Search This Blog

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

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Higher Education Inquirer: Transparency, Accountability, and Value

Our vision for the Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has been to increase transparency, accountability, and value for consumers of higher education, workers in higher education, and student loan debtors.  Your insights, your stories, and yes, your critiques, are the lifeblood of this endeavor.

We remain committed to staying ahead of the learned herd, challenging orthodoxies, and asking the uncomfortable questions that others often ignore. But to continue on this path, we need your support. One of the most immediate ways you can contribute is by commenting on our articles—anonymously if you prefer—and sharing them widely. Every comment, every share, strengthens our community and amplifies the work we do.

With your continued input, we will persist in our investigative efforts: analyzing hidden data, exposing malfeasance, interviewing experts, and speaking to whistleblowers who trust us to tell stories that matter. Our goal is not merely to inform but to propose solutions. We seek to highlight best practices and showcase promising alternatives to the status quo—whether they arise from within classrooms or boardrooms, or beyond them entirely.

We also welcome collaborations. If you know of individuals or organizations that bring meaningful insight to higher education’s most pressing issues, please let us know. The Inquirer thrives on the collective intelligence and diversity of its contributors.

In the coming year, we intend to deepen our focus on several core areas of concern:

Mental Health Support: We will examine the quality and accessibility of mental health services for both students and campus employees. From long wait times to underfunded counseling centers, from financial barriers to the unseen toll of psychological distress, we will explore how these challenges intersect with academic success and retention.

Financial Literacy: Colleges often promise to prepare students for life beyond graduation, yet too many fall short in equipping them with the tools for financial independence. We will investigate how institutions teach (or fail to teach) personal finance, and how that connects to the broader burden of student debt and financial anxiety.

Economic Inequality: As higher education grapples with its own complicity in deepening socioeconomic divides, we aim to uncover how colleges and universities either exacerbate or alleviate inequality. Our reporting will examine affordability, access, and the real economic value of a college degree, especially for first-generation and low-income students.

Civic Engagement: In a time of political polarization, the role of higher education in cultivating civic responsibility has never been more urgent. We will explore campus-based initiatives aimed at encouraging informed, active citizenship—and assess whether they are rising to the challenge.

Sustainable Living: With climate concerns mounting, we will investigate how institutions are responding. Are they merely "greenwashing" or making measurable progress in reducing their environmental footprint? We will also explore how sustainability is integrated into both operations and curricula.

Reimagining Education: Finally, we will look to the future of learning itself. From innovative teaching models to the ethical use of AI, from lifelong learning to digital classrooms, our reporting will spotlight the possibilities and perils of reimagining education for a rapidly changing world.

This is a pivotal time for higher education—and for those of us committed to examining it critically and constructively. We invite you to walk with us, challenge us, and contribute to the stories that need to be told. Together, we can create a more just, transparent, and thoughtful academic landscape.

Monday, August 18, 2025

Wikipedia on US Higher Education Nearly Abandoned

The Wikipedia article “Higher education in the United States” shows its age. It still uses 2022 enrollment figures—18.6 million students—but glosses over critical trends like ongoing decline and demographic shifts.

At a glance:

  • Enrollment peaked around 2010–11 at just over 21 million students and has since declined, a trend that has reshaped colleges nationwide.

  • Federal projections suggest continuing stagnation or decline in the next two decades, yet the entry treats these as side notes.

Meanwhile, the Issues in higher education in the United States article lists challenges like grade inflation, financial pressures, and lowered academic standards, but these issues are not integrated into the main overview. The result is a fragmented and outdated picture.




Why This Page Is Falling Behind

1. Volunteer Labor Isn’t Enough
Wikipedia relies entirely on volunteer editors. That independence keeps it free of corporate ownership and advertising, but it also means entire subject areas are neglected. Complex, politically charged topics like U.S. higher education demand attention from contributors with both knowledge and time. Many volunteers understandably focus on tech, pop culture, or history, leaving higher education under-updated.

This mirrors higher education itself, where adjunct faculty and unpaid interns are asked to sustain institutions without adequate compensation. Noble ideals, but little support.

2. Critical Issues Are Fragmented
The main page does not incorporate systemic problems like accreditation reform, federal funding battles, declining public trust, or backlash against elite universities. These issues exist on separate Wikipedia entries, but the lack of synthesis makes the main article misleading.


Why It Matters

Wikipedia is the first reference point for millions of students, journalists, policymakers, and members of the public. If its coverage of higher education is outdated, so is much of the discussion about the system that shapes millions of lives and drives trillions in economic activity.


Wikipedia’s Imperfections and Value

Wikipedia is not perfect. Its open-edit model makes it vulnerable to bias, uneven coverage, and gaps in accuracy. Corporate or political interests sometimes attempt to shape entries in their favor. But it remains one of the few large-scale sources of freely available knowledge in the world.

At a moment when AI systems are flooding the internet with synthetic content—often scraped from Wikipedia itself—it is even more important to sustain a platform built on transparency and human oversight. Wikipedia should be critiqued, improved, and supported—not discarded.


What Readers Can Do

Donate Time

  • Update the Higher education in the United States article with current data, policy changes, and pressing issues.

  • Even new editors can contribute with guidance from Wikipedia’s editing tutorials.

Donate Money

  • The Wikimedia Foundation depends on donations to maintain the servers, security, and tools that keep Wikipedia online and ad-free.

  • Contributions also support outreach to expert editors who can keep complex articles like this one current.

Knowledge for All

Wikipedia was founded on the principle of free knowledge for all. That principle is worth defending, but it requires ongoing labor and resources. If higher education matters to you, consider giving your time as an editor—or your money as a donor—to ensure this story is told accurately.


Sources

Sunday, August 17, 2025

As the Market Soars, Main Street Feels the Pinch: Dollar Tree and the Rising Cost of Survival

While Wall Street celebrates record highs, Main Street grapples with rising costs that strain household budgets. Dollar Tree, once synonymous with affordability, has seen its pricing structure evolve significantly. In 2021, the company increased its baseline price from $1 to $1.25, and by 2025, introduced items priced up to $10 in select stores.

For residents in food deserts—areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food—stores like Dollar Tree serve as essential sources for groceries. However, these stores often stock predominantly ultra-processed foods, contributing to dietary challenges. A study by Tufts, Harvard, and the USDA found that while dollar store food purchases scored low on the Healthy Eating Index, households shopping there didn’t significantly differ in overall diet quality from those shopping primarily at grocery stores.

The expansion of dollar stores in low-income communities has been linked to exacerbating food insecurity. These stores often lack fresh produce and healthy staples, leading to diets high in processed foods. Research indicates that small food retailers are less likely than supermarkets to sell healthy staple foods, further entrenching food insecurity in these areas.

Despite the financial gains reflected in the stock market, the affordability gap widens for working-class families. Economic gains at the top do not trickle down to the communities that need them most. As investment portfolios swell, the affordability gap grows, and the promise of basic necessities remains increasingly out of reach. For working-class families and those living in under-resourced neighborhoods, the soaring market feels less like a sign of prosperity and more like a reminder of growing inequality.

In addition to rising costs, recent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are further impacting low-income households. A new law backed by the Trump administration and signed in July 2025 is set to reduce SNAP benefits for 2.4 million Americans by expanding work requirements to additional groups, including parents of children aged 14 and up, adults aged 55–64, veterans, former foster youth, and homeless individuals. The legislation requires these groups to work, volunteer, or participate in job training for at least 80 hours per month to qualify. This expansion is expected to shift more costs to states and redistribute resources, increasing income for middle- and high-income households while reducing benefits for low-income households.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes that people in food-insecure households spend roughly 45% more on medical care annually than those in food-secure households. SNAP participation has been linked to improved health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. For instance, early access to SNAP among pregnant mothers and in early childhood improved birth outcomes and long-term health as adults. Elderly SNAP participants are less likely than similar non-participants to forgo their full prescribed dosage of medicine due to cost.

The reduction or loss of SNAP benefits can lead to increased food insecurity and poorer health outcomes. A study published in Health Affairs found that the loss of SNAP benefits was associated with food insecurity and poor health in working families with young children. The study indicated that reduced benefits were associated with greater odds of fair or poor caregiver and child health.

As the affordability gap widens and access to essential resources becomes more challenging, the combination of rising costs and reduced support systems underscores the growing inequality faced by working-class families and communities in need.


Sources:

Friday, August 15, 2025

The Weight of a Gift: Phil and Penny Knight’s $2 Billion to Cancer Research—and What It Reveals About Power in Higher Ed and Medicine

On August 14, 2025, Nike co-founder Phil Knight and his wife Penny Knight pledged an extraordinary $2 billion to the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU)—the largest single gift ever to a U.S. university-affiliated health center, surpassing Michael Bloomberg’s $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University.

Transformational Impact—or Power Play?

This gift aims to double the Institute’s capacity, expand research and treatment infrastructure, and bolster holistic patient services—including psychological, financial, nutritional, and survivorship support. A new governance structure—the Knight Cancer Group—will operate autonomously within OHSU, led by Dr. Brian Druker, renowned for his work on Gleevec.

At a time when public funding for scientific research is shrinking, the Knights emphasize their vision for a “patient-centered cancer center of global impact.” The gift promises to accelerate innovation and potentially save thousands of lives.


The Double-Edged Sword of Mega-Philanthropy

Wealth Dictates Direction

With more than $4 billion donated across Oregon universities and institutions—including the Knight Cancer Challenge and the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact—the Knights wield significant influence over institutional priorities, culture, and governance.

Inequality and Access

A Higher Education Inquirer exposé, "The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers" (March 2025), warns that elite medical institutions often deliver world-class care while perpetuating inequities—through historical exploitation, systemic bias, and exclusion of marginalized communities. Without safeguards, even philanthropic efforts can reinforce structural disparities.

Public Dependency and Private Control

As public funding erodes, institutions increasingly rely on mega-donors. The creation of the Knight Cancer Group with autonomous authority inside OHSU is a stark example of donor-driven governance in what is nominally a public institution.


Critical Context: Nike’s Controversies

While Phil Knight’s philanthropic legacy is significant, Nike—the company he co-founded—has a long history of controversies that color public perception of his influence:

  • Labor Practices: For decades, Nike has faced accusations of using overseas sweatshops with poor working conditions, low pay, and child labor. More recently, it was linked to pandemic-era wage theft at a Thai supplier factory.

  • Gender Discrimination: Nike settled a major sexual discrimination lawsuit in 2025 after years of allegations from former employees. Unsealed court records revealed nearly two dozen harassment claims against senior staff.

  • Athlete Treatment: The Nike Oregon Project faced abuse allegations from runners like Mary Cain, who accused coaches of dangerous training practices and body shaming.

  • Product and Marketing Controversies: The company drew backlash for designing revealing Olympic women’s uniforms and was accused by an indie filmmaker of copying her work for a Nike ad.

  • Legal Challenges: Nike faces a class-action lawsuit over selling NFTs alleged to be unregistered securities.

  • Performance-Enhancing Technology: Its Vaporfly running shoes sparked debates about “mechanical doping” in competitive athletics.

These issues underscore the complex interplay between Knight’s philanthropic image and the practices of the corporation tied to his wealth.


Navigating Philanthropy Through a Nuanced Lens

Phil Knight’s $2 billion gift offers enormous potential for advancing cancer research and treatment. Yet it also highlights the risks of relying on private wealth to shape public institutions. Mega-donations can spur breakthroughs—but they can also centralize influence, limit democratic oversight, and entrench inequalities.

If the future of higher education and medicine increasingly depends on billionaire philanthropy, society must ensure that governance, accountability, and equity remain at the forefront—so the benefits reach all, not just the privileged few.


Sources

  • Associated Press, Nike co-founder Phil Knight and wife pledge record $2B to Oregon cancer center (Aug. 14, 2025)

  • Wall Street Journal, Phil Knight Gives $2 Billion to Oregon Health & Science University (Aug. 14, 2025)

  • Town & Country, Phil Knight’s $2 Billion Cancer Center Gift (Aug. 14, 2025)

  • Becker’s Hospital Review, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute receives $2B gift (Aug. 14, 2025)

  • Higher Education Inquirer, The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers (Mar. 2025)

  • Oregon Capital Insider, Phil Knight’s Big Ticket Donations Surpass $2 Billion (Apr. 25, 2023)

  • Cupertino Times, Labor Practices Controversy: How Nike Faced Its Sweatshop Scandal (Nov. 23, 2024)

  • Times of Innovation, Nike Told to Compensate Workers in High-Profile Labour Controversy (Dec. 2024)

  • Forbes, Nike To Settle Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit Hanging Over Its Head Since 2018 (Apr. 1, 2025)

  • Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Unsealed Court Records Reveal New Details About Nike Sex Discrimination Case (2025)

  • Glamour, Nike Gets Backlash from Athletes Over ‘Sexist’ Track and Field Uniforms (Apr. 17, 2024)

  • Times of India, Indie Filmmaker Tells Nike Their Ad… Shockingly Similar to Her Work (May 2025)

  • Wikipedia, Nike Vaporfly and Tokyo 2020 Olympics Controversy (2025)

  • Wikipedia, Nike Oregon Project (2025)

  • The Verge, Nike Faces Class Action Over RTFKT NFT Project (2025)

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Trumpism, Neoliberalism, and the Abandoned Majority

In the ongoing battle between Trumpism and neoliberalism, much of the mainstream narrative paints these forces as diametrically opposed. In reality, while they clash on culture-war rhetoric and political branding, both camps operate in ways that protect entrenched wealth and power—especially within higher education.

Trumpism, with its populist veneer, frames itself as a rebellion against “the establishment.” Yet Donald Trump’s policies in office—including massive corporate tax cuts, deregulation favoring billionaires, and the rollback of labor protections—aligned closely with neoliberal orthodoxy. His administration stacked the Department of Education with for-profit college lobbyists and dismantled borrower protections, leaving indebted students vulnerable to predatory lending.

Neoliberalism, as embodied by centrist Democrats and much of the university establishment, champions “meritocracy” and global competitiveness, but often functions as a machine for upward wealth transfer. University leaders such as Princeton’s Christopher Eisgruber, Northwestern’s Michael Schill, Harvard’s Claudine Gay, Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Texas A&M’s M. Katherine Banks, and reformist chancellors Andrew Martin of Washington University in St. Louis and Daniel Diermeier of Vanderbilt oversee institutions that cut faculty jobs, outsource labor, and raise tuition, all while securing lucrative corporate and donor partnerships. These leaders, regardless of political branding, manage universities as if they were hedge funds with classrooms attached.

In both cases, the non-elite—students burdened by soaring debt, adjunct professors lacking job security, and underpaid university workers—remain locked in systems of extraction. Trumpist politicians rail against “liberal elites” while quietly protecting billionaire donors and for-profit education interests. Neoliberal university leaders publicly oppose Trumpism but maintain donor networks tied to Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and global finance, reinforcing the same structural inequality.

This false binary obscures the shared economic agenda of privatization, commodification, and concentration of wealth and power within elite institutions. For the working class and the educated underclass, there is no true champion—only differing marketing strategies for the same system of exploitation.


Sources

  • Henry A. Giroux, Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education (Haymarket Books, 2014)

  • David Dayen, “Trump’s Fake Populism,” The American Prospect

  • Jon Marcus, “The New College Presidents and Their Corporate Mindset,” The Hechinger Report

  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, “Borrower Defense to Repayment Reports”

  • New York Times coverage of Claudine Gay, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Michael Schill, and M. Katherine Banks’ administrative records

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

What Other Countries Get Right About Education—and Why the U.S. Falls Behind

As the American education system grapples with a growing crisis—marked by student debt, political interference, declining public trust, and chronic underfunding—other countries are demonstrating alternative paths that yield better results. While the United States remains home to some of the world’s most prestigious universities, its broader education system is increasingly characterized by inequity, inefficiency, and disconnection from the labor market. In contrast, nations such as Finland, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and Canada have implemented policies that prioritize equity, access, and workforce alignment in ways that have delivered tangible outcomes.

In Finland, public education is built around the principle of equality rather than competition. Teachers are required to hold advanced degrees and are granted significant autonomy in how they teach. Unlike the U.S., which is mired in a culture of standardized testing and punitive accountability, Finland trusts its educators and limits high-stakes assessments. Public universities in Finland are tuition-free, and students receive financial support for living expenses. The country’s emphasis on student well-being, professional respect for educators, and a curriculum that encourages critical thinking rather than rote learning makes it a global model for equitable education.

Germany offers a sharp contrast to the U.S. model of expensive higher education and weak vocational systems. Public universities are tuition-free for both domestic and international students, and the country’s dual education system blends classroom learning with paid apprenticeships. Rather than treating vocational training as a fallback option, Germany integrates it into mainstream education policy, offering real pathways to stable employment. The connection between education and labor markets is tightly managed, with active collaboration between government, industry, and unions.

South Korea and Singapore, while distinct in culture and governance, share a commitment to education as a national priority. South Korea has achieved one of the world’s highest rates of tertiary education attainment. Its students consistently perform at the top of international assessments, despite valid concerns about student stress and overwork. Singapore’s education system is centrally coordinated, with rigorous teacher training, continuous professional development, and a clear link between education outcomes and national economic planning. The city-state’s universities are heavily subsidized, and its skills-based institutions are designed in partnership with industry to meet changing economic demands.

In the Nordic countries, including Norway and Denmark, higher education is entirely tuition-free and students receive generous living stipends. The goal is not just to provide access but to ensure that students can complete their education without incurring debt. These countries invest heavily in public education across all levels, and their systems are marked by low inequality, high achievement, and strong social trust. The education system is treated as a foundation for social mobility and economic stability, rather than a competitive market.

Canada and the Netherlands offer relatively affordable higher education systems, stronger public support, and less bureaucratic complexity than the U.S. Canada, in particular, has implemented income-contingent repayment plans that are far simpler and more humane than the U.S. federal loan system. Public colleges and universities in these countries are better funded and more integrated with labor market strategies, avoiding the vast disparities seen across the American higher education landscape.

Meanwhile, the U.S. faces a fragmented system shaped by decades of disinvestment, privatization, and ideological battles over curriculum and governance. Public colleges and universities are under pressure to behave like businesses, raising tuition and relying on contingent labor. For-profit institutions have preyed on low-income and working-class students, especially veterans and single parents, with little federal oversight. Student debt has ballooned past $1.7 trillion, with no end in sight. Vocational training remains underdeveloped and stigmatized, while community colleges—despite their potential—are chronically underfunded and politically neglected.

America’s approach to education is defined more by markets than mission. The result is a system that exacerbates inequality and leaves millions of students in precarious positions, both financially and professionally. By contrast, other nations demonstrate that education can be a universal right, a public investment, and a national strategy—not just a private commodity.

It is tempting to attribute these international successes to cultural differences or smaller populations. But the truth is that many of these countries made deliberate political and economic choices to fund education fully, support students comprehensively, and plan systems around long-term social needs rather than short-term political gain. The United States has the resources to do the same. The question is whether it has the political will.

Understanding what others are doing better is not about mimicry, but about imagining what is possible. The U.S. does not lack talent, ambition, or innovation. What it lacks is a coherent vision for education that serves the many, not the few. Other countries are proving every day that another path is not only possible—it is already working.

Sources:

OECD Education at a Glance Reports

PISA 2022 Results

UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Reports

Center for American Progress

The Century Foundation

Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS)

Education International Reports on Finland and Germany

Monday, August 11, 2025

The Assassination of Anas al-Sharif: A Stark Reminder of the Global Suppression of Dissident Voices

On August 10, 2025, Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif, a respected correspondent for Al Jazeera, was killed in an Israeli airstrike near Gaza City's Al-Shifa Hospital. Alongside four colleagues, al-Sharif was reporting from one of the most dangerous places on earth—an epicenter of a protracted conflict and humanitarian crisis. The Israeli military claimed al-Sharif was a leader in a Hamas cell, accusations that both Al Jazeera and the journalist himself had categorically denied.

This targeted killing is more than a tragic loss of life; it signals a concerted effort to silence independent journalism in one of the world’s most contested territories. Sharif’s assassination fits a pattern of repression that threatens the free flow of information in Palestine and reverberates globally—especially in democracies like the United States, where the space for dissenting voices is narrowing under pressure from political and corporate interests.


A Journalist Under Siege in Gaza

For years, Anas al-Sharif had been a fearless voice reporting on the devastating consequences of the Israeli blockade and military campaigns on Gaza’s civilian population. His reports brought international attention to the human cost of war: widespread destruction, scarcity of food and medicine, and the psychological toll on children and families.

Al-Sharif’s on-air appeals for humanitarian intervention were marked by raw emotion and urgency. His willingness to confront powerful narratives and highlight suffering made him a target. Israeli officials responded with an escalating campaign of vilification, accusing him of terrorism without evidence and intensifying military operations around his reporting sites.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) had raised alarms about threats against Sharif and other journalists in Gaza, warning the international community that such intimidation could foreshadow violence. Tragically, those warnings came true.


The Deadliest Conflict for Journalists in Recent History

According to CPJ data, over 200 journalists have been killed in Gaza since the current conflict began 22 months ago, making it the deadliest period for the press in decades. The targeting of journalists in Gaza violates international humanitarian law, which protects reporters as civilians in conflict zones. Yet, the line between combatants and reporters is increasingly blurred by powerful actors seeking to control narratives.

The killing of al-Sharif and his colleagues has sent a chilling message to journalists across the globe: reporting on human rights abuses and war crimes carries lethal risk. This trend threatens to erode the fundamental democratic principle that the public has the right to know what is happening in their name.


Suppression of Dissent in the United States

While the context in Gaza is extreme, troubling parallels exist in the United States. Press freedom in the US has faced mounting challenges, especially for journalists exposing government wrongdoing, police abuses, and systemic inequalities.

Investigative reporters have been subjected to government surveillance, subpoenaed for their sources, and threatened with prosecution under broad national security laws. Whistleblowers face legal retaliation, and activists reporting on racial justice or labor issues often encounter police intimidation.

This creeping erosion of press freedoms limits the ability of journalists to hold power accountable. It also fosters a culture where dissenting voices—whether in mainstream media, academia, or grassroots activism—are marginalized or criminalized.


Higher Education as a Crucible for Free Expression

Universities and colleges should be bastions of critical thought, inquiry, and free expression. However, they increasingly reflect the pressures found in broader society. Political and financial influences shape what can be taught or researched, particularly around controversial subjects such as Palestine, US foreign policy, race, and inequality.

Faculty and students who challenge dominant narratives often face harassment, surveillance, or even administrative censure. Legislative efforts in several states seek to restrict discussions deemed “divisive,” chilling debate and critical scholarship.

The suppression of voices like Sharif’s in the media finds echoes in academic institutions, where control over narratives can be just as forceful—only less visible.


The Urgent Need for Solidarity and Defense of Press Freedom

The assassination of Anas al-Sharif is a devastating reminder of what is lost when journalism is silenced: truth, accountability, and the possibility for change. It is a call to action for universities, journalists, human rights advocates, and the global community to defend those who risk their lives to report uncomfortable realities.

Solidarity must transcend borders. Academic institutions should champion press freedom by protecting scholars and students who work on sensitive issues and by amplifying marginalized voices. Media organizations and advocacy groups must push for international mechanisms to protect journalists and hold accountable those who target them.

Sharif’s legacy is one of courage and commitment to the truth. To honor his life and sacrifice, we must resist efforts to normalize violence against journalists and dissenters everywhere.


Sources

How Well Are RAs Trained?

Resident Assistants (RAs) are often the first line of defense in college residential life. They’re expected to wear many hats: peer mentors, community builders, rule enforcers, crisis responders, and mental health triage workers. Yet most are undergraduate students themselves—barely older than the residents they oversee—and often underpaid or unpaid for the critical work they do.

Given these responsibilities, one pressing question remains: how well are RAs actually trained to do the job?

The Scope of the RA Role

At most colleges and universities, RAs are chosen through competitive application processes and undergo mandatory training before each academic year. Their job descriptions often include enforcing housing policies, resolving roommate conflicts, planning events, documenting rule violations, and serving as 24/7 on-call crisis contacts.

They are also the ones students turn to in the wake of sexual assaults, substance overdoses, suicidal ideation, or interpersonal violence—scenarios far outside the boundaries of typical student experience or authority.

This raises ethical and legal questions: Are institutions relying too heavily on RAs as stopgaps for inadequate professional staffing? And are RAs adequately equipped for what they’re being asked to do?

Training Duration Varies—Widely

RA training typically ranges from a few days to two weeks, depending on the school. Some institutions provide extensive workshops on topics like mental health first aid, Title IX reporting, diversity and inclusion, active shooter preparedness, and conflict mediation. Others prioritize bureaucratic compliance over practical preparation.

A 2023 survey by Inside Higher Ed and the Association of College and University Housing Officers (ACUHO-I) found that only 47% of RAs reported feeling “fully prepared” to handle crises. Over 25% said they had no meaningful training in trauma-informed response or de-escalation. And fewer than 15% received detailed instruction on dealing with students with disabilities or navigating racial bias incidents—both common issues in residential settings.

Mental Health Crises Are on the Rise

According to the American College Health Association, nearly 75% of students report moderate to serious psychological distress, with campus counselors increasingly overwhelmed. In many cases, RAs become the first responders—waking up in the middle of the night to assess whether someone is suicidal, high, or having a panic attack.

But the stakes are enormous. One misjudgment could lead to a suicide, a lawsuit, or a violent altercation. Without formal mental health credentials or trauma-informed care training, RAs often operate on gut instinct and patchy training.

Several RAs interviewed for this article shared a common sentiment: “We’re expected to be therapists and cops, but we’re not trained to be either.”

Legal Liability and Institutional Risk

Some universities have faced lawsuits and media scrutiny over failures in RA training. A few tragic cases—ranging from overlooked suicide warnings to mishandled sexual assaults—have exposed just how unprepared and unsupported RAs can be.

Despite this, schools continue to delegate serious duties to RAs while insulating themselves from liability. When crises escalate, RAs may be scapegoated or pressured to resign quietly. In return, they often receive compensation that doesn't match the job’s gravity—such as a free dorm room and a small stipend.

Burnout and Attrition

Many RAs experience burnout within the first semester, and turnover can be high, especially at large public universities where staff support is stretched thin. The emotional toll of constant availability, conflict management, and exposure to trauma can be immense.

In one Midwestern state school, RA vacancies jumped 40% in one year, prompting administrators to shorten training and raise hiring quotas—creating a vicious cycle of undertraining and overreliance.

The Disparity Problem

Elite schools with large endowments are more likely to offer robust RA training, professional backup, and wraparound services. Meanwhile, less-resourced regional publics and community colleges often treat RAs as glorified rule enforcers, with minimal oversight and training.

Additionally, BIPOC and LGBTQ+ RAs are often asked—explicitly or implicitly—to do more emotional labor around diversity, bias, and inclusion without being paid or trained for it.

This inequality mirrors larger divides in higher education, where students at wealthier institutions receive better support and protection than their peers at underfunded schools.


Toward a Better System

If RAs are to remain integral to campus residential life, colleges and universities must invest more in their training, support, and compensation. That includes:

  • Standardized, evidence-based training protocols across institutions

  • Paid year-round training with scenario-based learning and professional mentorship

  • On-call professional support for crisis escalation

  • Clear boundaries between peer support and professional intervention

  • Mental health services for RAs themselves

At the very least, students should know what they’re signing up for—and institutions should stop outsourcing serious responsibilities to underpaid peers without the tools to succeed.


Conclusion

Resident Assistants play a crucial role in shaping the campus experience, but the current model puts too much weight on too little training. As mental health crises, racial tensions, and campus violence continue to rise, the question is no longer whether RAs are ready—it’s whether universities are willing to admit they’ve been relying on a broken system.

Sources:

  • American College Health Association: National College Health Assessment

  • Inside Higher Ed / ACUHO-I RA Training Survey (2023)

  • NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education

  • Lawsuits and media coverage of RA-related incidents (ProPublica, Chronicle of Higher Education)

Sunday, August 10, 2025

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:

Saturday, August 9, 2025

HEI's Most Popular Recent Articles

Across the Higher Education Inquirer’s most-read articles, including List of Schools with Strong Indicators of Misconduct, Evidence for Borrower Defense Claims, The Hidden Crisis: Debt and Inequality Among Ph.D. Graduates, and Chinese College Meltdown: Credential Inflation and the Crisis in Higher Education Employment, a distinct pattern emerges that reflects HEI’s core commitment to exposing power imbalances and illuminating the hidden costs embedded in higher education.

Central to these stories is an unwavering focus on accountability and uncovering misconduct. The reporting calls out institutions with clear signs of unethical behavior and scrutinizes leaders who prioritize profit and prestige over student welfare, as seen in pieces like Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run. This unflinching stance resonates with readers who crave transparency and truth amid a landscape often clouded by spin and silence.

Economic and structural inequality threads through much of the coverage, connecting personal financial struggles to systemic failures. From the burden of debt weighing on Ph.D. graduates in The Hidden Crisis: Debt and Inequality Among Ph.D. Graduates to the growing problem of credential inflation devaluing degrees as detailed in Degrees of Discontent: Credentialism, Inflation, and the Global Education Crisis, these narratives reveal higher education as a tool of economic stratification rather than a guaranteed path to opportunity. Readers see their own hardships reflected in this broader critique of entrenched power and privilege.

The Higher Education Inquirer situates these contemporary crises within broader historical and global contexts. Stories like Camp Mystic: A Century of Privilege, Exclusion, and Resilience Along the Guadalupe and the coverage of global credential inflation emphasize that these challenges are neither new nor isolated. They are manifestations of ongoing systems of class and racial stratification shaped by layered policies and politics.

Political and institutional power, from conservative attacks on intellectualism highlighted in Trump’s War on Intellectualism Is a Threat to Democracy—But Elite Universities Aren’t Innocent Victims to liberal administrations’ partial debt relief programs covered in Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Student Loan Forgiveness and Borrower Assistance Actions (US Department of Education), is examined with a critical eye. Avoiding partisan cheerleading, HEI’s articles assess outcomes and motivations alike, revealing how all sides often fall short of addressing the real needs of those most affected by higher education’s shortcomings.

A direct, investigative tone defines HEI’s reporting style. The publication favors evidence over euphemism, facts over empty rhetoric, and is unafraid to “name names” or challenge elite narratives. This clear-eyed approach attracts readers hungry for unvarnished truth and meaningful accountability.

The stories’ appeal also lies in their specificity and depth. Rather than abstract generalizations, these articles deliver carefully documented accounts focused on named institutions, individuals, and policies. This grounded approach builds credibility and fosters sharing among activists, academics, borrowers, and advocates.

Together, these elements form the distinctive formula behind the Higher Education Inquirer’s most impactful work—breaking through misinformation, challenging entrenched interests, and centering the lived realities behind the headlines.


Sources:
Higher Education Inquirer archives, reader engagement analytics, public reports on higher education misconduct, debt and credential inflation studies, political analysis of education policy, community feedback from borrower and academic advocacy groups.

Friday, August 8, 2025

Art Laffer at YAF: Still Relevant, Still Wrong

Arthur Laffer, the Reagan-era economist best known for the “Laffer Curve,” appeared recently at a Young America's Foundation (YAF) event, still making the same tired claims that have shaped decades of economic inequality, deregulation, and magical thinking. The event, broadcast on C-SPAN, was marketed as a fresh take on conservative economics. What it delivered instead was a rerun of discredited supply-side talking points—punctuated by jokes that fell embarrassingly flat.

Laffer claimed that Donald Trump's tariffs were a strategy to bring about more free trade in the future—a baffling contradiction to anyone who understands trade policy or the basics of coercive economic diplomacy. The idea that protectionism is a roundabout route to free markets would be laughable if it weren't so destructive. But Laffer, like many libertarians, thrives on contradiction. The audience—young, mostly white, mostly male—nodded along as if it all made sense.

He also defended increased U.S. military spending, invoking Ronald Reagan’s 1980s arms buildup. What he didn’t mention: Reagan was in the early stages of dementia during his presidency, and his military strategy deepened the national debt, even as Laffer’s beloved tax cuts starved the government of revenue. That context never surfaced, of course.

Laffer’s appearance was followed by Linda McMahon, former WWE executive and Small Business Administration head under Trump. The tag team pairing reinforced the spectacle of right-wing economic theater disguised as intellectual discourse.

YAF, a competitor to Turning Point USA, presents itself as the more polished brand of conservative youth organizing. It's backed by deep pockets and institutional support, but its message remains the same: glorify the market, demonize government, and elevate charisma over critical thinking. Its speakers are well-coached in rhetorical sparring, skilled in sophistry, and eager to exploit the inexperience of their college-aged audience.

Laffer fits that mold perfectly. He’s less a thought leader than a relic of failed policy, propped up by a movement that rewards ideological loyalty over intellectual honesty. His ideas can't really be called “theories” anymore—empirical evidence has repeatedly debunked them. But among libertarians and the far right, evidence is optional, and repetition is persuasive.

Young America’s Foundation is adept at drawing youth into a worldview of individualism that rarely benefits individuals. It relies on the passion and ignorance of its followers, asking them to embrace contradictions: that tariffs bring freedom, that debt from war is freedom, that cutting taxes magically increases revenue. It's a faith-based economics, and Laffer remains its high priest.

In the end, the only thing more stale than the Laffer Curve is the attempt to keep it alive.

Sources:

  • C-SPAN: Art Laffer speech at YAF

  • Reagan's Alzheimer's revelations: The New York Times

  • Critiques of supply-side economics: Brookings, Economic Policy Institute

  • YAF background: Media Matters, The Nation

Thursday, August 7, 2025

Why Educators and Students Should Read Disillusioned by Benjamin Herold

Benjamin Herold’s Disillusioned: Five Families and the Unraveling of America’s Suburbs offers a rare and urgent account of how postwar suburbia—often seen as the apex of the American Dream—has become a fractured and unstable landscape, especially when it comes to public education. Through the personal stories of five families across the US, Herold builds a layered portrait of promise and betrayal.

This is a book educators and students should read—not for comfort, but for clarity.

Rutgers professor Kevin Clay (L) interviews Benjamin Herold (R), July 2025

Suburbia as an Engine of Inequality

Herold’s central thesis is as unsettling as it is undeniable: the post-WWII suburban boom was not a neutral act of growth, but a racialized, exclusionary economic project that served some families at the expense of others. Communities that were once predominantly white and upwardly mobile—like Compton and Penn Hills—are now struggling with declining school enrollment, shrinking tax bases, and rising segregation by income and race. In places like Evanston and Atlanta, attempts to reckon with inequality are often met with community resistance, bureaucratic inertia, and political backlash. Meanwhile, rapidly diversifying suburbs around Dallas reflect the shifting demographics of the country—and the urgency of crafting a new educational and civic infrastructure that doesn't fall into the same traps.

Herold doesn’t flatten these places into statistics. Instead, he follows five families trying to raise their children in what were once considered "good" school districts. Some are Black families confronting the limits of inclusion. Others are white families grappling with their own privilege and discomfort. Through them, we see how suburban schools continue to promise opportunity while too often delivering disappointment—especially for children of color, immigrant families, and those living paycheck to paycheck.

A Curriculum for Truth

Educators reading Disillusioned will recognize the impossible pressures placed on schools: to close racial achievement gaps, maintain property values, please demanding parents, and adapt to political mandates—often without adequate funding or community cohesion. Herold shows how schools, even with the best intentions, are asked to solve problems they did not create and are not empowered to fix on their own.

This book is especially useful for those who teach about inequality, education policy, or American history. It connects housing policy, school funding, and institutional trust in ways that are personal and accessible. For students, it opens up a broader view of how structural forces—redlining, white flight, suburban sprawl, and tax policy—shape their daily lives and futures, often invisibly.

Beyond the Classroom

Disillusioned also serves as a sobering reflection for anyone involved in reform efforts. School choice, desegregation programs, testing regimes, anti-racism initiatives—all have had mixed results, in part because they fail to challenge the core structures of suburban exclusion. Without deeper shifts in housing, taxation, and civic engagement, educational equity remains aspirational.

Herold’s reporting does not offer easy solutions. But it does offer something more valuable: context, empathy, and a sense of urgency. He shows us that while the suburbs may look different than they did in 1950, many of the underlying rules remain the same—and the consequences are growing more severe.

A Necessary Reckoning

The five towns Herold explores are not outliers. They are bellwethers. The racial and economic tensions playing out in Compton, Evanston, Penn Hills, Atlanta, and Dallas are already shaping the future of America’s suburbs—and its public education system. These are not just stories about local politics or school board fights. They are about the future of democracy, the erosion of public goods, and whether the next generation will inherit anything better.

For anyone serious about education, equity, or the American future, Disillusioned is essential reading. It demands not just understanding, but action.

Sources
Herold, Benjamin. Disillusioned: Five Families and the Unraveling of America's Suburbs. The New Press, 2024.
Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright, 2017.
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press, 1985.
Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta. Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership. University of North Carolina Press, 2019.

Wednesday, August 6, 2025

The Hidden Crisis: Debt and Inequality Among Ph.D. Graduates

For decades, a Ph.D. has been viewed as the pinnacle of academic achievement. Yet behind the prestige lies a growing financial burden that disproportionately affects students in the humanities, education, social sciences, and health-related fields. As the cost of higher education continues to rise and funding disparities persist across disciplines, many doctoral graduates are finding themselves saddled with unsustainable levels of debt—and limited job prospects to match.

Data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), administered by the National Science Foundation, shows that new Ph.D. recipients in the humanities and arts are among the most likely to graduate with high levels of education-related debt. In 2020, 18% of these graduates reported more than $50,000 in debt, compared to under 5% of engineering and physical sciences Ph.D.’s. Nearly 90% of engineering, math, and physical sciences graduates completed their programs with less than $10,000 in debt. This level of disparity reflects long-standing inequities in how doctoral education is funded.

Yet the humanities are not alone. Several other doctoral fields show similar or worse financial patterns, often with little public attention.


Education Ph.D.’s: High Ideals, Heavier Debt

One of the most indebted groups in graduate education is those earning Ph.D.’s in education. In 2020, just 47% of education doctoral graduates left without any graduate education debt—down from 62% in 2004. Despite being among the lowest-paid doctoral degree holders, education Ph.D.’s are expected to take on leadership roles in schools, districts, or universities—many of which are increasingly reliant on part-time labor or austerity budgets. The mismatch between debt incurred and income potential is among the worst in higher education.


Psychology and Behavioral Sciences: A Pipeline to Precarity

Students pursuing doctorates in psychology and related behavioral sciences also face rising debt, especially in clinical and counseling specializations that require unpaid or underpaid internships and practicum hours. While 63% of new graduates in this area reported less than $10,000 in debt in 2020, a significant minority fell into the $30,000 to $90,000+ range. The financial burden is compounded by licensing requirements and low reimbursement rates in mental health professions. Many psychologists work in strained public systems, often serving low-income and vulnerable populations.


Health-Related Doctorates: Not All Medical Degrees Pay Off

Professional doctorates in healthcare—such as the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), and Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD)—are often marketed as high-demand credentials. Yet they carry massive tuition bills and limited institutional funding, especially compared to MD or Ph.D. programs. Graduates in these areas routinely report $100,000 to $150,000 in debt, with some exceeding $200,000. And as new programs proliferate—especially at private and for-profit institutions—the job market has become increasingly saturated, particularly for pharmacists and physical therapists.


Social Work and Public Service: Debt-Fueled Altruism

Doctoral degrees in social work and public administration are frequently pursued by those seeking to lead in nonprofits, public agencies, or higher education. But the returns are modest. Many social work Ph.D.’s and DSWs leave school with $50,000 to $100,000 or more in debt. Jobs are often emotionally demanding, poorly compensated, and subject to burnout. Despite the “practical” nature of these degrees, financial insecurity remains a constant for many graduates.


Race, Debt, and Structural Inequity

Debt burdens also mirror longstanding racial and economic inequalities in higher education. Between 2015 and 2020, 55% of American Indian/Alaska Native and Black/African American humanities and arts Ph.D.’s graduated with more than $30,000 in debt—far higher than the average for other racial and ethnic groups. Indigenous students in particular face disproportionate debt levels relative to their representation and institutional support. These figures reflect a broader pattern of exclusion, where marginalized communities pay more to gain access to degrees that offer fewer economic returns.


The Polarization of Graduate Debt

Across nearly all disciplines, the period from 2015 to 2020 saw a shift in the distribution of graduate debt toward the extremes: more students finished either with no debt or with very high debt. For humanities and arts Ph.D.’s, the share of debt-free graduates rose by 8 percentage points. But at the same time, the share with over $90,000 in debt also increased, pointing to a bifurcated system where some students are fully funded while others are left financially exposed.


An Unequal System of Doctoral Education

The disparities in debt and job prospects among Ph.D. fields reveal deep problems in the political economy of U.S. graduate education:

  • STEM fields benefit from federal research funding and industry partnerships that help subsidize tuition and provide stipends.

  • Humanities, education, and social work programs rely heavily on student loans and tuition revenue, often at under-resourced public institutions.

  • Women and students of color are disproportionately represented in fields with high debt and low pay, reinforcing broader patterns of inequality.

Despite these challenges, universities continue to market Ph.D. programs as tickets to professional success and personal fulfillment—ignoring the growing body of evidence that for many, the costs may outweigh the benefits.


A Call for Structural Reform

The growing debt crisis among Ph.D. graduates in non-STEM fields reflects more than just poor financial planning—it reveals a system in which certain kinds of knowledge and service are undervalued. As policymakers and institutions consider the future of graduate education, they must confront the realities of underfunding, labor precarity, and racial inequality that have become embedded in the Ph.D. pipeline.

Without meaningful reform—including equitable funding, debt relief, and transparent job placement data—the doctorate risks becoming a credential for the privileged and a trap for the rest.


Sources

  • Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

  • Humanities Indicators, American Academy of Arts & Sciences

  • American Psychological Association (APA)

  • American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN)

  • American Physical Therapy Association (APTA)

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

  • Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

  • National Endowment for the Humanities

Monday, August 4, 2025

The Chicago School of Economics: A Political Takeover Masquerading as Science

For decades, the Chicago School of Economics has been held up by its adherents as the intellectual engine behind “free market” policies—its faculty lionized, its ideology exported, its disciples placed in positions of power across the globe. But beneath the polished veneer of economic modeling and Nobel prizes lies something far more insidious: not a neutral scientific project, but a political takeover cloaked in the language of rationality.

The Chicago School—rooted in the University of Chicago’s Department of Economics and typified by figures like Milton Friedman, George Stigler, and Gary Becker—has long promoted the idea that markets are efficient, individuals are rational actors, and government interference should be minimal. Its tools are equations; its products are policies. But the effects of those policies—deregulation, privatization, austerity, and corporate tax cuts—reveal a consistent political orientation: upward wealth redistribution and consolidation of power among the elite.

This isn’t science. It’s sophistry.

A “Science” That Can’t Predict

Unlike the physical sciences, economics—particularly the Chicago School strain—has failed spectacularly at prediction. It didn’t anticipate the global financial crash of 2008. It didn’t predict the collapse of neoliberal development models in Latin America, Russia, or post-invasion Iraq. What it has done, instead, is offer intellectual cover for policies that have made the global economy less stable and more unequal.

If this were biology or engineering, the repeated failures would warrant rethinking the entire theoretical framework. But Chicago-style economics survives because it is not held accountable by the standards of real science. It is propped up by billionaire-funded think tanks, right-wing political operatives, and a compliant media machine that prizes certainty over complexity.

Crisis as a Feature, Not a Bug

The most telling feature of the Chicago School is its acceptance—even embrace—of financial collapse. To these economists, crises are inevitable market “corrections,” moments of creative destruction that supposedly cleanse inefficiencies. But these corrections always seem to fall hardest on workers, the poor, and the public sector.

When the crashes come, the Chicago School has a solution: public bailouts for private failure. In 2008, the banks that tanked the economy were rescued with taxpayer money. Airlines, oil companies, and private equity firms have enjoyed the same perks during subsequent downturns. Risk is privatized during booms and socialized during busts. This is not market discipline. It’s a revolving door between state and capital, justified by the rhetorical sleight-of-hand of “market efficiency.”

Disciples Without Scrutiny

Graduates of the Chicago School populate central banks, finance ministries, and international institutions like the IMF and World Bank. In countries from Chile under Pinochet to post-Soviet Russia, these “experts” imposed shock therapy on fragile societies—cutting public services, smashing unions, and opening markets to foreign capital. The human cost has been immense: hunger, homelessness, reduced life expectancy, and lost sovereignty.

And yet, because the ideology is couched in the technocratic language of “growth” and “efficiency,” it is rarely scrutinized in mainstream discourse. As the sociologist Philip Mirowski has argued, neoliberal economists effectively launder ideology through the language of science. They wear lab coats, but they serve oligarchs.

Higher Education as a Host

Higher education didn’t just incubate this ideology; it exported it. Endowed chairs, corporate-funded centers, and prestigious lecture circuits have made Chicago School economists wealthy and powerful. Institutions like the Hoover Institution, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute have amplified their ideas while silencing dissent. Critical perspectives—Marxist, feminist, ecological—have been marginalized or defunded in economics departments across the U.S. and much of the Global North.

Meanwhile, public universities struggling for funding have adopted Chicago-style managerial logic: metrics over mission, ROI over learning, adjuncts over tenure. The logic of the market has colonized the classroom.

The Ideology of the Empire

Chicago School economics has become the lingua franca of empire. It rationalizes austerity, justifies tax havens, normalizes poverty, and sanctifies inequality. It tells working people that if they’re poor, they must be irrational. It tells governments to balance budgets, not lives. It tells universities to behave like hedge funds.

The project is not just intellectual—it is political. And its time is up.

In a world facing climate collapse, runaway inequality, and democratic backsliding, we must recognize Chicago economics for what it is: not a neutral science but a strategic takeover. A theology of markets with no god but capital, no law but competition, and no justice but profit.

It cannot predict. It does not prevent. And it refuses to be held accountable.

Let us end the charade.


Sources:

  • Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste (2013)

  • Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine (2007)

  • Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (2018)

  • Robert Kuttner, Debtors’ Prison (2013)

  • David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years (2011)

For more critical investigations into political economy and higher education, visit Higher Education Inquirer.