Medugrift and the price makers in higher education

In the United States, the cost of higher education is not a natural phenomenon. It is deliberately constructed by a network of institutional actors who function as price makers: university presidents, chief financial officers, boards of trustees, governors, and state legislators. They determine what students pay, how institutions are structured, and whose interests higher education ultimately serves. Their decisions shape tuition, labor conditions, program priorities, and the balance between education and the expanding world of medugrift—the hybrid system where medicine, education, debt, and corporate extraction intersect.

For decades, the American public has been told that tuition rises because education is inherently expensive. But as Richard Wolff argues in his critiques of the “War on the Working Class,” the economic decisions shaping tuition, labor costs, athletics, administrative growth, and capital projects reflect class priorities. The price makers choose which costs are fundamental and which are negotiable. They choose what gets built, who gets hired, and how much debt institutions take on. They choose who pays.

University presidents now act more like corporate executives than academic leaders. They negotiate seven-figure salaries, travel globally for fundraising, and preside over campuses where luxury construction often outruns academic needs. They approve budgets that elevate branding and athletics while pressuring academic departments to justify their existence through profit metrics. Tuition increases rarely slow presidential compensation; instead, they are framed as regrettable necessities dictated by “the market” or “competitive realities.”

CFOs enforce a financial logic that prioritizes credit ratings, cash reserves, and debt-financed expansion. They present budgets as neutral, but each line reflects a hierarchy of value. Instruction is cast as a cost center. Staff health care, faculty benefits, and student services become “inefficiencies.” Meanwhile, massive expenditures on consultants, real estate, information systems, and administration are justified as essential to “modernization.” The result is predictable: the people who teach and learn bear the burden while those who administer expand.

Trustees represent another layer of price making. Often drawn from banking, private equity, real estate, biotech, and corporate medicine, trustees bring a worldview shaped by capital accumulation rather than public service. They authorize tuition hikes, approve investment strategies, and greenlight partnerships that blend public education with private profit. Many trustees sit simultaneously on hospital boards or medical investment firms, allowing medugrift to flourish in the shadows of institutional legitimacy. Their decisions shape which programs expand, which shrink, and which students are offered genuine opportunity.

State governors and legislators are external architects of scarcity. Since the 1980s, state governments have systematically defunded public higher education while channeling resources to mass incarceration, gambling revenue schemes, corporate tax breaks, and subsidies to companies like Amazon. These choices undermine the ability of public institutions to remain affordable and force them to operate increasingly like private universities. The shift from public funding to tuition revenue is not inevitable; it is a political strategy. HBCUs and tribal colleges have lived with this manufactured scarcity for generations. Their chronic underfunding—documented in numerous state audits and federal investigations—illustrates what happens when government treats education for marginalized communities as optional.

The emergence of medugrift reveals a deeper structural problem. At the intersection of higher education and corporate medicine sits an engine of extraction. University medical systems leverage public funding, student tuition, and philanthropic contributions to build financial empires that often serve administrators first and communities last. Medical schools charge extreme tuition while placing students into debt-heavy paths. University hospitals consolidate regional health systems, increasing costs while reducing access. Research produced through public dollars is routinely captured by private pharmaceutical or biotech companies. Meanwhile, residents and faculty in these health systems often endure poor working conditions and stagnant pay. Medugrift conceals itself behind the prestige of medicine, but its logic mirrors that of predatory education: privatize gains, socialize losses, and extract from those with the least bargaining power.

Who determines the costs to students? The answer lies in the aggregated decisions of these actors. When a university raises tuition to protect its bond rating, that is a decision. When trustees invest in athletics while cutting humanities programs, that is a decision. When governors choose prisons over scholarships, that is a decision. When state legislatures allow gambling revenue to substitute for stable taxation, that is a decision. Each choice shifts the financial burden downward while consolidating power upward.

This is not simply mismanagement; it is a class project. The people who determine prices do not feel them. Students, families, adjunct instructors, and underfunded communities do. For working-class students, particularly those from historically excluded backgrounds, the price makers have built a system defined by debt, precarity, and limited mobility.

Nothing about this system is inevitable. There was a time when public universities were affordable, when trustees included community members and labor leaders, when presidents were educators, and when medical centers served the public rather than corporate conglomerates. If the price makers can build this system, a more democratic and humane system can be built to replace it.

The question for the coming decade is not whether higher education is too expensive. The public has already reached its verdict. The question is whether students, workers, and communities will continue to let the price makers—and the medugrift machinery attached to them—define who gets educated, who gets indebted, and who gets left behind.

Sources
Richard D. Wolff, Understanding Socialism; Capitalism Hits the Fan
Elisabeth Rosenthal, An American Sickness
Harriet A. Washington, Medical Apartheid
Rebecca Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
Alondra Nelson, Body and Soul
State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) Reports
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, HBCU Funding Analyses

Throwing the Flag for the Fourth Time: U.S. College Students Are Still Gambling with Student Aid

In this fourth installment of our continuing investigation into student gambling, one issue looms larger than ever: the misuse of student financial aid to fund risky betting behavior. This is not an isolated anomaly or a cautionary footnote. It is a widespread and worsening crisis that reveals the vulnerabilities in a higher education system increasingly entangled with digital addiction and financial exploitation.

An estimated one in five U.S. college students has used student aid—whether federal loans, Pell Grants, or other education funds—to place bets, often through mobile sports betting platforms. These findings, confirmed in recent surveys by Intelligent.com and state gambling councils, expose a troubling truth: higher education is not just failing to prevent this behavior; it may be silently enabling it.

Since the 2018 Supreme Court decision that overturned the federal ban on sports betting, online gambling has exploded in popularity. Students can now place bets with a few taps on their phones, often encouraged by targeted promotions, social media ads, and campus culture. A 2023 NCAA survey showed that nearly 60 percent of 18- to 22-year-olds had engaged in sports betting, with as many as 41 percent betting on their own school’s teams. What was once considered deviant is now normalized.

Financial aid, originally intended to help students pay for tuition, housing, and books, has become a silent reservoir for gambling losses. Students who misuse these funds often do so quietly, making it easy for the behavior to go undetected until academic or financial disaster strikes. This is not only a matter of personal irresponsibility but of systemic neglect. With little oversight of how aid money is spent after disbursement, students can easily divert those funds toward high-risk activities without triggering institutional red flags.

The consequences are severe. Students who gamble with loan money frequently fall behind on rent and tuition. Some accumulate additional credit card debt. Many report heightened levels of anxiety, depression, and academic disengagement. A subset drops out entirely—often with thousands of dollars in nondischargeable debt and no degree to show for it. What we’re witnessing is the transformation of long-term educational debt into a form of speculative entertainment, with young people bearing the cost and the state underwriting the risk.

Colleges and universities, for the most part, have done little to stop this. Fewer than a quarter have any formal gambling policy in place. Counseling centers are often underfunded and untrained in gambling-specific treatment. Awareness campaigns are limited and usually reactive. Meanwhile, the gambling industry continues to rake in profits and expand its reach on college campuses, sometimes through sponsorship deals or targeted advertisements that blur the lines between athletics, student identity, and wagering.

The NFL Foundation’s $600,000 commitment to gambling awareness may be well-intentioned, but it’s woefully insufficient when compared to the scale of the problem and the profits at stake. While a handful of schools have taken steps to limit advertising or incorporate gambling risk into financial literacy programs, these measures remain the exception rather than the rule.

This is not a moral panic. It is a public health crisis driven by the same factors that have fueled other digital addictions: rapid technological change, corporate lobbying, student precarity, and institutional inaction. It is part of a broader shift toward what we’ve described in previous articles as “digital dope”—a system in which tech companies engineer compulsive behaviors for profit, and colleges quietly adjust to a reality where student attention, money, and mental health are fair game.

The normalization of gambling, especially among male students, mirrors other troubling trends we’ve reported: rising alcohol abuse, declining classroom engagement, and growing alienation from educational institutions. Many of these students are not just gambling because it’s fun—they are using it to escape a deeper sense of disconnection, uncertainty, and despair.

To meaningfully address this crisis, institutions must confront the uncomfortable truth that financial aid is being used to subsidize digital addiction. That means enforcing clear restrictions on gambling app promotions, integrating gambling screening into student health protocols, rethinking how aid is distributed and monitored, and establishing formal policies that treat gambling risk with the same urgency as alcohol or drug abuse.

In publishing our fourth report on student gambling, The Higher Education Inquirer again asks: how many warnings are needed before the problem is acknowledged at scale? How many more students must drop out, spiral into debt, or fall into addiction before administrators, lawmakers, and the Department of Education take this seriously?

The answers are not hard to find. What’s missing is the will to act.

Sources:
Intelligent.com (2022, 2023), College Student Gambling Surveys
NCAA (2023), Sports Betting Participation Data
Nevada Council on Problem Gambling (2024)
Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling (2023)
CollegeGambling.org
Time Magazine (2024), “An Explosion in Sports Betting Is Driving Gambling Addiction Among College Students”
Kindbridge (2025), “Is America in the Middle of a College Student Gambling Addiction Crisis?”
Addiction.Rutgers.edu (2024), “The Rise of Sports Betting Among College Students”
HigherEducationInquirer.org (2025), “Student Aid and Student Gambling: Risky Connection”

The Disillusioned Young Man and Higher Ed in the US

Across the United States, growing numbers of young men are dropping out—of college, of the labor market, and of public life. They are disillusioned, disappointed, and increasingly detached from the institutions that once promised stability and purpose. Higher education is at the center of this unraveling. For many young men, it has become a symbol of a broken social contract—offering neither clear direction nor tangible reward.

Enrollment numbers reflect this retreat. Women now account for nearly 60 percent of U.S. college students. Men, particularly working-class men, have been withdrawing steadily for years. They are not disappearing from education simply out of disinterest—they are being priced out, pushed out, and in some cases replaced.

College has become a high-risk gamble for those without economic security. Some students take out tens of thousands of dollars in loans and find themselves dropping out or graduating into dead-end jobs. Others gamble in a more literal sense. The explosion of online sports betting and gambling apps has created a public health crisis that is largely invisible. Research shows that college students, particularly men, are significantly more likely to develop gambling problems than the general population. Some have even used federal student aid to fund their gambling. The financial and psychological toll is severe.

Alcohol remains another outlet for despair. While binge drinking has long been part of campus life, it is now more frequently a form of self-medication than social bonding. The stresses of debt, job insecurity, isolation, and untreated mental illness have led many young men to drink excessively. The consequences—academic failure, expulsion, addiction, violence—are often invisible until they are catastrophic.

The education system offers few lifelines. Counseling services are understaffed. Mentorship is scarce. For-profit colleges and nonselective public institutions offer quick credentials but little career mobility. Internships are often unpaid. Adjunct professors, who now make up the majority of the college teaching workforce, are overworked and underpaid, with little time for student engagement. The result is an environment where young men are left to fend for themselves, often without guidance, community, or hope.

Into this vacuum step political influencers who promise meaning and belonging—but offer grievance and distraction instead. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, has become one of the most recognizable figures appealing to disaffected young men. His message is simple: college is a scam, the system is rigged against you, and the left is to blame. But Kirk’s rhetoric does little to address real economic suffering. Instead of empowering young men with tools for analysis, organizing, or resilience, he offers them a worldview of resentment and victimhood. It's ideology without substance—an escape route that leads nowhere.

Compounding the crisis is the transformation of the U.S. labor market. Union jobs that once offered working-class men decent wages and stability have been gutted by automation, offshoring, deregulation, and union-busting campaigns. The pathways that allowed previous generations to thrive without a college degree have largely disappeared. Retail and service jobs dominate the landscape, with low pay, high turnover, and little dignity.

Meanwhile, higher education institutions have increasingly turned to international students to fill seats and boost tuition revenue. Many universities, especially at the graduate level, rely on international students—who often pay full price—to subsidize their operations. These students frequently gain access to internships, research positions, and jobs in STEM fields, sometimes edging out U.S. students with less financial or academic capital. While international students contribute intellectually and economically to American higher ed, their presence also reflects a system more concerned with revenue than with serving local and regional populations.

This mix of economic decline, addiction, alienation, and displacement has left many young men feeling irrelevant. Some turn to substances. Some drop out entirely. Others embrace simplistic ideologies that frame their loss as cultural rather than structural. But the deeper truth is this: they are caught between institutions that extract from them and influencers who exploit them.

The American higher education system has failed to adapt to the reality of millions of young men who no longer see it as a path forward. Until colleges address the psychological, social, and economic pain these men are facing—until they offer real support, purpose, and value—the disillusionment will deepen. Until labor policy creates viable alternatives through union jobs, apprenticeships, and living wages, higher education will continue to function not as a ladder of mobility but as a mirage.

Sources:
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Current Term Enrollment Estimates
University at Buffalo, Clinical and Research Institute on Addictions
International Center for Responsible Gaming
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance
Turning Point USA public statements and financial filings
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Union Membership Data
Institute of International Education, Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange
The Higher Education Inquirer archives on student debt, labor displacement, and campus disinformation campaigns

Student Aid and Student Gambling: A Risky Connection (Glen McGhee)

A growing body of research points to an unsettling trend on U.S. college campuses: a significant percentage of students are using financial aid—including federal loans and grants—to gamble.

Multiple recent surveys show that approximately 1 in 5 college students in the United States have used student aid to place bets, particularly through online platforms. With the explosive growth of sports betting apps and the normalization of gambling among young adults, this misuse of public and private education funds raises serious financial, ethical, and policy concerns.

A Look at the Data

Since the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on sports betting in 2018, gambling—particularly online—has surged in popularity among college-aged individuals. Students have access not only to traditional campus distractions like card games or local casinos, but also to 24/7 mobile apps and websites offering fast payouts and endless opportunities to bet on sports, poker, and other games.

Financial aid, meant to support students' educational costs—tuition, books, housing, and food—is increasingly being used for riskier pursuits. A 2022 survey from Intelligent.com of nearly 1,000 students found that 16.7% of respondents admitted using financial aid or student loan funds to gamble. A follow-up survey in 2023 showed the number had risen to 20%, with most students confirming that access to aid increased their ability to place bets.

Other state-level reports from Nevada and Florida suggest a similar pattern, with 20–21% of students reporting misuse of aid for gambling purposes.

A Dangerous Cycle

The convergence of accessible credit, mobile betting platforms, and normalized gambling culture—often promoted through campus partnerships with major sports betting companies—has created an environment where student gambling is both easy and, in some cases, encouraged.

This behavior comes with serious consequences. Gambling with student aid can lead to:

• Missed tuition or rent payments

• Accumulation of unmanageable debt

• Academic disruption

• Increased psychological distress and financial insecurity

Students who gamble with loan money not only put their academic futures at risk but also burden themselves with debt obligations that cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. In effect, the use of student loans for gambling amounts to converting long-term federal debt into high-risk leisure spending.

What’s Being Done?

A handful of universities have begun implementing gambling awareness campaigns, and a few states have introduced legislation restricting betting advertisements on campuses. The NFL Foundation has pledged $600,000 toward gambling prevention efforts in higher education, but these measures are modest given the scale of the issue.

Financial aid offices and higher education institutions face difficult questions. Should students who use financial aid for gambling face penalties? Is financial literacy enough to deter this behavior, or is regulation required? Should gambling apps be restricted from targeting students?

Managing Madness

The use of student aid for gambling highlights a critical weakness in how we monitor and distribute public funds in higher education. As gambling becomes more prevalent and more accepted, especially through mobile platforms, policymakers and university leaders will need to consider stronger safeguards—not just to protect taxpayer dollars, but to preserve the financial stability and well-being of students themselves.

Sources:

• Intelligent.com. (2022, 2023). Surveys on college student gambling habits.

• GamblingHelp.org. "Problem Gambling Among College Students."

• Nevada Council on Problem Gambling. (2024).

• Time Magazine. (2024). “An Explosion in Sports Betting Is Driving Gambling Addiction Among College Students.”

• The New York Post. (2025). “Online Gambling on the Rise Among High School Students.”

• Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling. (2023).

Digital Dope: How Internet Addiction Mirrors the Great Crises of Gin, Opium, Meth, and Fentanyl

In the 18th century, gin swept through the working-class neighborhoods of London, offering brief euphoria and long-term devastation. In the 19th century, opium dulled the pain of colonialism and industrial collapse. The 20th century brought methamphetamine and its promise of energy and escape, followed by fentanyl—cheap, potent, and deadly.

Now, in the 21st century, we face a new form of mass addiction: not chemical but digital. The most addictive substances of our time are not smoked, snorted, or injected—they are streamed, swiped, and scrolled.

The internet, once hailed as a revolution in knowledge and communication, has been weaponized into an empire of distraction and dependency. Social media, pornography, and online gambling—backed by surveillance capitalism and unchecked corporate power—are engineered for compulsive use. And like the addictive epidemics of the past, they are eroding individual agency, family life, and the very foundations of civic society.

The Gin Craze and the Algorithmic Binge

In 18th-century Britain, the Gin Craze turned city streets into open-air taverns. Cheap, potent alcohol flooded the market, leading to widespread addiction, crime, and social decay. The state profited from taxes while the poor drowned in despair.

Today’s equivalent is the infinite scroll. Social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook—like gin—are engineered to be consumed endlessly. The user is reduced to a set of engagement metrics. Like the gin drinker numbing pain, the social media user seeks validation, escape, or identity in a flood of curated images and outrage. Depression, anxiety, and loneliness have exploded, especially among teens and young adults. Suicides, particularly among girls, have surged in tandem with social media usage.

Opium Dens and the Porn Empire

The opium den offered oblivion. It soothed pain but eroded will. Victorian elites warned of its moral decay while quietly indulging themselves.

Today, online pornography is the new opium—widely available, hyper-stimulating, and often degrading. Once confined to private spaces, it is now accessible to children, monetized by multi-billion-dollar platforms, and normalized by mainstream culture. The effects—especially on young people—include desensitization, unrealistic expectations, isolation, and difficulty forming real-life relationships.

Research has shown that excessive porn consumption alters brain chemistry similarly to addictive drugs. It hijacks the reward system, rewires sexual expectations, and in many cases, contributes to erectile dysfunction, compulsive behavior, and emotional detachment.

Meth, Fentanyl, and the Speed of the Feed

Meth promised productivity; fentanyl promises relief. Both deliver destruction.

Digital addiction today mimics the frenetic highs of meth and the numbing power of fentanyl. The constant rush of notifications, likes, and headlines overstimulates the brain and crushes attention spans. Apps and games are engineered like slot machines, delivering intermittent reinforcement that keeps users hooked. The average smartphone user touches their phone over 2,500 times a day.

University students struggle to read long texts or concentrate for extended periods. Professors battle declining classroom attention and rising rates of anxiety and burnout. Like meth, the digital feed gives the illusion of efficiency while grinding the mind into dust.

Online Gambling: Casino in Your Pocket

The rise of online sports betting and casino apps has brought Vegas to every dorm room and bedroom. Targeted ads on Instagram and YouTube lure young people into betting with "free" money. Many students—especially young men—develop compulsive behaviors, losing thousands before they graduate. Some turn to credit cards, payday loans, or family bailouts.

States, like governments in the gin and opium eras, have embraced online gambling for its tax revenues. Universities, meanwhile, remain largely silent—even as students destroy their finances and futures through legalized digital addiction.

Higher Education: From Ivory Tower to Digital Trap

Colleges were once sanctuaries of thought and reflection. Today, they are nodes in the digital economy—where learning management systems monitor clicks, and students are nudged toward screens at every turn. Social interaction is filtered through group chats and Reddit threads. Pornography, gambling, and endless scrolling are a click away on the same device used to write term papers and attend virtual lectures.

Even counseling services are digitized. The solution to tech addiction, students are told, is often more tech—apps that monitor screen time, AI chatbots for mental health, or video therapy that feels detached and impersonal.

The Profiteers and the Pushers

In every addiction crisis, there are profiteers: distillers, opium traders, pharmaceutical companies, and cartels. Today, Big Tech plays the same role. Meta, TikTok, YouTube, Pornhub, DraftKings, FanDuel, and hundreds of smaller apps compete for attention with algorithms that exploit human weakness.

Their business model depends on addiction. They study neuroscience, behavioral psychology, and micro-targeted advertising with military-grade precision. Like the drug lords of the past, they deny responsibility while reaping billions.

And just as the poor suffered most in the gin and opioid crises, it is the working class, the unemployed, the chronically ill, and the disconnected who fall hardest into the digital pit.

The Need for Radical Intervention

Digital addiction is not a moral failing—it’s a public health emergency. Like past addiction epidemics, the solution requires:

• Public awareness campaigns

• Stricter age and content regulation

• Taxation on digital vice industries

• Digital literacy education at all levels

• Offline spaces and activities that foster real connection and attention

Higher education must lead. Not by digitizing every service, but by teaching students to reclaim their minds, their time, and their agency. Faculty must model mindful engagement and challenge the corporatization of the university by tech companies. Administrators must reconsider their reliance on LMS systems, data harvesting, and digital surveillance.

Will We Wake Up in Time?

In the past, addiction crises forced society to reflect on what was lost: family cohesion, civic virtue, mental clarity, and freedom itself. We stand again at such a crossroads. The digital drug is in every hand, and the overdose is slow—but devastating.

Like gin, opium, meth, and fentanyl, the internet addiction crisis is about more than chemicals—it’s about despair, disconnection, and exploitation. And like those earlier epidemics, it is not an individual failing, but a systemic one. The good news? As with past crises, awareness is the first step toward recovery. The question is: Will we act before another generation is lost?

---

The Higher Education Inquirer continues to investigate the intersection of capitalism, addiction, and the commodification of human attention. Reach out if you have a story to share.

Trump, Hegseth, and the Bombing of Iran: Taking the Bait at America’s Peril

The sudden arrival of the U.S. Air Force's E-4B “Doomsday Plane” at Joint Base Andrews this week has reignited fears of impending military escalation in the Middle East. As speculation swirls online and among defense analysts, President Donald Trump and his Fox News consigliere Pete Hegseth appear to be inching dangerously close to embracing a war plan that plays into the hands of both their domestic political ambitions and the geopolitical strategies of their adversaries.

The E-4B, also known as “Nightwatch,” is no ordinary aircraft. Built to survive a nuclear attack, maintain satellite command and control in the event of total ground disruption, and oversee the execution of emergency war orders, its presence near Washington, D.C. signals something far more than routine military procedure. The use of a rare callsign—"ORDER01"—instead of the standard "ORDER6" only stokes the sense that we are on the brink of another catastrophic foreign policy decision.

This show of force comes amid rising tensions with Iran, exacerbated by ongoing Israeli aggression and increased Iranian defiance. But rather than de-escalate or seek diplomatic offramps, Trump and Hegseth—cheered on by neoconservative holdovers and MAGA populists—seem eager to provoke or retaliate with military might.

Political Theater with Global Consequences

The specter of bombing Iran isn’t just about foreign policy—it’s political theater. In the lead-up to a contentious election cycle, Trump is once again playing the wartime president, wielding fear and nationalism to consolidate support. For Hegseth, a veteran turned right-wing media figure, the promise of patriotic glory and "restoring American strength" makes for good ratings and even better branding. Both men are using the possibility of war as a campaign tool—recklessly gambling with global stability.

Yet the U.S. has nothing to gain from an expanded conflict with Iran. If anything, such an act plays directly into the strategic interests of hardliners in Tehran and Tel Aviv alike. For Iran’s theocratic regime, American aggression would bolster internal solidarity and justify further authoritarian crackdowns. For Israel’s leadership, it would secure unwavering U.S. allegiance in their own campaign of regional dominance. For both, American bombs would mean the end of diplomatic ambiguity.

Higher Education and the Fog of War

War is also profitable—for defense contractors, media networks, and privatized universities that specialize in churning out online degrees in homeland security and intelligence studies. Institutions like the Liberty University, whose ads routinely appear alongside war reporting, are the educational arm of the war economy, training an underpaid, precariously employed labor force in service of endless conflict. These for-profit institutions have long aligned themselves with militarism, offering “education benefits” that function as recruitment tools for the armed forces.

Meanwhile, real intellectual inquiry is under siege. Faculty who question U.S. foreign policy—particularly in the Middle East—face surveillance, harassment, and cancellation. Dissenting students are monitored. Grants for critical research dry up, while think tanks funded by the arms industry flourish. Universities become staging grounds for ideological conformity, not bastions of free thought.

Taking the Bait

Trump and Hegseth are being lured into a trap—one that benefits the very global elites they claim to oppose. Escalating with Iran serves the military-industrial complex, shores up Israeli hardliners, and consolidates state power under the guise of national emergency. At home, it means more surveillance, more censorship, and more austerity for working families already reeling from inflation and housing insecurity.

In the end, the cost of war will not be borne by Trump or Hegseth. It will be borne by low-income soldiers, the people of Iran, and the students who forgo education for military service. It will be paid for by cutting healthcare, housing, and higher education. And it will hollow out American democracy, all while propping up the illusion of strength.

This is not leadership. This is entrapment. And it’s time we said so—loudly, before the next bombs drop.

Weed, Wagering, Warehouses, and Wall Street

As social observers at the Higher Education Inquirer, we have noticed a US youth society showing increasing signs of anxiety and cynicism. Both of these emotions are understandable, but they have to be treated with care. 

This angst among so many young adults shows up not just in suicides and drug epidemics but in many other destructive but subtler ways that don't make the news as much.

Weed dispensaries are growing. It's good that marijuana possession is no longer a crime. But smoking marijuana is not safe. To say it's less dangerous than alcohol may be true, but it's only a rationalization.  

Gambling addictions may also be related to this trend in destructively impulsive thoughts and behaviors.  If your life has little meaning, you can find some meaning in talking about sports and betting with your bros. Betting alone can be worse. 

Doom spending shows that many younger folk are overspending because they have less hope. It's not the same as shopping therapy because the outcome is not feeling better, but of  feeling even worse.  Overall, may help increase the need for warehouses and warehouse jobs, but also damages those around you in ways you may not even see.  

Who Benefits?

The only people who benefit in the long run are those who profit from pain. The people on Wall Street. And the rich people who invest in that pain. In the end, even those people, or their loved ones, may be subject to a cynicism they may be forced to notice.   

Other Possibilities

If you are spending money that could be spent on something else,for the future, you are doing a disservice to yourself and those around you.These trends among US youth are the opposite of youth global trends in frugal living, living that can lead to greater happiness and meaning. 

Get Wise, Guys: The Perils of the Sports Betting Culture

The NCAA Calls it a Nightmare 

It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of betting on college sports, the potential for quick money, and the social aspect of it all. But let's peel back the curtain and examine the real dangers that lurk beneath the surface of the sports betting culture.  

The Illusion of Easy Money
While it may seem like a simple way to make extra cash, the reality is much more complex. The odds are stacked against you, and the house always has an edge. Chasing losses can lead to a dangerous cycle of debt and despair.

The Mental Toll
The emotional rollercoaster of sports betting can take a significant toll on your mental health. The highs of winning can be fleeting, while the lows of losing can be devastating. The constant stress, anxiety, and disappointment can lead to serious mental health issues.

The Social Impact
Gambling addiction can strain relationships with friends and family. It can lead to isolation, secrecy, and a breakdown of trust. Your academic performance may suffer as you prioritize betting over your studies.

Get Wise, Stay Wise
While it's tempting to indulge in the thrill of sports betting, it's important to approach it with a level head. If you are underage, don't do it.  If you are over 25 and don't have an addiction, stick to a few small bets and a small budget, and know when to walk away. Don't drink or do drugs before, during, or after wagering. If you find yourself struggling with a gambling addiction, seek help immediately.  And if someone notices problems before you do, consider them an ally, and listen. 

Remember, the true joy of sports lies in the game itself, not in the financial outcome.

The National Problem Gambling Helpline (1-800-GAMBLER) is operated by the National Council on Problem Gambling. The helpline serves as a one-stop hub connecting people looking for assistance with a gambling problem to local resources. This network includes 28 contact centers which cover all 50 states and the U.S. territories. The National Problem Gambling Helpline offers call, text and chat services 24/7/365.

An Email of Concern to the People of Arkansas about the University of Phoenix (Tarah Gramza)

February 26, 2023. 

Hi! My name is Tarah Gramza. Dahn Shaulis has been talking with me about the University of Phoenix/University of Arkansas situation. I offered to share my knowledge as I have quite a bit with years of experience in this mess of subprime colleges and student loan debt.  

I am the creator/administrator of a quite popular Facebook group with approximately 14,000 members. Theresa Sweet and I came together by sheer accident and became close friends. We have managed this group together for a few years now. 

Theresa started her battle with the US Department of Education (aka ED) nearly a decade ago trying to get anyone’s attention to hear her story and draw attention to the fraud being committed by these schools right under everyone’s noses. Our stories are all similar: we attended schools who promised a future full of butterflies and roses, misled quality of education, pressured enrollment, false advertised job placement, lied about costs...the list goes on. 

Following the bread crumbs

Our lawsuit started as a mission to hold the Department of Education accountable for delaying the processing of Borrower Defense to Repayment applications. These delaying actions broke ED's own rules and regulations. The last several administrations tried to change rules for their own agendas and to satisfy their paid cronies. We know for a fact many congressional leaders have been deeply invested and made millions from this for-profit schools fraud. This includes the Secretary of Education at the time, Betsy DeVos. 

The first settlement forced ED to process applications fairly within a period of time. The department made a big mistake, they decided to deny 90% of class members applications and used illegal denial letters, which ultimately stopped the settlement and sent us back to litigation/discovery. During the discovery it was uncovered that ED had internal emails showing they were intentionally not reviewing applications per the law requirement (a policy of mass denial), withheld evidence by the department on many of the main culprit schools, and knew about the fraud being committed at the highest levels. This led to additional claims by the class and now opened the department up for direct financial liability and undue harm. This led to the final settlement that sits today. 

Between the first settlement and the illegal denials and the present one, the administrations changed and Betsy DeVos quit her job. During the discovery (testimony) it was found that upper leadership under Betsy DeVos pointed their fingers directly at Betsy herself and that she directed these policies, an attempt was made to make her testify. As government always does, they protected her and their own tails in the process and she was allowed to skate by unscathed. The new administration decided it was time to start doing the right thing; the sheet was pulled back enough for everyone to see they well knew about the fraud for over a decade. 

This lawsuit also brought forward the fact that ED had not used its own rules to go after schools for recoupment costs on the taxpayers behalf and recoup funds from these executives, schools, leaders. This includes some of the leaders of major school collapses such as Corinthian Colleges and ITT Tech. Sadly, the executives just jumped from one school to the next bringing their fraud with them along the way, leaving a wake of schools with damaged students. 

Putting it together

The final settlement (Sweet v Cardona) was signed and all of a sudden four schools from the list of 151 known offender schools decided to intervene on the lawsuit. They used every excuse they could to conjure up to stop this case and hold up the settlement--even though the settlement didn’t hold them accountable for the class discharged claims. The judge ultimately denied their requests leading a final settlement approval. Three of those four schools then appealed the judge for a stay,which was officially denied Friday evening. 

Why would four schools appeal a lawsuit that doesn’t involve them of which ultimately has no recoupment against them for the class?

Well- here’s why, the post class group AND any following applications will have recoupment. The department, right around the time of the announcement, had recently announced the recoupment efforts against Devry University and this terrified the schools. They knew full well they were next and that it would put them out of business and these shareholders would be left holding the bag. Now a plan needed to be put into place to try to find a way out. 

The plan

University of Phoenix is one the biggest offenders and probably one the largest schools to profit from this business model of fraud. We’ve seen evidence that much of the fraudulent activity came directly out of the University of Phoenix training manuals. They also had some of biggest lawsuits, so intervening as University of Phoenix was a bad idea. 

The well-known school lobbying group Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU) led by Jason Altmire banded together to not only bundle money from these subprime schools to stop this lawsuit, by using these four smaller less widely known, less lawsuits, as pawns in a bigger game. Jason has been known and deeply ingrained in this scandal for over 20 years, even before he was lobbying. He was an elected official voting for this for profit game. Holding up the lawsuit benefited every single school named on Exhibit C and you will see why below. 

The new rules and regulations were published a few months back with hard targeted rules that establish a line in the sand starting July 2023. These regs held harsh consequences for all schools not only into the future but also for past bad deeds. The rules also clarified and hardened the rules for information sharing (evidence) and group discharges. 

It became apparent that the shareholders and owners of University of Phoenix needed out and now. This is because the recoupment efforts follow owners. If they can sell the school, they can cash out what is left of their $1 Billion investment and run intact. Which leads to the point of this email, if Arkansas, or any other buyer decides to buy University of Phoenix they will be the target for the recoupment efforts which I estimate to be approximately $600M dollars as it stands today with the number pending recoupable borrower defense applications. If things go as expected this number could exceed $1B. The rules call for recoupment of funds and also steep consequences such as loss of title IV funds. 

Jason Altmire and his lobbying group are so desperate to prevent these rules, they are suing in Texas to prevent them from being implemented.

Why would the Governor of Arkansas pursue this deal?

The Governor of Arkansas knows full well the risks. The political side of this story is administrations. Republican administrations have been very friendly to these schools and have in the past created and changed ED rules in the schools favor and turned a blind eye to the fraud. Democrats have also been guilty of this but in today’s climate we have to think of the present state of the Republican position in student debt relief. The state of Arkansas is offered a sweet deal of a percent of profits on a private deal which they claim doesn’t cost tax payers. 

The hidden agenda by the governor is she is gambling against a change in administration that is friendlier and will either not pursue recoupment against a state owned (affiliated) school OR she is thinking the Biden administration will lose the next election in which they will push to change the rules again! This is a steep gamble as I suspect the secrets in this deal don’t offer protections to the state as presented in press briefings. If the state is signing a contract for profits, what happens if the school goes under? As you may be aware, much of these warnings have been shared with the leadership of Arkansas by many student advocate groups including our lawyers for the Sweet case, the Project on Predatory Student Lending-PPSL. 

Recent announcements made by the Department of Education have added an additional layer of risk for anyone purchasing University of Phoenix as ED recently announced it “may require certain individuals to assume personal liability as a condition of allowing the schools they own or operate to participate in the federal financial aid programs and likely to require an individual to assume personal liability on behalf of the institutions or groups of affiliated institutions that pose the largest financial risk to the United States. This is determined based on institutions with the most serious and significant sets of concerns.” The question becomes, who will be putting their personal assets as collateral? University of Phoenix is not only a risk, it is one the primary reasons for the need for additional protections to the tax payers.

What value would the purchase of University of Phoenix have to the state of Arkansas if it can’t have its Title IV renewed? This fact alone combined with the University of Phoenix history, should scare away even the most riskiest investor!

Now you know the big picture. I hope it helps guide your actions and I hope you are willing to write and share with the public how this dangerous gamble is being wagered against the people of the state of Arkansas. For the records, I am a Republican and my focus is to point to facts of the situation and the truth of the climate in politics leads toward the assessment I’ve given. Let me know if you have any questions. I’m happy to help where I can. I also hold a large document that provides significant evidence against all the schools but the University of Phoenix file speaks volumes and will likely expand on the depth of the fraud, if you are interested.

Sincerely,

Tarah Gramza