipping projections for the Northern Sea Route.

• Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vulnerabilities and governance challenges on the NSR.

• The Guardian, rollback of protections in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (Aug. 2025).

• Alaska Public Media, uneven cuts to Arctic research under Trump (Apr. 2025).

Make America Crash Again (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

The United States faces a complex mix of economic, social, and environmental challenges that, if left unaddressed, could lead to a significant downturn. These challenges include ongoing financial speculation, escalating climate impacts, regulatory rollbacks, rising isolationism, expanding surveillance, immigration enforcement policies, tariff conflicts, and the shifting global balance with the rise of BRICS nations. Alongside these issues, the growing student debt crisis and institutional vulnerabilities compound the nation’s fragility.

Financial markets continue to carry risks linked to speculative activity, which could destabilize critical sectors. The student loan debt, now over $1.7 trillion and affecting millions, limits economic opportunities for many Americans. Particularly concerning are the high-cost, for-profit education models that leave students burdened without clear paths to stable employment. This financial strain reflects broader systemic weaknesses that threaten sustained growth.

Climate change has begun to have immediate effects, with increasing natural disasters disrupting communities and infrastructure. Reduced environmental regulations have intensified these risks, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations and increasing economic costs.

The rollback of regulatory protections in finance, environment, and education has allowed risky practices to grow while reducing oversight. This shift has raised the chances of economic shocks and deepened social inequalities.

Trade disputes and reduced international cooperation have weakened key economic and diplomatic relationships. At the same time, BRICS countries are expanding their influence, altering the global economic landscape in ways that require careful attention.

The expansion of surveillance programs and strict immigration enforcement have raised concerns about civil liberties and community trust. These pressures threaten the social cohesion needed to address larger systemic issues.

Recent reporting by the Higher Education Inquirer shows that the student debt crisis and speculative financial pressures in higher education mirror and magnify these broader challenges. The sector’s increasing reliance on debt financing not only affects students but also contributes to wider economic fragility (HEI 2025).

Earlier analysis emphasized that these trends were predictable outcomes of longstanding policy decisions and economic structures (HEI 2020).

             [Analysis of US Economic Downturns for duration and population impact]

Preventing a serious downturn requires coordinated action on multiple fronts. Strengthening regulations is necessary to reduce financial risks and protect consumers. Effective climate policies are essential, particularly those focused on vulnerable communities. Reforming higher education financing to reduce unsustainable debt burdens can ease economic pressures. Restoring international cooperation and fair trade practices will help rebuild economic and diplomatic relationships. Protecting civil rights and fostering social trust are crucial to maintaining social cohesion.

These issues are deeply interconnected and require comprehensive approaches.

Sources

Higher Education Inquirer, Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming...Again (June 2025): https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/06/lets-pretend-we-didnt-see-it-comingagain.html
Higher Education Inquirer, The US Working‑Class Depression: Let’s All Pretend We Couldn’t See It Coming (May 2020): https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2020/05/lets-all-pretend-we-couldnt-see-it.html
Federal Reserve, Consumer Credit Report, 2025
U.S. Department of Education, Student Loan Debt Statistics, 2025
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Sixth Assessment Report, 2023
Council on Foreign Relations, The BRICS and Global Power, 2024

When climate change dries out cloud computing (Bryan Alexander)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

Greetings from a northeastern Virginia where the heat has been brutal.  For several weeks we lived under temperatures reaching 100 ° F, while humidity sopped everything badly enough that the “feels like” reading hit 110.   (And the Trump administration decided to federalize and militarize DC – that’s for another post.)

North of us, epic wildfires burned swathes of Canada.  “‘It’s the size of New Brunswick, to put it into context,’ Mike Flannigan, a professor of wildland fire at Thompson Rivers University, told CBC News.” This is apparently the second worst fire year on record.  Climate change has not only increased temperatures in that nation but dried out regions, making them tinder.

Parts of Europe are also suffering under horrendous heat waves.  As a result the region is experiencing upticks in fires, heat exhaustion, and deaths.  Temperatures are hitting the 30s and even 40s (centigrade; for Americans, this means upper 90s and over 100 F).

I’d like to explain about how these are predictable outcomes of the worsening climate crisis, how global warming is doing precisely what we thought it would do, but I’d also like to get in the habit of issuing shorter blog posts. Besides, I suspect my readers either get the point or have turned away by now.

What I wanted to focus on today was a recent connection made between Europe’s fierce summar, the climate crisis… and digital technology.  Britain is suffering under drought conditions exacerbated by global warming, a drought so harsh that the government has assembled a National Drought Group to organize responses.  (One of my shorthand expressions for thinking of climate change is that regions with too much water will receive more, while those with less, less.  A kind of climate Matthew Effect. The UK drought is an exception for now.)

Yesterday the drought team issued a report on the crisis, summing up steps various local authorities are taking along with series of recommendations for Britons wanting to take actions against the drought.  I’d like to draw your attention to one of them:

Fiery red box not in the original.

“Delete old emails and pictures as data centres require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.”

There’s much we can say or ask about that single line.  Just how much of an impact does cloud computing hosting have on British water use? If this is aimed at residents, are businesses or the government taking similar measures? Should one use cloud services not colocated in drought-stricken areas?

At a broader level I wonder about the possibility that the growing anti-digital movement, which some call the techlash, might finally become focused on climate implications.  Do we decide that advanced computing (think generative AI or bitcoin mining) has too large a footprint and must be curtailed? Or do we instead assess its climate benefits – crunching vast arrays of data, running simulations, generating new research – as outweighing these costs?

For years I’ve been asking audiences about the climate-digital connection. I’ve asked people to imagine individual and group choices they might have to make in the future as the crisis worsens and electricity becomes more fragile, more restricted. These are provocative, clarifying questions. Think of choosing between WiFi and air conditioning, or cloud computing versus refrigeration. And now we have a first glimpse of that future with the British government requesting Britons to cut back their digital memories.  We can imagine new questions in that light. How would you choose between streaming video and potable water, or Zoom versus crop irrigation?

The Higher Education Inquirer reminds us of the higher education implications.

For colleges and universities, the connection between digital behavior and resource conservation is an opportunity to model sustainability. Digital housekeeping campaigns could encourage staff and students to purge outdated files, trim redundant email chains, and archive with intent. Institutions can audit cloud storage use, revisit data retention policies, and prioritize providers that invest in energy- and water-efficient infrastructure. These choices can be paired with curriculum initiatives that make students aware of the climate–digital nexus, grounding sustainability not just in labs and gardens, but in inboxes and servers.

Indeed.  These actions are available to us, should we choose to take them.

Yet this is a difficult conversation to have now, at least in the United States, as the Trump administration attacks climate science even to the point of hurling a satellite out of Earth orbit.  Businesses are walking back climate commitments. Journalists don’t mention the crisis very often. Democrats are falling silent.  Yet, strangely enough, climate change continues, ratcheting up steadily.  We must think and act in response.  That means, among other things, rethinking our digital infrastructure and practices.

Comparing Adjunct Faculty Conditions: 2006 vs. 2025 — From Crisis to Collapse (Glen McGhee*)

In 2006, Washington state adjunct advocate Keith Hoeller described a higher education labor system already in deep trouble—adjuncts were underpaid, lacked job security, and served as a buffer protecting tenured faculty from cuts. Nearly two decades later, those warnings seem less like early alarms and more like an obituary for the tenure system. By 2025, the crisis has metastasized.

Pay and Financial Security: Poverty Wages Become the Norm

In 2006, Hoeller reported that Washington community college adjuncts earned just 57 cents for every dollar paid to their full-time colleagues. The disparity persists—and in some ways, it has widened. Today, more than a quarter of adjuncts report earning under $26,500 a year, below the federal poverty line for a family of four.

Course pay in 2025 still averages between $2,500 and $5,000, with some positions offering as little as $1,500 per course. Melissa Olson-Petrie’s 2025 account captures the reality vividly: adjuncts can be “required in teaching five or more classes a semester, with occasional overload schedules depleting your very marrow,” yet still earn tens of thousands less annually than full-time peers.

Job Security and Contract Precarity: From Insecure to Systematically Disposable

Adjuncts in 2006 faced last-minute class cancellations and almost no job security. In 2025, the instability is institutionalized. Seventy-six percent of part-time contingent faculty are on short-term, nonrenewable contracts. Olson-Petrie notes that adjuncts can lose all scheduled work with only seven days’ notice before a semester begins.

The Scale of Adjunctification: Contingency Becomes the Default

In 1987, 47 percent of U.S. faculty held contingent appointments; by 2006, there were about half a million adjunct professors. In 2025, 68 percent of all faculty are contingent, and 49 percent are part-time. This is no longer a marginal or temporary workforce—it is the dominant teaching corps in American higher education.

Union Representation: Gains, Losses, and Legislative Blows

Unionization of academic workers has expanded since 2006, with graduate student organizing seeing a 133 percent increase between 2012 and 2024. Yet the structural imbalance Hoeller warned of remains: full-time faculty often dominate mixed bargaining units, leaving adjunct priorities underrepresented.

The 2025 landscape also includes outright reversals. In Florida, where adjunct organizing had surged, all eight adjunct faculty unions—representing more than 8,000 professors—were dissolved in 2024 under state law requiring 60 percent dues-paying membership.

Academic Freedom: Now an Explicit Target

In both 2006 and 2025, adjuncts lacked tenure protections. But in the current political climate, academic freedom is under direct attack. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education warns that when three out of four professors lack tenure, political retaliation becomes easier. Recent non-reappointments at CUNY of adjuncts advocating for Palestinian rights show how swiftly dissenting voices can be silenced.

Federal and Institutional Pressures: The Trump Freeze and Funding Cuts

New forces compound old problems. Under the Trump administration, federal funding cuts, research grant threats, and hiring freezes have hit even the wealthiest universities. Institutions from Harvard to state schools are eliminating positions, further constricting opportunities for full-time, stable faculty roles.

Structural Deterioration: A Fully Entrenched Two-Tier System

Hoeller’s 2006 call for adjuncts to form independent bargaining units largely went unheeded. Full-time faculty continue to benefit from adjunct labor as a flexible shield against cuts, while adjuncts themselves are treated—per Olson-Petrie—as “little more than a high-quality paper towel within the academy.”

From Labor Problem to Institutional Crisis

Nearly every issue identified in 2006 has worsened. Today’s 68 percent contingent faculty rate represents not just a failure to protect academic labor but a transformation of the profession itself. The adjunct of 2025 faces economic exploitation, permanent precarity, and political vulnerability in an environment where structural reform has stalled, and in many cases, reversed.

Without systemic change—separately empowered unions, funding reinvestment, and real job security—the profession risks losing its foundation: the ability of educators to teach freely, securely, and sustainably.

Sources: Inside Higher Ed, AAUP, NEA, SEIU Faculty Forward, FIRE, ACE, Higher Ed Dive, U.S. News, AFT.

*Aided by ChatGBT. 

Campus Warning: Avoid Contact with Turning Point USA

Turning Point USA (TPUSA) brands itself as a conservative youth movement dedicated to free markets and limited government. In reality, a growing body of investigative reporting, watchdog research, and student testimony reveals an organization built on intimidation, manipulation, and close ties to extremists. Students should be aware of the risks before engaging with TPUSA in any capacity.

From its inception, TPUSA has sought to be confrontational. One of its most notorious tools, the Professor Watchlist, publishes the names, photos, and alleged offenses of professors the group deems “anti-conservative.” This public shaming campaign has been condemned by educators and civil liberties advocates as a threat to academic freedom and personal safety. In more recent years, TPUSA has expanded its targets beyond individual professors, with initiatives like the School Board Watchlist, designed to stir distrust of public education and stoke fear around diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

These campaigns are paired with questionable political tactics. Investigations have shown that TPUSA has engaged in covert influence efforts on college campuses, including secretly funding student government elections and running coordinated online disinformation campaigns. Their political arm, Turning Point Action, has been compared to a troll farm for its use of deceptive social media operations.

The group’s leadership and chapters have repeatedly been linked to white supremacist and far-right extremist figures. TPUSA events have hosted or associated with members of Nick Fuentes’ “Groyper” movement, Holocaust deniers, and other alt-right personalities. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, and multiple journalists have documented these associations, which TPUSA leaders routinely downplay. Internal communications and leaked chapter messages have exposed racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic rhetoric from members. Charlie Kirk, TPUSA’s founder, once falsely claimed that a Black woman had “taken his place” at West Point, a statement criticized as both untrue and racially inflammatory.

TPUSA’s messaging also extends beyond politics into science denial. The group has repeatedly dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change, framing environmental concerns as a hoax or left-wing scare tactic, and hosting events that platform climate change skeptics over credible experts. TPUSA has received significant funding from fossil fuel interests, including Koch network-affiliated donors, and from political megadonors such as Foster Friess and Rebekah Mercer, who are known for underwriting climate denial campaigns. Other key allies include right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and media figures such as Tucker Carlson, who have amplified TPUSA’s messaging to broader audiences. The organization has also benefitted from support by religious nationalist groups and political operatives who share its hardline positions on education, race, and gender.

TPUSA’s confrontational model often invites chaos. At UC Davis, a TPUSA-sponsored event erupted into physical clashes involving Proud Boys. Across campuses, students and faculty report that TPUSA representatives deliberately provoke heated exchanges, record them, and circulate the footage to mobilize their base and fundraise off manufactured outrage. Former members have confirmed that such confrontations are not accidental, but rather part of the playbook.

While TPUSA presents itself as a mainstream conservative voice, the evidence paints a darker picture: an organization willing to distort, harass, and align with extremists to achieve its goals. Students seeking honest political debate should look for groups that engage in respectful dialogue, value truth over theatrics, and reject intimidation as a tool.

Sources:
Southern Poverty Law Center – Turning Point USA: Case Study in the Hard Right
Media Matters – Turning Point USA’s History of Racism and White Nationalist Ties
The New Yorker – A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity
Anti-Defamation League – Extremism in American Politics: Turning Point USA
Wired – How Charlie Kirk Plans to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act
Chron – Texas A&M Turning Point Chat Exposes Racist and Homophobic Comments
The Guardian – What I Learned When Turning Point USA Came to My Campus
OpenSecrets – Turning Point USA Donors and Political Funding
DeSmog – Turning Point USA and Fossil Fuel Industry Influence

Trump's Jobs Plan: Soldiers, ICE Agents, and Detention Camp Guards

Former President Donald Trump has long marketed himself as a job creator, promising economic revival and prosperity for working Americans. Yet, his latest “Jobs Plan” reveals a far narrower and more troubling vision of employment growth — one rooted not in manufacturing, infrastructure, or green energy, but in expanding militarized enforcement and immigration control. The new jobs Trump champions are overwhelmingly those of soldiers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, and detention camp guards.

Militarizing the Workforce

At the core of Trump’s employment proposal is a dramatic expansion of the armed forces. This includes increased recruitment and funding to build a larger, more heavily equipped military. While proponents argue this enhances national security and deterrence, the plan’s emphasis on military jobs underscores a troubling prioritization of conflict readiness over social investment.

The creation of more soldier positions aligns with Trump’s broader geopolitical posture, which has often leaned toward aggressive military stances and expanded overseas engagement. These jobs are often physically demanding and high risk, and critics note they primarily serve the interests of defense contractors and political ambitions rather than domestic economic health.

Expanding ICE and Border Enforcement

Equally central to the plan is a push to enlarge Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s workforce. Trump calls for more ICE agents tasked with enforcing immigration laws through raids, deportations, and border patrols. This expansion comes at a time when ICE is already deeply controversial for its role in separating families, conducting workplace raids, and detaining undocumented immigrants under often harsh conditions.

The jobs Trump promotes in this sector are part of a broader immigration enforcement regime that critics have labeled as cruel and counterproductive. By hiring more agents, the plan essentially aims to intensify policing of immigrant communities, heightening fear and insecurity for millions of people living in the United States.

Guarding Detention Facilities

The plan also supports the growth of detention facilities to house increasing numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers. This includes hiring more detention camp guards to staff these centers. These roles involve overseeing often overcrowded and under-resourced facilities, where detainees have reported inadequate medical care, poor sanitation, and in some cases, abuse.

The expansion of detention capacity—and its associated workforce—raises ethical and human rights concerns. Advocates emphasize that these are not “jobs” in the conventional sense that foster healthy communities; rather, they sustain a system of incarceration that many compare to modern-day internment camps. Such employment ties economic opportunity to the perpetuation of incarceration and marginalization.

What This Means for Economic Justice

By focusing job creation on soldiers, ICE agents, and detention camp guards, Trump’s plan sidesteps opportunities for broad-based economic recovery. Sectors like education, healthcare, renewable energy, and infrastructure — which could generate millions of jobs with long-term benefits — receive little to no attention.

This approach reinforces a vision of the economy that values security and control over social well-being and equity. It also disproportionately impacts communities of color and immigrants, entangling economic policy with racialized enforcement practices.

The consequences are clear: job growth tied to expanding enforcement agencies may deliver short-term employment but risks deepening social divisions, eroding civil rights, and perpetuating systemic injustice.

Alternatives and the Path Forward

Critics urge policymakers and the public to demand investment in sectors that build human capital, address climate change, and support vulnerable populations. Sustainable job creation should focus on rebuilding schools, hospitals, public transportation, and clean energy infrastructure — sectors proven to stimulate the economy while enhancing quality of life.

At a time when economic inequality is widening and the climate crisis intensifies, the Trump Jobs Plan offers a stark choice: continue down a path where employment grows through militarization and enforcement, or pursue a future centered on justice, opportunity, and sustainable development.

Sources:

• The Intercept: "The Human Cost of ICE’s Expanding Enforcement"

• Reuters: "U.S. Military Recruitment and Funding Under Trump"

• The Guardian: "Conditions Inside U.S. Immigration Detention Centers"

• National Public Radio (NPR): "ICE Staffing Increases Amid Immigration Crackdown"

• Center for Immigration Studies: "Employment Trends in Immigration Enforcement"

"Why Should I Bring a Child Into This?": Gen Z’s Reproductive Strike and What It Says About Higher Education and the Climate Crisis

A recent report covered by MSN reveals a growing phenomenon: millions of teenagers in the United States say they never plan to have children—and one of the leading reasons is climate change. This sobering shift in personal and generational priorities is not just a cultural footnote. It is a profound indictment of the systems that failed to offer hope for the future. And among those systems, higher education plays an overlooked but complicit role.

The article, originally reported by USA Today, quotes students across the country who describe the prospect of parenting as irresponsible, even cruel, given the current climate trajectory. Some reference collapsing ecosystems, rising sea levels, extreme weather, and political inaction. Others cite the emotional toll of living in a world where they believe things will only get worse.

For those of us at the Higher Education Inquirer, these testimonies hit with more than just empathy. They reflect the culmination of decades of institutional neglect—where universities have profited off fossil fuel investments, watered down sustainability programs, partnered with carbon-intensive corporations, and taught apolitical STEM curricula as if climate denial wasn’t a social phenomenon to be understood and confronted.

Beyond “Climate Anxiety”: A Rational Response

The term climate anxiety is often used to pathologize young people’s fears. But what if their decision not to reproduce isn’t just emotional—it’s rational? These teens are seeing the long view. They’re watching coral reefs bleach, forests burn, heat records break monthly, and global elites gather for climate summits with little but platitudes to show.

Their refusal to have children is not apathy. It’s resistance. A form of protest. What used to be a personal decision has become a political one.

The Higher Ed Connection

Higher education has long claimed to be a leader in sustainability, climate science, and public discourse. And yet, when it comes to confronting the deeper roots of ecological destruction—capitalism, colonialism, the military-industrial complex, and yes, the higher education system itself—most institutions have either gone silent or opted for greenwashing.

Universities continue to:

• Accept massive donations from fossil fuel billionaires.

• House think tanks and business schools that promote endless economic growth.

• Invest endowments in carbon-heavy portfolios.

• Sell students the myth that a degree will solve their personal future, even as the collective future deteriorates.

Meanwhile, young people in middle school and high school are already making life-altering decisions based on what they see—and what they don’t see: real accountability or meaningful change from their elders’ institutions.

A Warning Higher Ed Can’t Ignore

If colleges and universities are serious about their claims to be incubators of the future, they can’t ignore the fact that a significant portion of that future now feels it has no reason to exist. Young people are not only opting out of parenthood—they are increasingly questioning the value of traditional life scripts: college, career, mortgage, family. The entire package is unraveling.

This is not just a demographic trend. It’s a moral judgment.

The institutions that educated yesterday’s leaders now face a credibility crisis. Students are watching closely. And they are making decisions—about reproduction, education, consumption, and activism—based on what they see and what they refuse to inherit.

Higher education must reckon with the reality that its credibility, like the climate, is heating toward a breaking point.

---

Source:
"Millions of teens report they won't ever have kids due to climate change — here's why." MSN / USA Today, August 2023.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/millions-of-teens-report-they-won-t-ever-have-kids-due-to-climate-change-here-s-why/ss-AA1JT4Pg

UF’s Climate Commitment Cancelled—Student Journalists Pick Up the Slack

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we’ve long tracked the creeping politicization, corporatization, and hollowing-out of American higher education. But we also know that some of the most important journalism in this space isn’t coming from cable news or legacy media—it’s being done by student reporters working late nights in underfunded college newsrooms.

That’s why we’re launching a new initiative: to amplify and highlight outstanding student journalism that exposes institutional failures, lifts up marginalized voices, and brings transparency to power.

We begin by spotlighting vital reporting from The Independent Florida Alligator, the student-run newspaper at the University of Florida.

In an August 7th article, "UF shuts down Office of Sustainability," student journalists revealed that UF has abruptly dismantled its Office of Sustainability. The decision was made quietly, with no input from students or faculty. The office had led the university’s efforts on climate action, environmental education, waste reduction, and green infrastructure.

The story goes far beyond campus housekeeping—it reflects a larger pattern of political interference under Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Programs tied to environmentalism, racial equity, and academic freedom have come under fire as part of a sweeping campaign to reshape public education into a vehicle for conservative ideology.

Staff from the sustainability office have reportedly been reassigned to facilities management, signaling a shift in priorities from systemic environmental change to mere operational efficiency. The message is clear: climate action is no longer a public commitment, but a liability.

This is happening in a state already suffering the consequences of climate change—rising sea levels, stronger hurricanes, dangerous heat waves. Universities, especially public ones, should be at the forefront of scientific and civic leadership. Instead, they’re retreating. And student journalists are left to do the work that administrators won’t.

HEI’s New Commitment to Student Journalism

The Higher Education Inquirer is proud to support and amplify the work of student journalists who are holding institutions accountable. With shrinking professional newsrooms and growing institutional secrecy, student-run papers remain a critical watchdog in American higher education.

We encourage our readers to follow, share, and support publications like The Alligator. Their work is a public service—and they’re doing it with fewer resources and greater risks than many professionals.

We’ll be featuring more stories like this in the months ahead. If you’re a student journalist breaking news, blowing whistles, or investigating injustice in higher education, we want to hear from you.

Source:

• The Independent Florida Alligator, August 7, 2025: “UF shuts down Office of Sustainability”

The Serenity Prayer, Climate Collapse, and Genocide: A Deal with the Devil

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."

The Serenity Prayer has comforted millions. In times of personal struggle, it can be a powerful call to surrender what lies beyond one’s control. But in moments of global crisis, when powerful institutions profit from destruction, the prayer can function less as a path to peace and more as a pact of passivity—a deal with the devil.

This danger becomes stark in the face of two intertwined realities: planetary climate collapse and the mass suffering of human populations through war and genocide. While glaciers melt and firestorms raze entire regions, and while families in Gaza are buried beneath rubble from precision airstrikes, too many well-meaning individuals offer only whispered prayers for acceptance. The language of “serenity” has become a spiritual sedative, numbing people to action in the face of unprecedented violence.

The horror in Gaza is not isolated. It is the latest chapter in a long history of calculated brutality. For more than nine months, Israeli forces have carried out one of the most intensive bombing campaigns of the century, reducing schools, hospitals, and apartment blocks to ash. Palestinians—already confined, stateless, and starving—are told to disappear quietly. And in the United States, many of the most powerful evangelical Christian institutions offer not protest, but prayer. They do not condemn the bombs. They bless them.

This theology of inaction extends to the climate crisis as well. Fires in Canada have darkened skies from New York to Kentucky. Rising seas threaten to erase Pacific island nations and entire Gulf communities. Extreme heat has shattered records from Delhi to Phoenix. The science is clear, and has been for decades. The cause is clear: the burning of fossil fuels for profit. And yet, rather than confront the systems responsible, many Americans—especially in religious communities—retreat into familiar verses, trusting in divine will while oil executives thank them for their silence.

This pattern is old. During the genocide of Native Americans, Christian settlers invoked scripture to justify massacres. Indigenous nations were labeled “heathens” standing in the way of Manifest Destiny. Boarding schools were built to “kill the Indian, save the man.” Entire civilizations were wiped out in the name of order, law, and even God. Churches, rather than stand with the oppressed, often operated hand-in-hand with empire. They prayed not for justice, but for tranquility—after the land had been stolen and the people erased.

In the twentieth century, many Christian leaders remained silent during the Holocaust. In the Rwandan genocide, clergy sometimes aided the killers. Again and again, the lesson is clear: serenity without resistance is complicity.

And today, we see this same quiet complicity in American Christian higher education. At Liberty University—a billion-dollar religious empire—the Serenity Prayer might just as well hang above the boardroom. The institution thrives on a mixture of fundamentalist certainty, political power, and economic ambition. Its law school has become a breeding ground for conservative legal warriors who reinterpret justice through dominionist theology. Its Jesse Helms School of Government honors a segregationist legacy while preparing students for ideological battle. Climate science is downplayed. Militarism is sanctified. And genocide—whether in the name of security or salvation—is never named.

In such an environment, prayer becomes performance. It soothes the conscience while injustice metastasizes. It gives believers a moral loophole: if change is deemed impossible, no action is required. But change is not impossible. Resistance is not futile. And silence is not neutral.

We must reclaim the Serenity Prayer from the institutions that have weaponized it. Serenity cannot be the first response to atrocity. Courage must lead, especially when the victims are silenced. Wisdom must include historical memory—of the land theft that built America, of the smoke rising from Gaza, of the forests burning in Siberia and the Sahel. And acceptance must come only after struggle, not before it.

The future will not judge us for how often we prayed, but for what we did while praying. In an age of climate catastrophe and global injustice, serenity without struggle is not peace—it is surrender.

Sources:
Reinhold Niebuhr, The Serenity Prayer and its Contexts, Library of Congress
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), “Gaza Emergency Reports” (2023–2025)
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report (2023)
Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Apparent War Crimes in Gaza” (2024)
Samantha Power, "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide
Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything
Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt
Democracy Now!, “Witnessing the Gaza Bombardment”
Center for Environmental Justice, “Climate Apartheid” Report
Higher Education Inquirer, “Liberty University: A Billion-Dollar Edu-Religious Powerhouse Under the Lens” (2025)

General Costin’s Crusade: Liberty University and the Rise of Christian Authoritarianism

In July 2023, Liberty University appointed retired Major General Dr. Dondi E. Costin as its sixth president. A decorated U.S. Air Force chaplain with 36 years of military service, Costin’s career culminated as the 18th Air Force Chief of Chaplains. While his leadership credentials are impressive, his appointment raises significant questions about the militarization of higher education leadership and what it signals for Liberty University’s future direction.

A Military Leader in the Ivory Tower?

Higher education is traditionally a space for critical inquiry, academic freedom, and the nurturing of diverse perspectives. Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell Sr. and often described as America’s largest Christian university, occupies a contentious position — intertwining evangelical conservatism with academia. The addition of a former high-ranking military officer, steeped in hierarchy, discipline, and obedience, risks further constraining intellectual openness and reinforcing authoritarian tendencies within the institution.

Universities thrive on dialogue, dissent, and academic freedom — values often at odds with the command-and-control ethos of military structures. The concern is whether Dr. Costin’s leadership will prioritize conformity over the open exchange of ideas fundamental to higher learning.

Liberty’s Law School: A Conservative Legal Powerhouse

Liberty’s School of Law has grown rapidly into an influential institution within conservative legal circles. It positions itself as a training ground for lawyers dedicated to defending Christian values in courts and policy arenas nationwide. The school’s curriculum explicitly emphasizes “Christian worldview” approaches to law, often at odds with mainstream legal scholarship.

Graduates of Liberty Law are increasingly visible in conservative judicial appointments and legal advocacy organizations that push for legislation restricting abortion rights, rolling back LGBTQ+ protections, and challenging the separation of church and state. The school’s aggressive promotion of religious conservatism through legal channels reinforces Liberty’s broader goal of shaping America’s political and cultural landscape in alignment with Christian fundamentalism.

The Jesse Helms School of Government: Shaping the Next Generation of Conservative Leaders

Named after the late Senator Jesse Helms, a staunch conservative and evangelical advocate, Liberty’s Jesse Helms School of Government furthers the university’s mission to cultivate political leaders committed to advancing Christian fundamentalist policies. The school provides training in public policy, political science, and leadership — all deeply infused with evangelical Christian ideology.

This school plays a crucial role in preparing students to enter government and political organizations aligned with Liberty’s vision, promoting a fusion of religion and politics that many critics argue undermines democratic pluralism and the constitutional separation of church and state.

From Separation of Church and State to Theocracy

Historically, many in the Religious Right once upheld the principle of separation of church and state — a constitutional safeguard preventing government endorsement of any religion. Yet over recent decades, there has been a marked ideological shift. Today’s Religious Right increasingly embraces a vision of theocracy: governing according to religious law and doctrine.

Liberty University exemplifies this shift. Founded as an evangelical bastion, it has evolved into a political and religious powerhouse seeking to reshape American society around a narrowly defined evangelical worldview. This movement blurs constitutional boundaries, aiming to replace secular governance with religiously based rule.

Christian Fundamentalism vs. Scientific Consensus

Liberty’s curriculum and public messaging consistently promote Christian fundamentalist beliefs, often rejecting established scientific understandings. For example:

• Evolution: Liberty’s biology courses teach creationism or intelligent design as alternatives to evolution, contradicting the overwhelming scientific consensus.

• Climate Change: The university’s stance downplays human-driven climate change, undermining environmental science education.

• Reproductive Health: Liberty promotes abstinence-only education and opposes contraception and abortion rights, often relying on religious doctrine rather than medical science.

Such conflicts erode the academic credibility of Liberty University and call into question the preparedness of its graduates for careers in science, medicine, or public policy.

A Billion-Dollar Edu-Religious Empire

Liberty’s vast financial empire — boasting nearly $1.6 billion in annual revenue and $4.2 billion in assets — underscores its ambitions beyond education. Its aggressive online program recruitment, which frequently leaves students with significant debt and limited job prospects, raises ethical questions about exploiting faith for financial gain.

Implications for Students, Faculty, and the Broader Academic Community

Students and faculty deserve environments that encourage free thought, debate, and scholarly rigor. The presence of a former military general whose leadership style may emphasize hierarchy and obedience raises fears of increased ideological conformity and suppression of dissent.

As Liberty deepens its fusion of religious authority, military discipline, and political activism, it risks transforming the university into a training ground for theocratic governance rather than a place of open academic inquiry.

Theocracy U

Dr. Dondi E. Costin’s appointment signals more than a mere administrative change at Liberty University. It reflects a broader ideological and institutional transformation toward authoritarianism and theocracy within a major U.S. higher education institution.

As the Religious Right continues to challenge foundational American principles — including separation of church and state — it is critical that educators, policymakers, and the public scrutinize how these shifts affect academic freedom, institutional integrity, and the future of higher education.

Liberty’s students, faculty, and wider society deserve transparency and vigilance to ensure universities remain spaces of learning and critical inquiry — not battlegrounds for religious and political domination.

---

Sources

• Higher Education Inquirer, “Liberty University’s Billion-Dollar Edu-Religious Empire,” July 2025
  https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/07/liberty-university-billion-dollar-edu.html

• Liberty University Official Website, “School of Law”
  https://www.liberty.edu/law/

• Liberty University Official Website, “Jesse Helms School of Government”
  https://www.liberty.edu/government/

• National Center for Science Education, “Creationism and Intelligent Design”
  https://ncse.ngo/creationism-intelligent-design

• Pew Research Center, “Religious Right’s Shift Toward Theocracy,” 2024 Report
  https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/12/

• Inside Higher Ed, “Liberty University’s Influence in Conservative Legal Circles,” 2023
  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/11/15/liberty-law-school-conservative-legal-education

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

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

From Bullets to Ideas: The Evolution of Warfare

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

The Christian Right’s Domestic Insurgency

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

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

The Epistemological Battlefield and Christian Reconstructionism

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

The Quiet War’s Implications for Higher Education and Society

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

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

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

Fighting for the Soul of Democracy and Education

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

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

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

---

Sources:

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

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

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

• Rushdoony, Rousas John. Christian Reconstructionism

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

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

Climate Change 101: This college campus may be literally underwater sooner than you think

Stockton University’s Atlantic City campus may be treading water—literally and figuratively. Built in 2018 on a stretch of reclaimed land in the South Inlet neighborhood, the coastal satellite of Stockton University sits just a few hundred feet from the Atlantic Ocean. With scenic views and beachfront access, it was marketed as a fresh vision for higher education: experiential learning by the sea.

But according to Rutgers University’s Climate Impact Lab and corroborated by NOAA sea level rise projections, that vision may be short-lived. In less than 50 years, large portions of the campus could be underwater—possibly permanently. In fact, with high tide flooding already happening more frequently in Atlantic City and sea levels expected to rise 2 to 5 feet by 2100 depending on emissions, climate change poses an existential threat not just to Stockton’s Atlantic City facilities, but to the broader idea of oceanfront higher education.

The Science: Rutgers’ Stark Warning

Rutgers’ 2021 “New Jersey Science and Technical Advisory Panel Report” projected sea level rise in the state could exceed 2.1 feet by 2050 and 5.1 feet by 2100 under high emissions scenarios. Even under moderate mitigation efforts, the sea is projected to rise 1.4 to 3.1 feet by 2070, placing critical infrastructure—including roads, utility networks, and public buildings—at risk. Stockton’s coastal campus is among them.

A Teachable Crisis

For students and faculty in environmental science, public policy, and urban planning, Stockton's Atlantic City campus is both classroom and case study. Professors can point to flooding events just blocks away as real-time lessons in sea level rise, coastal erosion, and infrastructure vulnerability. Students witness firsthand the tension between development and environmental limits.

Yet these lived experiences also raise ethical questions. Is the university preparing students for the reality of climate displacement—or is it merely weathering the storm until the next round of state funding? Are public institutions being honest about the long-term risks students will face, not just as residents but as debt-burdened alumni?

In many ways, Stockton’s presence in Atlantic City epitomizes the “climate denial by development” that characterizes so much U.S. urban planning: Build now, mitigate later, and leave tomorrow’s collapse for someone else to manage.

No Easy Retreat

Climate adaptation strategies in Atlantic City have been slow-moving, expensive, and often controversial. Proposed solutions—such as sea walls, elevating roads, and managed retreat—require enormous financial and political capital. There’s also no consensus on how to preserve equity in a shrinking, sinking city.

For Stockton University, retreating from the Atlantic City campus would be politically and financially damaging. The expansion was celebrated with ribbon-cuttings and bipartisan support. Pulling back now would mean acknowledging a costly miscalculation. Yet failing to plan for relocation or phased withdrawal could leave students and taxpayers on the hook for an underwater investment.

According to the New Jersey Coastal Resilience Plan, Atlantic County—home to Stockton’s main and satellite campuses—is one of the most climate-exposed counties in the state. And Stockton isn’t just sitting in the floodplain; it’s training the very people who will be tasked with managing these emergencies. It has both a responsibility and an opportunity to lead, not just in mitigation but in public reckoning.

Lessons for Higher Ed

Stockton is hardly the only university caught between mission and market. Across the U.S., colleges and universities are pouring resources into branding campaigns and capital projects that ignore—or actively obscure—the long-term environmental risks. Climate change is often treated as a course offering, not an existential threat.

In Universities on Fire, Bryan Alexander outlines how climate change will fundamentally reshape the higher education landscape—from facilities planning to enrollment, from energy consumption to curriculum design. He warns that campuses, particularly those located near coasts or in extreme heat zones, face not just infrastructural threats but institutional crises. Rising waters, wildfires, hurricanes, and population shifts will force universities to rethink their physical footprints, economic models, and public obligations.

Yet few accreditors or bond-rating agencies have accounted for climate risk in their evaluations. Endowments continue to fund construction in flood-prone areas. Boards of trustees prioritize expansion over retreat. And students, many of whom are first-generation or low-income, are seldom told what climate vulnerability could mean for the real value of their degrees—or the safety of their dormitories.

As sea levels rise and climate models grow more precise, Stockton’s Atlantic City campus may become a symbol—not just of poor urban planning, but of an education system unprepared for the world it claims to be shaping.

What Comes Next?

For now, Stockton continues to expand its Atlantic City footprint, even as new reports suggest that this part of the Jersey Shore may be uninhabitable or cost-prohibitive to protect in a few decades. The university has proposed additional student housing and even a new coastal research center. But each new building reinforces the same flawed logic: that short-term gains outweigh long-term collapse.

At some point, Stockton University—and many other coastal institutions—will have to decide whether to keep investing in property that’s literally slipping into the sea, or to model the kind of resilience and foresight they claim to teach.

Because this is not just a sustainability issue. It’s a justice issue. It’s a debt issue. It’s a survival issue.

And it’s happening now.

Sources

Bryan Alexander. Universities on Fire: Higher Education in the Climate Crisis. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023.

NJ Department of Environmental Protection. Resilient NJ: Statewide Coastal Resilience Plan. 2020.

Rutgers University. New Jersey Climate Change Resource Center.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Back Bay Study – New Jersey.

New Jersey Future. “Climate Risks and Infrastructure in Atlantic County.”

Stockton University. Strategic Plan 2025: Choosing Our Path.

NOAA. State of High Tide Flooding and Sea Level Rise 2023 Technical Report.