Search This Blog

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

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Applauding a Brave Stand for Academic Freedom at the Harvard Crimson

In a moment when academic institutions often yield to external pressure, The Harvard Crimson recently delivered a vital reminder of what true scholarly integrity looks like. Its coverage of the open letter signed by more than 360 academics worldwide—demanding accountability from the Harvard Education Publishing Group (HEPG) for its abrupt cancellation of a special issue on Palestine and education—deserves high praise.

A Stand Against Scholasticide

The canceled issue, initially slated for release following a full editorial process, was pulled two months prior to publication under the pretext of “copy-editing issues” and editorial misalignment. Yet scholars and editors viewed this as censorship—what some have called “scholasticide”—undermining both academic freedom and HEPG’s mission. The Harvard Educational Review (HER) student editorial board publicly denounced the move, describing it as inconsistent with the journal’s nearly century-long legacy.

Global Solidarity and Moral Clarity

The open letter drew signatures from professors across more than 55 institutions worldwide—an extraordinary act of scholarly solidarity. Signatories demanded HEPG acknowledge its decision as discriminatory, reverse the cancellation, and safeguard editorial independence from political interference. In doing so, they upheld academic freedom not simply as institutional rhetoric, but as a moral imperative.

Why The Harvard Crimson Coverage Matters

The Crimson’s reporting illuminated an issue too often buried in bureaucratic opacity. It traced the timeline of a late-stage “legal risk assessment” that derailed the issue and documented the dismay of editors and authors. More importantly, it framed the cancellation as a threat not only to scholarship on Palestine, but to academic freedom more broadly.

By bringing this story to light, The Crimson demonstrated what real student journalism can achieve: holding power to account, amplifying marginalized voices, and ensuring that critical debates remain visible.

In Defense of Ideas, Especially Contested Ones

In polarized times, academic freedom can feel precarious—especially when certain topics trigger political sensitivities. The cancellation of a Palestine-focused issue raises alarms that should not be ignored. What The Crimson provided was more than reporting; it was a rallying moment, a reminder that student journalists and scholars worldwide can resist institutional silence.

Academic Freedom Must Be Defended

The Harvard Crimson’s coverage is a model for higher education journalism—courageous, unflinching, and morally clear. By spotlighting both the injustice of the cancellation and the global academic response, The Crimson affirmed that when institutions retreat, journalism can still advance the cause of truth.

May this moment remind us: academic freedom is never guaranteed. It must be defended—and applauded—when it is under threat.


Sources

  • The Harvard Crimson, “Over 360 Academics Sign Letter Condemning Harvard Education Publishing Group’s Cancellation of Palestine Issue” (Aug. 15, 2025)

  • The Harvard Crimson, “Harvard Educational Review Cancels Special Issue on Palestine” (July 24, 2025)

  • Wikipedia, Harvard Educational Review entry

  • Open letter from international scholars to HEPG (2025)

  • American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure

  • Joan Wallach Scott, Knowledge, Power, and Academic Freedom (2019)

  • Matthew Hedges, Repression and Academic Freedom in the Middle East (2021)

  • Steven Salaita, Uncivil Rites: Palestine and the Limits of Academic Freedom (2015)

Friday, August 15, 2025

Some Conservatives May Be Right About Immigration and Labor: A Closer Look at a Shared Problem

Immigration debates often feature the refrain that new arrivals are “more American than us” and the advice that struggling workers should “just learn to code.” While these narratives may offer comfort, they obscure deeper realities shaping the American labor market—and on this issue, some conservatives’ frustrations reflect real challenges.

It’s important to remember that Native Americans and African Americans have faced centuries of systemic discrimination and continue to endure economic and social inequities. This article does not minimize that history but focuses on the current frustrations of working-class white Americans who feel left behind.

For decades, both the political Right and neoliberal forces have contributed to the erosion of good-paying jobs across sectors, including higher education. Universities have increasingly relied on foreign labor programs, such as the H-1B visa, to hire international faculty and staff. This practice helps institutions keep labor costs down by paying lower wages compared to American workers, and it allows universities greater control—since many foreign employees’ immigration status depends on their employer, making it harder for them to challenge poor working conditions or demand better pay.

At the same time, higher education has seen a dramatic rise in adjunct and contingent faculty positions, often paid poorly and lacking job security or collective bargaining power. These labor strategies reflect a broader neoliberal trend toward weakening worker protections and maximizing institutional flexibility and control.

In the tech sector, companies like Amazon and Microsoft have filed tens of thousands of visa applications for entry- and mid-level positions paid below prevailing wages, further intensifying job competition. Employers are not legally required to demonstrate that qualified Americans are unavailable before hiring foreign workers—a key fact often overlooked.

This combination of labor importation, job cuts, and anti-labor policies fuels economic anxiety among working-class Americans, especially younger voters. Recent polls show a notable shift toward Republicans driven in part by concerns about immigration and job security.

Yet politicians and the media largely avoid scrutinizing these practices, unwilling to challenge corporate and institutional interests that benefit from them. The quiet growth of foreign labor programs and the erosion of worker rights receive far less attention than federal workforce reductions, which are framed as threats to American values.

This is not a critique of immigration or immigrants’ contributions. Instead, it calls for honest discussion about how bipartisan policies and institutional practices—including in higher education—have reshaped the labor market to the detriment of many Americans.

Meaningful solutions will require rebuilding worker protections, enforcing fair hiring practices, and creating economic opportunities for all. Acknowledging the shared frustrations across political lines can open pathways for progress.


Sources:

  • The Hill, "Visa Bonds Pilot Program and Corporate Use of H-1B Visas," 2025

  • Labor Department Office of Foreign Labor Certification Data, 2025

  • Interview with Howard University Professor Ron Hira, H-1B expert

  • Yale Youth Poll, 2025

  • Statements from Microsoft, Amazon, and other corporations, 2025

  • Higher Education labor reports on adjunct faculty, foreign labor, and collective bargaining, 2024–25

Thursday, August 14, 2025

Was Turning Point USA inflitrated by a Russian informant?

In the murky world of political nonprofits and student organizations, foreign influence is often subtle—but sometimes the signs are hard to ignore. Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the high-profile conservative nonprofit mobilizing students across the United States, has come under our scrutiny for potential infiltration by individuals with Kremlin connections. 

Central to this story is Alexandra Hollenbeck, a former student journalist and TPUSA associate whose activities raise questions about Russian influence in American student politics.  While much of the information has been scrubbed from the Internet, we still hold considerable evidence.  

Hollenbeck’s Background and Unusual Affiliations

Alexandra Hollenbeck has contributed to conservative publications such as The Post Millennial, Washington Examiner, and TurningPoint.News. Her work includes coverage of pro-Trump narratives, student activism, and international affairs. 

In a 2017 article for TPUSA’s Student Action Summit, Hollenbeck reported on former Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka’s speech, highlighting his devotion to combating jihadists and supporting Trump’s agenda. Gorka’s talk drew historical parallels, beginning with the story of Paul, a 15-year-old boy walking through post-war Budapest, emphasizing that “liberty is as precious as it is fragile.”

Hollenbeck’s prominence within TPUSA circles became more conspicuous after she was photographed at the Kremlin during a pro-Putin rally—a rare and striking connection for a U.S.-based political journalist. 

Attempts at Federal Oversight and Silence

Inquiries to the FBI regarding Hollenbeck’s activities yielded no response.  TPUSA also never responded to our questions.  

Why TPUSA Could Be Vulnerable

TPUSA operates extensive student networks and organizes high-profile events that attract donors, media, and political figures. While the organization is influential within U.S. conservative circles, its internal vetting procedures for affiliates and journalists are less transparent. This opacity creates opportunities for individuals to gain access to sensitive networks, messaging, and potentially student data.

Hollenbeck’s activities—her Kremlin presence, her coverage of pro-Trump events, and her involvement in TPUSA events—illustrate why external scrutiny is warranted. While no definitive proof of espionage or formal Russian affiliation has been established, the pattern of her engagements suggests a potential risk of foreign influence.

Implications for Student Organizations

Hollenbeck’s case highlights broader vulnerabilities. U.S. student political organizations, particularly those with ideological missions and national reach, can be attractive targets for foreign influence. The combination of access to young adults, credibility on campuses, and ties to political figures creates strategic opportunities for external actors.

Even the perception of foreign infiltration can damage trust, complicate fundraising, and raise national security concerns, particularly when student data or organizational communications could be exposed.

Vigilance and Transparency Are Essential

While no concrete evidence has emerged proving that Hollenbeck acted on behalf of the Russian government, her Kremlin connections, TPUSA involvement, and early work covering ideologically charged events like Gorka’s summit illustrate a cautionary tale. Student organizations, nonprofits, and journalists must remain alert to potential foreign influence and implement safeguards to protect institutional integrity.

For TPUSA, this means auditing affiliations, reviewing internal vetting procedures, and ensuring participants act in the organization’s and public’s best interests. For journalists and watchdogs, it underscores the importance of persistent investigation into intersections between U.S.-based political networks and foreign actors.

The case of Alexandra Hollenbeck demonstrates that in today’s political environment, the lines between ideology, influence, and infiltration are increasingly blurred—and the stakes for student organizations and U.S. democracy are higher than ever.


Make America Crash Again (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These issues are deeply interconnected and require comprehensive approaches.

Sources

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


Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Silencing Higher Education: Trump’s War on Discourse About Genocide in Palestine

Academic institutions have long served as crucibles of free thought and protest. Yet under President Trump’s second term, universities have become battlegrounds in a sweeping campaign that conflates advocacy around the genocide in Gaza with antisemitism—and weaponizes Title VI and Title IX to stifle dissent. This article outlines the administration’s tactics, war crimes ramifications, and the universities ensnared so far.


War Crimes at Issue: Gaza Protests and U.S. Reaction

The conflict in Gaza has seen mounting allegations of genocide against Israel—claims underscored by protests on dozens of U.S. campuses. In response, the Trump administration has launched a social media “catch-and-revoke” system that uses AI to flag pro-Palestinian speech, leading to visa revocations and deportations—even targeting legal residents and green-card holders. Over 1,000 visa revocations were reported by mid-April 2025, rising to nearly 2,000 by mid-May—many later overturned by courts.

Activists such as Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University legal resident arrested during a protest, and Mohsen Mahdawi, detained during a citizenship interview, have been caught up in these actions—both cases widely criticized for infringing First Amendment rights. These responses reflect a concerted effort to equate peaceful protest with national-security threats under the guise of combating antisemitism.


Title VI Enforcement: Chilling Academic Freedom

Under a January 29, 2025 Executive Order, Trump directed federal agencies to squash antisemitism—including speech critical of Israel—by enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against universities.

In March 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities, warning of enforcement investigations over alleged antisemitism during pro-Gaza protests. This has had an unmistakable chilling effect on faculty, students, and campus activism.


Institutions Targeted and Financial Punishments

The administration’s pressure tactics have taken several forms.

Columbia University saw $400 million in federal grants and contracts canceled, tied to agencies including the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The university received an ultimatum to change discipline policies, suspend or expel protestors, ban masks, empower security with arrest authority, and restructure certain academic departments by March 20—under threat of permanent funding loss. Columbia ultimately settled for $200 million and restored funding.

George Washington University was accused by the DOJ of being “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic harassment during spring 2024 protests, especially affecting Jewish, American-Israeli, and Israeli students and faculty, and was given a deadline of August 22 to take corrective action.

UCLA recently had $584 million in federal funding suspended over similar antisemitism-related accusations and affirmative action concerns.

Harvard University is in settlement talks over nearly $500 million in frozen federal funding, negotiating compliance with federal guidelines in exchange for restoring money. Harvard also faces a separate Title VI/IX complaint over $49 million in DEI grants, with claims of race- and sex-based discrimination.

Other institutions under investigation include Johns Hopkins, NYU, Northwestern, UC Berkeley, University of Minnesota, and USC.


Legal Backlash and Academic Resistance

Universities and academic organizations have begun to push back.

The AAUP has filed suit against Trump’s executive orders on DEI, calling them vague, overreaching, and chilling to speech. Some institutions, including Harvard, have resisted enforcement efforts, defending academic freedom and constitutional rights—even as they weigh risks to federal funding.

Legal experts argue that Title VI enforcement in this context may be unconstitutional if motivated by ideological suppression rather than actual antisemitism.


The Battle for Free Speech and Human Rights

Trump’s strategy effectively conjoins criticism of genocide and advocacy for Palestinian rights with civil rights violations—casting a chilling effect across campuses nationwide. The consequences are profound.

Academic autonomy is undermined when universities must trade institutional integrity for compliance with politically driven mandates. Student activism, especially from international and Palestinian voices, faces existential threats via visa policies and deportation tactics. Human rights accountability is sidelined when federal power is used to muzzle discourse about atrocities abroad.


Sources:

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

Sunday, August 10, 2025

Understanding the Challenges of U.S. Higher Education for Canadian Students: Debt, Credentialing, and Cross-Border Policies

Each year, thousands of Canadian students choose to study in the United States, attracted by diverse programs and research opportunities. According to Statistics Canada, nearly 27,000 Canadians were enrolled in U.S. institutions during the 2021–2022 academic year. However, pursuing U.S. education presents distinct financial and regulatory challenges that are often overlooked.

Navigating Student Debt
While Canadian students have access to government-backed loans in Canada, studying in the U.S. means contending with higher tuition fees and limited eligibility for U.S. federal student loans. Canadian borrowers frequently turn to private lenders or Canadian banks offering international education loans, often with higher interest rates and complex repayment terms.

A 2022 report by the Canadian Federation of Students found that Canadian students studying abroad carry an average debt of CAD 35,000 (~$26,000 USD), a significant portion attributable to international tuition and living costs. Currency exchange rate fluctuations can further increase repayment burdens.

Credential Recognition and Employment Barriers
Degrees earned in the U.S. are generally recognized in Canada, but some regulated professions pose barriers. For example, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board requires Canadian-specific certification, and healthcare professionals must undergo additional licensing exams. The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials reports that about 15% of Canadian graduates from U.S. institutions experience delays or difficulties in credential recognition.

This disconnect can impact employment prospects and wage potential. According to a 2023 Statistics Canada survey, roughly 20% of Canadian graduates from foreign universities reported underemployment or working outside their field within two years of graduation.

Impact of Cross-Border Policies
U.S. visa and work authorization policies such as Optional Practical Training (OPT) affect Canadian students’ ability to gain practical experience in the U.S. after graduation. Although Canadians benefit from streamlined visa processes compared to other international students, recent tightening of U.S. immigration policies has created uncertainty.

Moreover, tax treaties and healthcare coverage differences complicate financial planning for Canadian students in the U.S. Understanding these policies is essential for managing both academic and post-graduation transitions.

Why Canadian Students Should Stay Informed
Canadian students and families investing in U.S. education need clear information on financial aid options, credentialing processes, and immigration regulations. HEI’s investigative reporting offers insights into these complexities, helping prospective students make informed decisions and avoid financial pitfalls.


Sources:

  • Statistics Canada, “Canadian Students Enrolled Abroad,” 2022

  • Canadian Federation of Students, “Student Debt Report,” 2022

  • Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC), 2023

  • Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board guidelines

  • Statistics Canada, “Underemployment Among International Graduates,” 2023

  • U.S. Department of State, Visa Policies and OPT Guidelines

What Indian Students Need to Know About U.S. Higher Education Debt and Credential Recognition

Thousands of Indian students continue to pursue U.S. higher education each year, seeking advanced degrees and better career opportunities. In the 2022–2023 academic year, India remained the second-largest source of international students in the U.S., with over 200,000 enrolled, according to the Institute of International Education (IIE). Yet, the path to U.S. education is fraught with financial and credentialing challenges that deserve closer scrutiny.

Student Debt and Loan Access
Unlike U.S. citizens, Indian students are generally ineligible for federal student loans and must rely on private loans, often with higher interest rates and stricter terms. A 2021 report by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) found that Indian international students borrowing privately face interest rates ranging from 10% to 15% per annum, far above typical U.S. federal loan rates. Currency fluctuations can increase repayment costs significantly.

Many Indian families take on substantial debt; a 2023 survey by Avanse Financial Services showed that over 60% of Indian students studying abroad rely on education loans, averaging INR 20 lakhs (~$24,000 USD). Yet loan terms, hidden fees, and limited borrower protections often trap families in cycles of debt.

Credential Recognition and Employment
Returning Indian graduates face challenges as U.S. degrees may not seamlessly transfer to regulated Indian professions such as medicine, engineering, or law. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has strict rules on recognizing foreign credentials, and lack of equivalency delays or blocks career advancement.

The National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) reports that nearly 30% of Indian graduates from abroad struggle to find jobs that match their qualifications, partly due to mismatched credential recognition. This gap affects long-term earning potential and job security.

Visa and Immigration Policy Impacts
Recent changes to U.S. visa policies have added uncertainty. The U.S. Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) has tightened rules around work permits like Optional Practical Training (OPT), limiting post-graduation employment options. According to the Migration Policy Institute, between 2017 and 2022, Indian student visa approvals saw a decline of nearly 15%, reflecting stricter scrutiny.

Why This Matters
Indian students and their families deserve transparent information and protections to avoid costly mistakes. Investigative reporting reveals how financial products and policies can disadvantage international students disproportionately.

HEI’s coverage aims to empower Indian students with insights on loan options, credential evaluation, and visa regulations—key factors in making informed decisions about studying in the U.S.


Sources:

  • Institute of International Education (IIE), Open Doors Report 2023

  • International Finance Corporation (IFC), “International Student Financing Report,” 2021

  • Avanse Financial Services, Indian Student Loan Survey, 2023

  • All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) guidelines on foreign credential recognition

  • National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) employment data, 2022

  • Migration Policy Institute, U.S. Student Visa Trends, 2017–2022

Saturday, August 9, 2025

Troubled Future: Data Centers, Crypto, and EPA Downsizing

The environmental costs of digital infrastructure and financial speculation are rising rapidly, while federal oversight remains inconsistent and under-resourced. Data centers and cryptocurrency mining now consume vast amounts of electricity and water across the United States, yet much of this resource use is poorly tracked or omitted from public emissions reporting. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has seen significant staffing losses, rule reversals, and new threats to its institutional survival.

These trends are not isolated. Together, they reflect a shift toward energy-intensive technologies, deregulation of high-polluting industries, and a weakened capacity to respond to environmental harm. The long-term consequences will be difficult to reverse.

The Energy and Water Demands of Data Centers

Data centers are expanding to meet demand for cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and digital storage. These facilities rely heavily on continuous electricity and water for cooling. Some consume millions of gallons of water per day, and projections show their electricity use may double in the next few years. Many are located in areas already under water stress.

The environmental impact of data centers goes beyond their daily operations. Construction materials, server manufacturing, and on-site diesel backup generators all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Yet these emissions are often excluded from formal greenhouse gas inventories, especially when they occur outside the facility’s geographic or corporate boundaries.

Crypto Mining as an Unregulated Energy Sector

Cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin, requires massive computing power. These operations have migrated to U.S. states with low energy prices and minimal regulatory oversight. Bitcoin mining alone now consumes more electricity annually than many countries.

The emissions from crypto mining are significant, but they are not consistently tracked. Facilities often operate below emissions reporting thresholds or through decentralized networks that fall outside EPA scrutiny. In many cases, power is sourced from fossil fuels, and companies are not required to disclose their energy mix or carbon footprint.

Residents living near crypto facilities have reported noise, pollution, and local grid strain. Yet enforcement is limited or nonexistent in most jurisdictions.

The Shrinking Capacity of the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency has lost hundreds of experienced staff since 2017, including scientists and enforcement personnel. Budget cuts, political pressure, and legal constraints have made it difficult for the agency to maintain oversight of fast-growing industries like digital infrastructure and blockchain technology.

Many environmental rules were rolled back between 2017 and 2020, increasing overall emissions and reducing safeguards for air and water. Although some regulations have been restored, the agency remains under political threat. Proposals to reorganize or dismantle the EPA altogether have resurfaced, potentially removing the last federal layer of accountability in many regions.

Greenhouse gas reporting systems still rely heavily on corporate self-reporting. Emerging sectors such as AI, crypto, and hyperscale data storage are not fully integrated into federal carbon inventories, and indirect emissions—such as those from supply chains and off-site electricity generation—are often omitted entirely.

A Delayed and Unequal Cost

The consequences of these developments will accumulate slowly but with increasing severity. Emissions released today will remain in the atmosphere for decades. Water used to cool servers will not be available to communities experiencing drought or contamination.

Those who profit from these trends—tech corporations, crypto investors, and political donors—will not be the ones facing the costs. The burden will fall on future generations, frontline communities, and the global South.

Institutions of higher education, many of which depend on cloud platforms, server farms, and AI applications, are deeply connected to this digital growth. They also have an opportunity—and arguably a responsibility—to examine the long-term impacts of these systems and hold corporate partners accountable.

Technological advancement has material consequences. The energy and water behind our digital lives are not virtual, and the lack of environmental regulation only increases the harm. Without accurate measurement and stronger enforcement, damage will continue without acknowledgement—and without remedy.

Sources
International Energy Agency, Electricity 2024
U.S. Department of Energy, Quadrennial Technology Review, 2023
Ma, J. et al., “The Water Footprint of Data Centers,” Nature Communications, 2023
Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, 2023
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Crypto-Assets Report, 2022
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2024
Government Accountability Office, EPA Workforce Report, 2021
Brookings Institution, Deregulation Tracker, 2020
Greenpeace USA, Poisoned by Pollution: Crypto Mining’s Environmental Toll, 2022
ProPublica, The Real Cost of the Cloud, 2023

Friday, August 8, 2025

Stanford's student newspaper sues President Trump

The Stanford Daily has filed a federal lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, marking a bold legal move from one of the country’s most prominent student newspapers. Editors at the Daily argue that Trump-era immigration policies targeting international students for political speech violated constitutional protections and created a climate of fear on campus.

This legal action arrives during a moment of institutional turmoil at Stanford. Just days before the lawsuit was filed, university officials announced layoffs of more than 360 staff members, following $140 million in budget cuts. Administrators cited federal funding reductions and a steep endowment tax—legacies of Trump’s policies—as major factors behind the financial strain.

Student journalists now find themselves confronting the same administration that reshaped higher education financing, gutted transparency, and targeted dissent. Their lawsuit challenges the chilling effect of visa threats against noncitizen students, particularly those who criticize U.S. or Israeli policy. Two international students joined the case anonymously, citing fear of deportation for expressing political views.

Stanford holds one of the largest university endowments in the world, valued between $37 and $40 billion. Despite this immense wealth, hundreds of staff—including research support, technical workers, and student service roles—face termination. The disconnect between administrative austerity and executive influence speaks to a larger crisis in higher education governance.

The Daily’s lawsuit cuts to the core of that crisis. Student reporters are asking not only for legal accountability, but also for transparency around how universities respond to political pressure—and who gets silenced in the process.

HEI’s Commitment to Student-Led Accountability

The Higher Education Inquirer is elevating this story as part of an ongoing effort to highlight courageous journalism from student-run newsrooms. Editorial boards like The Stanford Daily’s are producing investigative work that professional media often overlook. These journalists aren’t waiting for permission. They’re filing FOIA requests, confronting billion-dollar institutions, and—when necessary—taking their cases to court.

HEI will continue amplifying these efforts. Student reporters are already reshaping the media conversation around academic freedom, labor justice, and the political economy of higher education. Their work deserves broader attention and support.

Sources:

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.

Saturday, August 2, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decades of Systemic Corruption

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

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

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

The Trump-Hegseth Department of Defense

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

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

The Evidence Is Overwhelming

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

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

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

The Cost of Inaction

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

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

We Don’t Need Another Report

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

The Department of Defense should immediately:

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

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

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

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

Friday, August 1, 2025

A Preliminary List of Private Colleges in Trouble

Private colleges in the United States—particularly small, tuition-dependent nonprofit institutions—are facing a mounting crisis that shows no sign of abating. Since 2020, dozens have closed, merged, or announced plans to shut down due to enrollment declines, unsustainable debt, and shrinking endowments. In 2025 alone, a growing number of private institutions have either declared their intention to close or been flagged as financially failing. The Higher Education Inquirer has compiled a preliminary and data-driven list of these institutions, including colleges that have shut down, plan to close, or have received failing financial grades from independent analysts.

According to Gary Stocker, founder of College Viability, the telltale signs of college failure are persistent and measurable. “When looking for at-risk colleges, the critical factor is trends. If enrollment and net tuition revenue are down for the past 5–10 years, it is highly unlikely that a turnaround is imminent or even possible,” Stocker explained. This insight reflects the compounding nature of decline in higher education finance. “One bad enrollment year negatively impacts a college for at least 4 years. Multiple bad enrollment years need to be followed by multiple really good enrollment years to have any chance of a financially successful recovery.”

That kind of recovery has proven elusive for a growing list of institutions:

  • Siena Heights University in Adrian, Michigan, will close after the 2025–2026 academic year. Founded in 1919, the Catholic university has seen enrollment drop by nearly a third in the past decade, leaving fewer than 1,900 students. The Board of Trustees deemed its long-term outlook unsustainable.

  • Limestone University in Gaffney, South Carolina, will close after Spring 2025. The school, burdened with $30 million in debt and dwindling enrollment (from over 3,000 students a decade ago to just over 1,600), failed to meet a $6 million emergency fundraising goal.

  • St. Andrews University in Laurinburg, North Carolina, ceased operations in May 2025 after failing to resolve long-standing financial deficits. With fewer than 1,000 students and a modest endowment, it could not survive post-pandemic pressures.

  • Eastern Nazarene College, near Boston, also announced it would close by year’s end. Enrollment declines and ineffective cost-cutting left the institution without viable options.

  • Fontbonne University, a nearly century-old Catholic college in St. Louis, Missouri, will shut down after summer 2025. Enrollment fell below 1,000 students, and efforts to sell assets and cut costs proved insufficient.

  • Northland College, in Ashland, Wisconsin, with fewer than 500 students, will also close in 2025. It had long struggled to maintain financial solvency.

These closures are not isolated events. According to BestColleges.com, more than 80 private nonprofit schools have closed or merged since the start of the pandemic, with nearly 50 shutting down entirely. Financial fragility is widespread and accelerating.

A broader snapshot comes from Forbes' 2024 “College Financial Grades,” which assessed over 900 private nonprofit colleges using data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). These institutions were rated on metrics including endowment per student, operating margin, admissions yield, and return on assets. In the 2024 analysis, 182 colleges received a D grade—up from only 20 in 2021.

Among the D-rated schools were:

  • Anderson University (IN) – Financial score: 1.435

  • Bethel University (IN) – Financial score: 1.223

  • Simmons University (MA)

  • Nichols College (MA)

  • Faulkner University (AL)

  • Spring Hill College (AL)

While not all of these schools are closing immediately, a D grade suggests serious financial vulnerability and potential for closure, merger, or drastic restructuring.

Another dimension of risk lies in overdependence on international tuition. A Forbes 2025 report identified 16 private colleges highly reliant on foreign students. Among them were Hult International Business School in Boston and St. Francis College in Brooklyn. With visa restrictions and geopolitical uncertainty, these colleges face added instability.

Some colleges have sought short-term survival strategies. Albright College in Pennsylvania, once identified as distressed, reported a small operating surplus in 2025 after selling off real estate and trimming staff. However, analysts and faculty remain skeptical, seeing this as a stopgap that may not resolve underlying issues.

Other closures underscore how quickly institutions can collapse:

  • Union Institute & University closed in 2024 and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2025, citing more than $28 million in liabilities.

  • University of Saint Katherine abruptly shut down in Spring 2024 due to a cash crisis.

  • Paier College, an art school in Connecticut, lost accreditation and will not reopen.

These are not just institutional failures—they are signs of a broader structural contraction in U.S. higher education. Elite universities continue to thrive, but a parallel system of small, regionally based, tuition-driven colleges is eroding. Demographic decline, operational overhead, and public skepticism are converging to create a perfect storm.

Gary Stocker’s warning—based on years of viability research—deserves close attention. Institutions that cannot demonstrate clear upward trends in enrollment and revenue are unlikely to survive, even with aggressive intervention.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to update this list and monitor developments as the crisis unfolds.


Sources
Gary Stocker, Founder of College Viability
https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/closed-colleges-list-statistics-major-closures
https://apnews.com/article/d4851555bd0fb360a92dee84a2d93140
https://www.ourmidland.com/news/article/siena-heights-catholic-university-saints-20402839.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Andrews_University_(North_Carolina)
https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/15/182207/more-colleges-set-to-close-in-2025-even-as-ivy-plus-schools-experience-application-boom
https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/college-closures-and-mergers
https://bryanalexander.org/horizon-scanning/campus-cuts-mergers-and-closures-from-spring-2025
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/study/trumps-visa-policy-threatens-16-us-colleges-dependent-on-international-students/articleshow/122015680.cms
https://www.spotlightpa.org/berks/2025/07/higher-education-albright-college-financial-crisis-survival-plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Institute_%26_University
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Saint_Katherine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paier_College
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawhitford/2025/03/07/forbes-college-financial-grades-2025-americas-strongest-and-weakest-schools
https://deepthoughtshed.com/2024/12/29/colleges-most-likely-to-close-based-on-2024-forbes-financial-health-failing-grades
https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/t/forbes-2024-financial-grades/3672040
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/matt-spivey-22635436_colleges-most-likely-to-close-based-on-activity-7281304623183810560-2hCs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QljCVUn3tyc

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Growth, Politics, and Power: What Q2 GDP Means for Trump and the Fed

The US economy expanded at a 3.0 percent annualized rate in the second quarter of 2025, a figure that surprised many analysts following a weak first quarter. But the surface-level recovery masks deeper economic fragility. Much of the Q2 growth was driven by a sharp drop in imports following tariff-related stockpiling earlier in the year. The statistical boost from this reversal, along with modest consumer spending, was enough to produce a positive headline number. Business investment, meanwhile, declined sharply, and real final sales to domestic purchasers rose only 1.2 percent—a better measure of underlying demand.

Donald Trump has wasted little time framing the growth figure as a sign that his policies, particularly tariffs and threats of deregulation, are strengthening the economy. In speeches and media appearances, Trump and his advisors have pointed to the 3 percent growth rate as a vindication of “America First” economic nationalism. But the disconnect between the apparent strength of the economy and its internal weaknesses presents challenges for the Federal Reserve and risks a new phase of politicization of monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve, led by Chair Jerome Powell, is unlikely to change course immediately. Inflation remains above target, and the core of the economy continues to show signs of stagnation. The central bank's dual mandate—price stability and maximum employment—does not support an immediate rate cut, especially with housing costs and services inflation still elevated.

Trump has been openly hostile toward Powell and the Fed's recent decisions to keep interest rates high. He has repeatedly claimed that the central bank is working against his administration and hinted that he would seek significant changes if re-elected. That threat has gained traction among his political allies, some of whom have revived calls to limit the Fed’s independence or reform its structure.

One of the most talked-about possibilities is that Trump could move to replace Powell before his term ends in 2028. While removing a sitting Fed chair is unprecedented and legally questionable, Trump has previously floated this idea and sought alternative paths to reshape the institution. A leading candidate to replace Powell in a second Trump administration is Judy Shelton, a longtime critic of the Federal Reserve and an advocate for a return to a gold standard or a quasi-fixed currency system.

Shelton’s nomination to the Fed board failed in the Senate during Trump’s first term, largely due to concerns about her unorthodox views and perceived lack of commitment to central bank independence. Her statements questioning the Fed’s role as lender of last resort and her support for aligning monetary policy more closely with White House priorities have drawn sharp criticism from economists across the political spectrum. Nonetheless, she has remained a visible figure in conservative monetary policy circles, and her views align with Trump’s desire to exert greater influence over interest rates and financial markets.

Replacing Powell with someone like Shelton would represent a fundamental shift in the Fed’s orientation. It would signal that monetary policy could become more directly shaped by political pressures, particularly during election cycles. Financial markets, already sensitive to signs of instability, would likely respond with volatility. International confidence in the Federal Reserve’s autonomy could weaken, with long-term consequences for the dollar and global capital flows.

The Q2 GDP report, in this context, is less a sign of sustained recovery than it is a flashpoint in an ongoing political struggle over economic governance. The apparent growth has given Trump a short-term rhetorical victory, but the underlying economic challenges remain unresolved. The Fed, for now, continues to operate independently. 

Sources
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Associated Press, July 30, 2025
Barron’s, July 30, 2025
Bloomberg, June 27, 2025
Washington Post, July 30, 2025
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
Congressional testimony archives on Judy Shelton, 2020–2021