Why Dating/Hooking Up Is Not a Good Idea for College Students and New Grads

In an era marked by rising tuition costs, crushing student loan debt, mental health crises, and economic uncertainty, college students and new graduates face mounting pressures from all directions. Amid this storm, the expectation to date—or participate in hookup culture—can seem like a rite of passage. But for many young adults, especially those without privilege or financial safety nets, dating and hooking up can distract from more urgent priorities, expose them to emotional and physical risks, and reinforce the same systems of inequality that exploit them.

It’s time we rethink the glorified image of the college romance and the casual hookup as liberating experiences.

Emotional Labor with Little Return

Dating and especially hooking up are often sold as part of the “college experience.” But what’s rarely discussed is the emotional cost: the anxiety, confusion, and heartbreak that often follow. For young people navigating their identities, finances, and future, romantic entanglements can amplify insecurities and derail emotional stability. Rather than providing intimacy or connection, dating in college often reinforces performative behavior and emotional detachment.

This is especially true in environments dominated by hookup culture, where emotional vulnerability is stigmatized and communication is shallow. A culture of disposability encourages people to use each other for attention or sex, often under the illusion of freedom, when in fact it's a distraction from deeper needs—like belonging, purpose, and healing.

Financial and Time Costs in a Precarious Economy

College students and new graduates are already financially strapped. A “cheap date” may still mean a $40 night out—money that could go toward groceries, transit, or student loan interest. For many working-class students, romantic relationships can add financial burdens they can't afford. Some even take on extra jobs or credit card debt just to impress a partner or maintain appearances.

Time is another critical resource. Hours spent chasing love or sex are hours not spent studying, building networks, applying for jobs, or sleeping. In the high-stakes reality of a declining job market and disappearing middle class, time and energy are luxuries. Romantic distractions can delay career paths, lower GPAs, or worsen burnout.

Exploitation, Power Imbalances, and Gendered Harms

In practice, dating and hooking up are rarely egalitarian. Women, nonbinary students, LGBTQ+ individuals, and students of color often face higher risks of exploitation, coercion, and assault. The Title IX system is overwhelmed and unevenly enforced, and many survivors are left unsupported, retraumatized, or silenced. The cultural normalization of hookup culture—facilitated by dating apps and alcohol-fueled party scenes—often masks deeply entrenched power dynamics.

For young men, toxic masculinity pressures them into performative sexuality and emotional suppression. For women and gender minorities, the stakes can be even higher, involving bodily autonomy, safety, and self-worth.

And while some college relationships are supportive and healthy, many are not. They may involve manipulation, codependence, or even intimate partner violence. At a time when mental health services are underfunded and stigmatized, these dynamics can go unnoticed and untreated.

The Illusion of Liberation Through Dating Apps

Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and other apps promise connection and empowerment. In reality, they are profit-driven platforms that thrive on superficiality and dissatisfaction. Their algorithms commodify users, pushing us toward endless swiping rather than meaningful interaction. For many students, these apps become addictive distractions—dopamine hits that erode real-world social skills and deepen loneliness.

Moreover, dating apps collect massive amounts of personal data and monetize insecurity. Like the student loan system or the for-profit college industry, they prey on vulnerability and sell back false hope.

Post-Graduation Drift and Relationship Fallout

New graduates face enough instability: uncertain housing, job searches, cross-country moves, and identity crises. Romantic relationships often buckle under this pressure. What seemed like a connection during college may not survive the chaos of adult life. Graduates may find themselves navigating breakups while unemployed, uninsured, or thousands of miles from their support networks.

In worst-case scenarios, toxic relationships extend into early adulthood, delaying independence, or entrenching cycles of emotional or financial dependence. This is especially dangerous for those without parental safety nets or stable careers.

---

Focus on Solidarity, Not Distraction

College students and new graduates don’t need romance or hookups to feel validated. They need community, purpose, and protection in a hostile economy. They need peer networks, mentorship, paid internships, unionized jobs, and access to affordable mental healthcare—not more heartbreak, ghosting, or gaslighting.

The myth of carefree college romance serves the same system that sells the dream of the American meritocracy. It diverts attention from the real structural challenges young people face and seduces them with fantasies that rarely play out as promised.

Rather than chasing validation through dating, young people might be better served investing in themselves, building collective power, and reimagining what intimacy and care can look like outside the logic of profit and performance.

Sources:

• The End of Love by Eva Illouz

• Trick Mirror by Jia Tolentino

• American College Health Association reports

• Pew Research Center on Gen Z dating and loneliness

• CDC: Sexual Violence on College Campuses

• Student Loan Hero: Average student loan debt statistics

• National Center for Education Statistics

• Data from Hookup culture studies, Lisa Wade (Occidental College)

Let the Higher Education Inquirer know your thoughts: contact us at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

A Word of Warning to Underclassmen: The Hidden Dangers of Fraternities and Frat Parties

 For generations, American fraternities have been romanticized as rites of passage for college students—symbols of brotherhood, status, and lifelong networking opportunities. But beneath the glossy images of Greek life sold in recruitment brochures and campus tours lies a darker reality that too many underclassmen learn the hard way.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we aim to peel back the layers of higher education’s institutions, and fraternities—especially the powerful, well-funded ones that dominate social life on many campuses—deserve unflinching scrutiny.

The Risks No One Warns You About

1. Hazing: More Than Just "Tradition"
Despite high-profile deaths and public outcry, hazing persists in many fraternities under the guise of bonding. What starts as humiliation often escalates into physical and psychological abuse. According to Hank Nuwer’s Hazing Deaths Database, there has been at least one hazing-related death every year since 1959. The victims are overwhelmingly young, first-year pledges trying to fit in.

Students have been forced to binge drink, perform degrading tasks, or endure sleep deprivation, physical violence, and isolation. The trauma can last well beyond the pledge semester—and for some, it ends in tragedy.

2. Sexual Violence and the Culture of Impunity
Fraternities are disproportionately represented in campus sexual assault cases. A study published in Violence Against Women found that fraternity men are three times more likely to commit rape than their non-fraternity peers. Party houses with little oversight and a culture of entitlement and alcohol-fueled aggression create dangerous environments—especially for underclassmen who are less familiar with the warning signs or too intimidated to report what they've seen.

Frat parties often revolve around power imbalances—older male members controlling access to alcohol, space, and social capital while younger students (especially women and non-binary students) are objectified or manipulated. The “boys will be boys” excuse still shields perpetrators in too many cases.

3. Alcohol Poisoning and Drug Use
Fraternities are notorious for promoting extreme alcohol consumption. First-year students—many of whom are underage—are particularly vulnerable. Stories of punch laced with unknown substances or students pressured to drink to blackout are common. In many cases, by the time help is called, it’s too late.

Mix in the proliferation of date rape drugs and the false sense of safety that some partygoers feel at fraternity houses, and you have a recipe for silent epidemic.

4. Racism, Elitism, and Exclusion
Many fraternities continue to reinforce race, class, and gender hierarchies. Some have histories rooted in white supremacy, and others perpetuate exclusionary practices today—whether formally or informally. Incidents involving racist chants, blackface, or anti-immigrant rhetoric make headlines every year. But what often goes unreported is the systemic way many Greek organizations act as gatekeepers of privilege and cliques of conformity, reinforcing the worst aspects of campus inequality.

5. Legal and Academic Consequences
Joining a fraternity can have long-term consequences far beyond your social life. Students involved in hazing, sexual assault, or drug violations can face expulsion, civil lawsuits, and even criminal charges. And universities that look the other way? They’re beginning to face lawsuits too—for enabling a dangerous culture under the banner of “tradition.”

You Don’t Owe Anyone Your Silence—or Your Safety

Underclassmen often feel pressure to conform, to find “community” quickly, especially when they’re far from home or isolated. Fraternities promise belonging—but for many, that promise is a trap.

There are safer, more inclusive ways to find community and build your future—clubs, advocacy groups, faith organizations, co-ops, academic societies, and student-led initiatives. These alternatives often embody the values fraternities only pretend to uphold: mutual respect, real support, and meaningful friendships.

A Culture Ripe for Change

Universities must stop treating fraternities as untouchable. While some institutions have made efforts to reform Greek life, most have barely scratched the surface. Until schools are willing to confront the full spectrum of harm—cultural, legal, and psychological—the burden falls on students to protect themselves and their peers.

We urge underclassmen to stay informed, ask questions, and understand the risks—not just the reputational risk of being associated with Greek life, but the very real dangers to your body, mind, and future. Frat houses are not just party spaces. For too many, they are trauma sites.

Don’t let the illusion of status or tradition cloud your judgment. Trust your instincts. And know that real solidarity doesn't come from secrecy or submission—it comes from truth.

---

If you or someone you know has experienced hazing or assault, contact your campus Title IX office or a confidential support resource. You can also reach out to the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE.

Calling All Campus Reporters: Help Us Uncover the Best Investigative Stories from College Newspapers Across the Country

In the shifting landscape of higher education, some of the most courageous and insightful journalism comes not from national outlets, but from the campus newspapers that quietly dig into the stories shaping student life, faculty struggles, and university governance.

At the Higher Education Inquirer (HEI), we believe that student investigative reporting holds the key to revealing systemic problems and sparking meaningful change. Yet these stories too often remain local, unamplified, and overlooked beyond campus borders.

That is why we are launching "Campus Beat"—a new series dedicated to curating and amplifying the best investigative research coming from college newspapers, whether from large flagship universities, small liberal arts colleges, or commuter-based community colleges.  

Student reporters regularly expose tuition hikes, mismanagement, labor abuses, campus safety failures, and other urgent issues affecting millions of students and workers. These investigations often anticipate or push back against narratives set by university administrations and mainstream media. From uncovering adjunct faculty exploitation at large state schools to revealing discriminatory housing policies at private colleges, student journalists perform vital watchdog work under difficult conditions—limited resources, censorship, and often threats from administration.

We want to highlight investigative or deeply reported pieces that expose systemic problems affecting students, faculty, or staff; illuminate trends in higher education policy or campus governance; tell stories of activism, resistance, or community impact; or offer data-driven or document-based reporting rather than opinion or commentary.

We especially encourage reporters who have faced censorship or suppression to submit their work or share their experiences. Your voice is critical to uncovering truths that might otherwise be silenced.

If you are a student journalist or adviser with an investigative story you are proud of, or if you know of exceptional reporting from your campus, please send us links or documents. Selected stories will be featured in our Campus Beat roundup, accompanied by context and analysis connecting them to the broader higher education landscape.

By sharing and spotlighting the work of student journalists, HEI hopes to build bridges across campuses and contribute to a more informed, equitable conversation about the future of higher education. We invite student reporters, advisers, and readers alike to help us identify the stories that deserve national attention. Together, we can amplify voices too often unheard and push for the systemic change our colleges and universities desperately need.

For submissions or questions, our email contact is gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

Where Public Health Meets National Security: From Susan Monarez to Stanford’s Defense Nexus

In July 2025, Dr. Susan Monarez was confirmed as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) following a narrow 51–47 Senate vote along party lines. Monarez, who had been serving as acting director since January, brings over two decades of experience in federal health agencies, including leadership roles at the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Advanced Research Projects Agency. Her career has also included positions in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Security Council, highlighting the growing intersection of health, technology, and national security.

Monarez’s confirmation occurs amid heightened scrutiny of CDC policies, vaccine skepticism, and substantial budgetary cuts proposed by the Trump administration. With a measles outbreak threatening public health and thousands of CDC positions eliminated or at risk, her leadership will be tested as she navigates the complex web of scientific integrity, political pressure, and resource constraints.

---

Stanford University: Academia and Defense Converge

While Monarez represents a public health leadership deeply entangled with federal policy and security, Stanford University illustrates another side of the U.S. national security ecosystem: the academic and technological pipeline that fuels innovation for defense purposes. In Silicon Valley, Stanford has become a hub where academic research directly informs military and national security projects. Programs like Technology Transfer for Defense (TT4D) accelerate the movement of emerging technologies—ranging from AI and robotics to biotechnology and portable health diagnostics—into practical applications for the Department of Defense.

The Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation, established with support from the Office of Naval Research, further exemplifies Stanford’s role in bridging academia and defense. It integrates faculty expertise, student engagement, and Silicon Valley innovation to address pressing national security challenges. Through initiatives like the National Security Innovation Scholars program and Stanford DEFCON Student Network, students are empowered to contribute directly to actionable defense solutions.

Courses such as Hacking for Defense (H4D) demonstrate the university’s commitment to hands-on problem-solving, pairing students with military and intelligence agencies to address real-world national security issues using startup methodologies. Similarly, Stanford’s collaboration with the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School applies AI and machine learning expertise to advance aerospace testing and innovation. These programs reflect a growing trend among Stanford graduates pursuing careers in defense tech, joining companies such as Palantir, Anduril, and Shield AI.

---

The Bio-Surveillance Nexus

As the Trump administration has spent its first few months in The White House constructing the physical and digital infrastructure required for a pre-crime, technocratic police state, little attention has been paid to the ways in which the institutions ostensibly dedicated to “public health” are helping build out this digital control grid. As Unlimited Hangout has been reporting for many years, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a prominent subgroup of the surveillance state has emerged at the intersection of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the military-industrial complex—one that is laying the groundwork to implement the final frontier of mass surveillance: the bio-surveillance apparatus.

Dr. Monarez’s role at the CDC and Stanford’s defense-oriented research ecosystem exemplify how public health, technology, and national security are increasingly entangled. From AI-driven diagnostics and wearable health monitors to military-backed biomedical research, the convergence of these sectors is creating a powerful, largely invisible infrastructure that extends far beyond conventional healthcare, embedding surveillance, control, and national security capabilities into everyday life.

---

The Bio Surveillance State 

The appointment of Susan Monarez and the rise of Stanford’s defense-academic initiatives illustrate a broader trend: the blurring of boundaries between public health, defense, and technological surveillance. While these programs are publicly framed as innovation and security measures, they also raise critical questions about the expansion of digital and bio-surveillance, the militarization of scientific research, and the role of universities in national security projects.

As the United States navigates public health crises, technological competition, and national security imperatives, these overlapping networks of government, academia, and industry illuminate a critical reality: the future of American innovation, public safety, and civil liberties depends not just on policy or technology alone, but on the careful scrutiny of the bridges between them.

---

Sources:

• Unlimited Hangout: Meet Trump’s CDC Director Susan Monarez

• Reuters: Senate Confirms Trump Nominee Susan Monarez

• ABC News: Senate Confirms CDC Director

• Stanford TT4D

• Gordian Knot Center

• Stanford Hacking for Defense

• SF Standard: Stanford Students Enter Military Tech

Call for Authors: Writing on the Genocide in Palestine

The Higher Education Inquirer is calling on student journalists, college students, faculty, and independent writers to speak truth to power about the ongoing genocide in Palestine. At a time when universities, governments, and media outlets are complicit through silence, distortion, or outright propaganda, it is urgent that we create space for honest accounts, rigorous investigations, and unapologetic solidarity.

We are seeking pieces that uncover how campuses are responding—or refusing to respond—to the atrocities, that expose academic and financial ties between U.S. higher education and Israel, that highlight student and faculty resistance, and that reflect on the risks of teaching and speaking openly in an environment of censorship and fear. We are especially interested in writing that challenges media narratives, including the BBC’s deeply biased coverage of Gaza, which research shows privileges Israeli voices and humanizes Israeli deaths while erasing Palestinian suffering.

This is not a moment for neutrality. Higher education is entangled in global systems of power, and its students and workers bear both the weight of silence and the responsibility to resist. We welcome investigative reporting, personal testimony, analytical essays, and critical reflections. Because safety is a real concern, we will publish pieces anonymously if needed.

If you are ready to contribute, send a 2–3 sentence pitch to gmcghee@aya.yale.edu. The Higher Education Inquirer stands in the muckraking tradition: fearless, uncompromising, and committed to amplifying voices that others try to silence.

Sources:
Centre for Media Monitoring, “BBC on Gaza-Israel: One Story, Double Standards” (2024) https://cfmm.org.uk/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-double-standards

Novara Media, “BBC Systematically Biased Against Palestinians in Gaza Coverage” (2025) https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased-against-palestinians-in-gaza-coverage

BRICUP, “Meticulous Analysis of BBC’s Systemic Bias on Israel-Palestine” (2025) https://www.bricup.org.uk/news-2/meticulous-analysis-of-bbcs-systemic-bias-on-israeli-palestine-confirms-its-link-to-the-deep-state

The Guardian, “The BBC Pulled My Gaza Documentary After It Was Approved” (2025) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/02/bbc-gaza-doctors-under-attack-documentary-israel-war

The Guardian, “The BBC Has Alienated Everyone on Gaza Bias” (2025) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/15/bbc-alienated-everyone-gaza-bias
Wikipedia, “Media Coverage of the Gaza War” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Gaza_war
Wikipedia, “South Africa’s Genocide Case Against Israel” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel
Wikipedia, “International Criminal Court Arrest Warrants for Israeli Leaders” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_arrest_warrants_for_Israeli_leaders

From Campus to Command: Charlie Kirk’s Push for Martial Law in U.S. Cities

Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk recently made headlines by calling for a full military occupation of American cities following what he terms the “liberation” of Washington, D.C. Speaking on a national platform, Kirk advocated deploying U.S. military forces to urban centers such as Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Portland, and San Francisco to restore order amid rising crime and social unrest. He emphasized that a sustained military presence was necessary until these cities were “safe,” drawing comparisons to the low-crime, tightly controlled environments of Tokyo and Singapore.

Kirk’s call is not merely rhetorical; it reflects a growing faction within right-wing politics that endorses the federalization of local law enforcement issues, invoking military force as a tool for domestic order. He also proposed federalizing Washington, D.C., with military oversight — a step he deems essential to restoring law and order in the nation’s capital.

This stance has sparked significant debate over the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Critics warn that deploying military forces in civilian settings risks authoritarian overreach and undermines democratic norms. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that urgent and decisive action is needed in cities they see as suffering from governance failures. The implications of such a military occupation extend beyond crime statistics to the very fabric of American democracy, raising concerns about militarization, racial justice, and the erosion of local governance.

Background on Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA

Charlie Kirk is the founder and president of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative nonprofit organization established in 2012. Founded when Kirk was just 18, TPUSA has grown into a powerful network dedicated to promoting free markets, limited government, and conservative values among youth. Financially backed by donors including the late Foster Friess and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, TPUSA reported revenues exceeding $55 million in 2022.

The organization’s stated mission is to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote freedom." However, its campus activities have drawn criticism for compiling “watchlists” targeting left-leaning faculty and spreading misinformation. The Higher Education Inquirer has closely documented TPUSA’s growth, spotlighting its alliances with conservative student chapters, the appearances of controversial figures on its platforms, and its alignment with Trump administration policies. Beyond campuses, TPUSA has expanded through initiatives like TPUSA Faith, TPUSA Live, and the AmericaFest conference series, which have featured speakers such as Donald Trump Jr., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Fox News and the Epstein Fallout: Kirk’s Rising Media Profile

Amid Fox News’ ongoing tensions with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal over the Jeffrey Epstein investigative files, Charlie Kirk has been tapped to guest host Fox & Friends Weekend. His appearances on July 27–28, 2025, alongside Rachel Campos-Duffy and Charlie Hurt, signaled a strategic move by Fox News to bolster its conservative youth appeal and MAGA alignment amid internal pressures.

This development follows the Wall Street Journal’s July 2025 investigative report detailing Donald Trump’s past ties with Jeffrey Epstein, including allegations about a hand-drawn birthday card sent to Epstein. Trump has vehemently denied the claims and sued the Journal and Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion, labeling the report defamatory. Fox News, however, has noticeably limited its coverage of the Epstein files and the lawsuit, unlike other right-leaning outlets such as Newsmax and Real America’s Voice.

Kirk has vocally attacked the Journal’s reporting, calling it “fake” and “a hit job” on Trump. He praised Trump’s lawsuit on his podcast and social media platforms, framing the allegations as baseless attempts to tarnish the former president’s reputation. Despite initial criticism of Attorney General Pam Bondi over a DOJ memo regarding the Epstein investigation, Kirk later shifted his position, urging trust in government officials — a reversal that drew attention to the strategic recalibrations within MAGA circles.

Institutional Expansion and Political Influence

TPUSA’s influence extends well beyond college campuses. Through Turning Point Academy, it reaches high schools, while TPUSA Faith engages religious communities. Its political arm, Turning Point Action, spent over $7 million in the 2022 midterms, reflecting significant investment in electoral politics. TPUSA’s 2023 annual report highlights its presence in more than 2,500 schools and training of over 12,000 student activists.

Kirk’s upcoming role on Fox News underscores the merging of youth-oriented conservative political branding with legacy cable television platforms. This integration comes as Fox News attempts to balance the demands of its MAGA base against legal and reputational challenges linked to its corporate ownership. Kirk’s rising profile represents the normalization and institutionalization of organizations like TPUSA within mainstream conservative media.

Charlie Kirk’s calls for military occupation of American cities, coupled with his increasing prominence within conservative media, highlight the evolving landscape of political influence, youth activism, and media power in the United States. As debates intensify over public safety, civil liberties, and the militarization of law enforcement, it is crucial to scrutinize the intersection of political ideology and institutional authority. The implications extend far beyond partisan disputes — touching the core of democratic governance and social cohesion in a deeply divided nation.

---

Sources:

Axios (July 2025): “Charlie Kirk to co-host Fox & Friends Weekend”
Wall Street Journal (July 2025): “Trump’s Epstein Birthday Card”
IRS Form 990 Filings (TPUSA 2021–2023)
Media Matters: “Fox News Epstein Coverage Analysis”
FEC.gov: Turning Point Action Political Expenditures
Rolling Stone, Puck News (July 2025): Trump’s calls to allies over Epstein story
TPUSA 2023 Annual Report
Higher Education Inquirer Archive (2016–2025): Reports on TPUSA campus activity
Original Article on Charlie Kirk's Military Occupation Call

Campus Warning: Avoid Contact with Turning Point USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Won’t Ohio State Pay for Richard Strauss’s Sexual Assault Scandal?

Ohio State University (OSU), one of the nation’s largest public universities, remains mired in controversy over its handling of sexual abuse committed by Dr. Richard Strauss, the former team doctor accused of assaulting hundreds of student-athletes from the late 1970s through the 1990s. Despite overwhelming evidence and mounting public pressure, OSU has refused to settle lawsuits filed by survivors, prolonging their struggle for justice.

The HBO Max documentary Disgraced: The Trial of Richard Strauss has reignited national attention, exposing not only Strauss’s horrific abuse but also the systemic institutional failures that allowed it to continue for nearly two decades. Survivors detail the trauma endured and the university’s decades-long pattern of minimizing complaints and protecting its reputation at the expense of student safety.

Jim Jordan’s Controversial Role

The scandal extends beyond OSU’s administrative leadership into political territory. Congressman Jim Jordan, a former Ohio State wrestling coach during much of the period when Strauss’s abuse occurred, has faced intense scrutiny and criticism. Multiple survivors allege that Jordan was aware of the abuse and failed to act, though he has consistently denied any knowledge or involvement.

Jordan’s political prominence has complicated public discourse around the case. As a powerful figure in Washington, D.C., and a vocal advocate for conservative causes, his perceived silence has been deeply troubling to survivors and advocates demanding accountability. His defenders argue there is no concrete evidence implicating him, but the HBO Max documentary highlights survivor testimonies suggesting a culture of silence in which even coaching staff ignored or dismissed warning signs.

A Legacy of Silence and Denial at OSU

For decades, reports of abuse by Strauss were reportedly ignored or covered up by OSU’s leadership, including athletic department officials who prioritized winning and prestige. The university’s initial responses to allegations frequently minimized their severity or shifted blame to victims. Internal investigations confirmed a pattern of institutional failure.

The HBO Max documentary illuminates the depth of the trauma endured by survivors and the barriers they faced coming forward. Yet OSU has largely resisted accountability, focusing instead on legal defenses to avoid costly settlements.

Why Won’t Ohio State Pay?

Ohio State’s refusal to settle represents more than a legal strategy; it reveals the university’s ongoing struggle to accept responsibility. The potential financial liability could reach hundreds of millions of dollars given the scale of abuse. OSU appears to prioritize protecting its finances and reputation over providing restitution to survivors.

Observers suggest OSU’s delay tactics aim to exhaust plaintiffs, hoping some will drop their claims due to frustration or financial hardship. Meanwhile, funds are directed toward legal defenses rather than survivor support or institutional reform.

Broader Implications for College Athletics and Accountability

The Strauss case is a microcosm of a larger crisis in college sports, where institutions often enable abuse by valuing athletic success over student safety. The HBO Max documentary is a stark call for systemic reforms, transparency, and survivor-centered justice.

While OSU has taken some steps toward reform, survivors and advocates insist that without financial restitution and full acknowledgment of institutional failures, healing remains out of reach.

The Continuing Fight for Justice 

Survivors continue their fight for justice amid increasing public scrutiny. Ohio State’s refusal to settle is a challenge to its integrity and public trust. The involvement of figures like Jim Jordan adds complexity and underscores the intertwined nature of institutional and political accountability.

As awareness grows, pressure mounts on OSU and universities nationwide to reform policies, support survivors, and confront past abuses honestly. Disgraced: The Trial of Richard Strauss is a sobering reminder that silence and denial only deepen wounds—and that justice, though delayed, must ultimately be delivered.

---

Sources:

• Disgraced: The Trial of Richard Strauss, HBO Max, 2025

• Investigative reporting from The Columbus Dispatch

• Legal filings in the Strauss lawsuits

• Public statements and congressional records concerning Jim Jordan

• Official Ohio State University communications

New York City Expands Student Loan Relief Program Amid Federal Overhaul

On August 7, 2025, Mayor Eric Adams announced that a citywide student-loan assistance program—previously limited to civil servants—will now be available to all eligible New Yorkers. Administered in partnership with the financial-technology company Summer, the initiative provides personalized guidance to help borrowers navigate complex repayment choices.

The expansion comes during a time of sweeping federal changes that are reshaping the student-loan repayment system. Millions of borrowers nationwide are losing access to popular repayment plans and facing higher long-term costs. For New York City’s 1.4 million student-loan borrowers, the local program offers a modest but timely safety net.

In July 2025, Congress passed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” restructuring the student-loan system and eliminating most existing income-driven repayment plans, including SAVE, PAYE, and ICR. By July 1, 2028, borrowers will be left with only an expanded Income-Based Repayment plan or the new Repayment Assistance Plan. Interest resumed for SAVE borrowers on August 1, 2025, adding an average of $3,500 per year in costs. The Repayment Assistance Plan will calculate payments between 1 and 10 percent of adjusted gross income, require a minimum payment of $10 per month, and extend loan forgiveness to thirty years. Consolidated Parent PLUS loans will now be eligible for Income-Based Repayment, giving families more flexibility. Analysts warn that these changes could push many borrowers toward private lenders, where interest rates may be higher and borrower protections more limited.

For New York City borrowers, the expanded local program offers critical help when federal protections are being reduced. Borrowers can receive one-on-one counseling and repayment optimization through Summer at no cost. With the Repayment Assistance Plan launching in July 2026 and older plans disappearing by 2028, New Yorkers face an urgent need to evaluate their repayment strategies. The changes are especially important for public service workers in the city, many of whom rely on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and could see shifts in their eligibility or timelines.

Federal loan policy is moving toward fewer and longer repayment options, with the possibility of higher total costs. New York City’s program offers an important safeguard, but it will only help those who know about it and take advantage of its services. For HEI professionals and student-support staff, ensuring that borrowers understand their changing options is now a pressing responsibility.

---

Sources
BK Reader – NYC Launches Student Loan Reduction Program for All New Yorkers
Times of India – Trump’s Student Loan Reset
The Sun – Big, Beautiful Bill and Student Loan Payments
Business Insider – Private Lending Expected to Expand Under New Rules
NerdWallet – Understanding the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP)

Doctorates, Debt, and Decoupling: A State-Level Challenge to CAPTE’s Physical Therapy Monopoly (Glen McGhee)

Recent legal and policy debates have questioned monopolies in professional licensing and accreditation. The James G. Martin Center recently published a report arguing that the American Bar Association (ABA) does not need to accredit law schools, based on legal precedent and economic analysis.

The Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) holds a comparable position in physical therapy education. Most states require applicants for licensure to graduate from a CAPTE-accredited program. Because CAPTE is the only recognized accreditor in the field, its requirement that all physical therapists complete a Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program functions as a monopoly.

The DPT program typically lasts three years and costs $108,000 on average for in-state students, with out-of-state tuition around $126,000. Graduates often carry between $116,000 and $142,000 in student loan debt. Median salaries for physical therapists are approximately $89,000 per year, raising questions about the financial balance for many graduates.

Florida is considering changes that could challenge CAPTE’s position. Lawmakers, universities, and other stakeholders are reviewing state licensure rules to allow graduates from regionally accredited or master’s-level programs to qualify for licensure, provided they pass the National Physical Therapy Exam (NPTE). Advocates argue that no clear evidence links the DPT requirement with better board exam or clinical outcomes.

Workforce shortages support calls for reform. State data show physical therapy vacancies above 18 percent in some public health districts. Economic studies suggest that allowing master’s-level programs could reduce training costs by roughly 40 percent and increase the supply of licensed practitioners.

If Florida moves forward, public universities might revive Master of Physical Therapy (MPT) programs, and private institutions could develop accelerated combined bachelor’s and master’s tracks. Similar challenges may emerge in Texas, Ohio, and other states.

CAPTE and the American Physical Therapy Association defend the current accreditation model by citing quality and safety. Critics see the arrangement as an example of regulatory capture, where a private organization exercises control with little external oversight.

Sources

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, “The American Bar Association Needn’t Accredit Law Schools,” July 2025. https://jamesgmartin.center/2025/07/the-american-bar-association-neednt-accredit-law-schools
Texas Public Policy Foundation, Escape Hatches from Higher-Ed Accreditation, 2020. https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Gillen-Escape-Hatches-from-Higher-Ed-Accreditation.pdf
American Physical Therapy Association, DPT cost and debt data: https://www.apta.org/your-career/careers-in-physical-therapy/becoming-a-pt
National Physical Therapy Exam pass rates and licensure information: https://www.fsbpt.org/
NGA Center for Best Practices, The Future of Occupational Licensing Reform, 2023.

Gini Index: Higher Education and the US Line of Inequality

Over the past century, the United States has undergone enormous changes in how wealth and income are distributed. From the opulence of the Roaring Twenties to the postwar rise of the middle class, from the tech booms of the 1990s to the pandemic economy of the 2020s, the line of inequality has rarely been flat—and never fair.

To track these shifts, economists use the Gini Index, a number between 0 and 1 (or 0 and 100 in percentage terms), where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 represents perfect inequality. The U.S. Gini Index has changed dramatically over time, reflecting wars, economic crises, policy decisions, and structural changes in education, taxes, and immigration.

In the 1920s, the United States experienced a high level of income inequality. The economy was booming for the wealthy, but the benefits of that growth were concentrated at the top. This period, often referred to as the first Gilded Age, was marked by weak labor protections, minimal taxation on the rich, and limited social safety nets. At the same time, immigration was heavily restricted, which limited labor competition but also reinforced the racial and ethnic hierarchies that shaped income and opportunity.

The Great Depression and World War II marked a dramatic shift. As the economy collapsed in the 1930s, public pressure mounted for systemic reform. New Deal policies expanded labor rights, created Social Security, and introduced public works programs. These efforts, along with wartime wage controls and steep taxes on the wealthy, helped reduce inequality. The federal income tax reached top rates over 90 percent. Education expanded as the GI Bill sent millions of returning veterans—mostly white men—to college and into homeownership. However, the benefits of this postwar expansion were unequally distributed, with Black Americans and other minorities largely excluded through redlining, school segregation, and discriminatory lending.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the U.S. experienced what some call the Great Compression. Income gaps between rich and poor narrowed. Manufacturing jobs were abundant, union membership was high, and wages grew alongside productivity. Federal and state investments in education opened doors for many, although property taxes, which fund most local public schools, reinforced disparities between wealthier suburbs and poorer cities or rural communities. Immigration remained limited during these decades, and federal tax policy remained progressive. The Gini Index stayed relatively stable, reflecting broad-based growth and a more equal distribution of income.

The 1980s brought a reversal. The Reagan administration cut top income tax rates dramatically, weakened labor unions, and deregulated many industries. The economy became more financialized, and capital gains were increasingly favored over wages. Globalization and the offshoring of manufacturing jobs weakened the bargaining power of American workers. At the same time, immigration increased, often filling low-wage and precarious jobs in agriculture, construction, and service industries. While immigration boosted overall economic output, it also contributed to greater income stratification within certain sectors.

The Gini Index rose steadily through the 1980s and 1990s. The tech boom created vast wealth for a small segment of the population, while wages for most workers stagnated. Public universities saw declining state support, leading to tuition hikes and the explosion of student loan debt. Property taxes continued to shape educational inequality, with affluent districts able to fund advanced programs and facilities while lower-income schools struggled. Tax policy changes in the 2000s, including further reductions in capital gains and estate taxes, widened the gap between those who earn their income from investments and those who rely on wages.

The 2008 financial crisis deepened existing divides. While wealthy households recovered quickly due to stock market gains and low interest rates, working-class families faced job losses, home foreclosures, and long-term economic insecurity. Federal stimulus programs helped avert total collapse, but they did little to reverse decades of rising inequality. By the 2010s, the U.S. Gini Index was among the highest in the developed world.

In the early 2020s, the COVID-19 pandemic once again exposed the structural weaknesses in the American economy. Emergency relief programs and expanded unemployment benefits briefly reduced poverty in 2020, but these were temporary fixes. Billionaires saw massive increases in wealth, while millions of essential workers faced health risks, layoffs, and housing instability. Public schools and universities adapted to online learning, but the digital divide left many students behind. Property taxes remained the primary source of school funding, preserving long-standing inequalities in education. Immigrants continued to perform essential but undervalued labor, often without access to healthcare or legal protections.

Federal tax policy remains tilted toward the wealthy. Income from stocks and real estate is taxed at lower rates than income from work. Loopholes and deductions allow corporations and the ultra-rich to minimize their tax bills. At the same time, working families face regressive payroll taxes and growing out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, education, and housing.

Higher education, once seen as a pathway to mobility, increasingly reflects the same patterns of inequality seen in the broader economy. Elite universities with billion-dollar endowments serve a small, privileged student population. Public colleges and community colleges—where most students from working-class and minority backgrounds enroll—operate on tight budgets and often rely on underpaid adjunct faculty. Rising tuition, administrative bloat, and student debt have turned education into both a product and a burden.

The Gini Index provides a simple way to measure inequality, but it does not capture all of the structural forces behind it. To understand why inequality remains so persistent, we must look at the systems that shape opportunity from birth: local property taxes, unequal schools, debt-financed higher education, regressive tax codes, and immigration policies that create a stratified labor market.

The line of inequality in the United States is not just a chart—it’s a reflection of who holds power, who gets access, and who pays the price. Changing that line will require more than numbers. It will take bold public action, political courage, and a serious rethinking of how we fund education, how we tax wealth, and how we value labor in an age of digital capitalism.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to trace the contours of inequality—across classrooms, campuses, and communities—because understanding the line is the first step to redrawing it. 

Sources

Piketty, Thomas, Saez, Emmanuel, and Zucman, Gabriel. Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2018.

Congressional Budget Office. The Distribution of Household Income, 2019. Published November 2022.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58528

U.S. Census Bureau. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2022.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html

Economic Policy Institute. State of Working America: Wages.
https://www.epi.org/data/#?subject=wages

Goldin, Claudia and Katz, Lawrence F. The Race Between Education and Technology. Harvard University Press, 2008.

Chetty, Raj et al. The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940. Science, 2017.

Desmond, Matthew. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. Crown Publishing, 2016.

Kuznets, Simon. Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, 1955.

Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel. The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

OECD. Income Inequality (Gini Coefficient).
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cma

Urban Institute. The Unequal Distribution of State and Local Revenues.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98725/the-unequal-distribution-of-state-and-local-revenues_1.pdf

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.
https://itep.org/whopays/

Migration Policy Institute. Immigrant Workers: Vital to the U.S. COVID-19 Response, Disproportionately Vulnerable.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigrant-workers-us-covid-19-response

National Bureau of Economic Research. Education and Inequality Across the American States.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w31455

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

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

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

The Science: Rutgers’ Stark Warning

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

A Teachable Crisis

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

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

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

No Easy Retreat

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

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

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

Lessons for Higher Ed

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

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

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

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

What Comes Next?

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

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

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

And it’s happening now.

Sources

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

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

Rutgers University. New Jersey Climate Change Resource Center.

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

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

Stockton University. Strategic Plan 2025: Choosing Our Path.

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

The Rich Life: Joy, Asceticism, Solidarity—and a Rejection of GDP Thinking

In a society obsessed with growth, speed, and accumulation, the phrase “the rich life” is most often used to describe an existence of luxury and exclusivity—curated vacations, designer goods, elite diplomas, and six-figure job offers. Elite universities in the United States, with their billion-dollar endowments and glossy marketing, have long sold students on this vision. Success is measured in metrics: earnings, endowment size, prestige rankings, and placement in the upper tiers of a system that quietly rewards exploitation.

But beneath the glittering surfaces lies a deeper poverty—a poverty of meaning, connection, and collective well-being. The GDP may rise, but so do depression, ecological collapse, burnout, and social fragmentation. In this context, the rich life must be reimagined. It cannot mean more consumption and more isolation. It must mean deeper joy, chosen simplicity, and solidarity with others. It must reject GDP as a measure of progress, and instead embrace a fuller, more humane vision of what it means to thrive.

Since World War II, Gross Domestic Product has been the dominant measure of national health and success. But GDP counts weapons manufacturing, fossil fuel extraction, and fast food sales as positives. It says nothing about equity, sustainability, or whether people have their basic needs met. It is a deeply distorted metric that treats all economic activity as inherently good—even when that activity is war, incarceration, deforestation, or cancer treatment. When universities follow this logic, they end up celebrating job placement in exploitative industries, increased student consumption, and rising tuition as signs of vitality. Entire institutions become addicted to a model of growth that quietly undermines the very conditions of human and planetary survival.

To understand what a truly rich life looks like, we might turn not to economic models but to psychological and philosophical ones. Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, often misunderstood and oversimplified, offers a more nuanced framework. At the base are physiological needs: food, water, shelter, rest. Above that are safety needs—security, health, freedom from violence. Next come love and belonging, followed by esteem and the need to be respected. At the top is self-actualization: the ability to live with purpose, creativity, and integrity.

In a society driven by GDP and status competition, many people are stuck in the lower tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy—working long hours just to meet their physiological needs, or trapped in precarity with no sense of safety. Even among the affluent, the higher needs—belonging, self-worth, purpose—are often unmet. Elite universities contribute to this problem when they promise that self-actualization will follow prestige, when in fact they often deepen student anxiety and isolation through competition and debt.

The modern economy creates the illusion of abundance while delivering profound scarcity—scarcity of time, attention, care, and community. That’s where asceticism comes in, not as a form of self-denial, but as a conscious disengagement from toxic excess. True asceticism is not about suffering. It is about choosing a life that centers intention over impulse, relationships over acquisition. It allows us to reclaim our attention, our agency, and our sense of enoughness. When you no longer define your worth by your salary or possessions, space opens up—for joy, for learning, for resistance.

The joy that emerges from this way of living is not found in consumption, but in connection. It’s the joy of a shared meal, a collective project, a moment of awe in nature. It is not fleeting or hollow. It’s grounded in the rhythms of real life. In resisting the culture of more, we make room for what actually nourishes us.

Solidarity is what makes this kind of joy sustainable. Without solidarity, simplicity becomes privatized and performative. With solidarity, it becomes transformative. Solidarity means recognizing that none of us can be truly free while others are suffering. It means organizing not only for ourselves, but with and for others—workers, debtors, the unhoused, the planet itself. It is in solidarity that we find the courage to say no to extractive systems and yes to mutual care.

Maslow’s model, when viewed through a collective lens, demands that we create conditions where everyone—not just the privileged few—can ascend the ladder toward self-actualization. That means addressing structural violence, not just personal healing. It means challenging the dominance of GDP and the institutions that promote it. And it means building systems that nourish every layer of our shared humanity.

The richest life is not the most expensive or exclusive. It is the most grounded, the most connected, the most free. It is a life where basic needs are met without destroying others’ ability to meet theirs. It is a life where safety comes from community, not surveillance. Where belonging is unconditional. Where esteem is earned not through domination, but through care. Where self-actualization is not an individual escape, but a collective unfolding.

Elite universities, with their resources and visibility, have a responsibility to shift the narrative. They must abandon GDP-driven metrics and begin teaching students how to live and act for collective well-being. That means investing in degrowth, sustainability, and solidarity—not in fossil fuels, consulting firms, and Silicon Valley pipedreams. It means embracing joy, not just success. It means returning to education as a path toward wisdom, not just wealth.

The rich life is here. It is in the soil, the story circle, the union hall, the community fridge, the silent meetinghouse, the protest march, the long walk at dusk. It is in every act that centers sufficiency over supremacy, care over conquest.

Let us stop measuring the wrong things. Let us live lives that matter. Let us be rich in what counts.

---

Sources and Influences:
Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being
Jason Hickel, Less Is More
bell hooks, All About Love
Juliet Schor, Plenitude
David Graeber and David Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything

Sexual Criminals in US Higher Education: A Brief History

Sexual abuse in US higher education has persisted for decades across multiple institutional domains. Perpetrators have included doctors, professors, athletic staff, administrators, fraternity members, and students. While some high-profile cases have drawn national attention, many remain buried under confidentiality agreements, weak oversight, and institutional reluctance to act against powerful individuals and organizations.

Medical and athletic departments have been at the center of several major cases. At the University of Southern California (USC), Dr. George Tyndall, a campus gynecologist, was accused by hundreds of women of sexual abuse during exams spanning three decades. Despite internal complaints dating back to the 1990s, USC allowed Tyndall to remain employed until 2016. The university later agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement in 2021, the largest sexual abuse settlement in higher education history.

At Michigan State University (MSU), Dr. Larry Nassar sexually abused hundreds of women and girls, including Olympic athletes, while serving as a team physician. Reports were repeatedly ignored or minimized by athletic staff and administrators. In 2018, Nassar was sentenced to 40 to 175 years in prison. MSU paid $500 million in settlements to survivors.

Pennsylvania State University saw one of the most publicized cover-ups in collegiate sports when former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing boys over a 15-year period. High-ranking university officials, including President Graham Spanier and Athletic Director Tim Curley, were later convicted for failing to report allegations. The scandal led to resignations, criminal charges, and a significant financial settlement.

The University of Michigan faced a similar reckoning. Dr. Robert Anderson, a campus physician, was accused by more than 1,000 former students and athletes of sexual abuse between 1966 and 2003. The university acknowledged that numerous complaints were not acted upon and agreed to a $490 million settlement in 2022.

Columbia University reached a $236 million settlement in 2023 with hundreds of patients of Dr. Robert Hadden, a gynecologist accused of sexually abusing women over several decades. Hadden, affiliated with Columbia and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, had previously received limited sanctions and continued treating patients despite multiple complaints.

Beyond medical and athletic departments, faculty and administrators have also engaged in sexual misconduct. At Harvard University, government professor Jorge Domínguez was accused of harassment spanning four decades. Multiple internal warnings went unheeded. Domínguez retired only after public pressure and a university investigation confirmed a pattern of misconduct and institutional failure.

Louisiana State University (LSU) was investigated by the U.S. Department of Education following reports of systemic failures to respond to sexual misconduct complaints, including those involving football players and fraternity members. A 2021 report by the law firm Husch Blackwell detailed widespread noncompliance with Title IX procedures and administrative inaction.

Fraternities represent another enduring source of sexual violence and institutional evasion. Greek organizations have been linked to a disproportionately high number of sexual assault reports on campuses. A 2007 sociological study by Armstrong, Hamilton, and Sweeney documented how alcohol-fueled fraternity parties serve as a structural context for what they called "party rape." Despite such findings, enforcement has remained limited.

At Baylor University, a 2016 scandal exposed multiple incidents of sexual assault involving football players and fraternity affiliates. The university hired the law firm Pepper Hamilton, whose report concluded that Baylor had failed to implement Title IX protections. Several university leaders, including President Ken Starr, were forced to resign.

Ohio State University faced its own reckoning when more than 350 men accused team doctor Richard Strauss of sexual abuse from the 1970s through the 1990s. The university confirmed that coaches and administrators were aware of complaints but failed to act. OSU has paid over $60 million in settlements.

The fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) has faced repeated allegations of sexual misconduct and hazing across numerous campuses, including the University of Oklahoma and Louisiana State University. Although some chapters were suspended, most eventually returned, often with limited structural changes.

At the University of Southern California, the Sigma Nu fraternity was suspended in 2021 after multiple students reported being drugged and assaulted at fraternity events. Student protests followed, demanding greater accountability and questioning the role of fraternities on campus. However, no permanent action was taken against Greek life.

Phi Delta Theta was implicated in the 2017 hazing death of LSU freshman Max Gruver, alongside other reports of sexual misconduct involving chapter members. Gruver’s death, caused by forced alcohol consumption, led to criminal charges and civil litigation, but the fraternity was not banned permanently.

The University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and Columbia University have all faced scrutiny over fraternity-related assaults. At UVA, the controversial and later-retracted 2014 Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” sparked national attention, but also backlash. Nonetheless, the story accelerated broader examinations of sexual assault within Greek life.

Some religious institutions have also been implicated. A 2021 ProPublica investigation into Liberty University found that administrators had discouraged sexual assault victims from reporting incidents and in some cases penalized them under the school’s conduct codes. Liberty settled related lawsuits for $14 million and remains under federal investigation.

Federal laws such as Title IX and the Clery Act require institutions to report and address sexual misconduct, but enforcement is inconsistent. Many institutions use non-disclosure agreements and confidential settlements to manage liability without public accountability. Survivors report that grievance processes are often retraumatizing, with few consequences for perpetrators.

Advocates have called for mandatory public reporting of misconduct cases, independent oversight of campus adjudication, and restrictions on the use of NDAs in sexual misconduct settlements. Some have proposed the creation of a national registry for faculty and staff found responsible for misconduct—similar to systems used in K-12 education—but no such registry currently exists.

The prevalence of sexual abuse in higher education—whether committed by faculty, doctors, athletic staff, or fraternity members—reflects institutional priorities that often place reputation and revenue above student and employee safety. While some institutions have taken steps toward transparency and reform, systemic change remains limited.

Sources
The New York Times. (2021). "USC Agrees to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Gynecologist Abuse Claims."
ESPN. (2018). "Larry Nassar sentenced to 40 to 175 years."
NPR. (2012). "Jerry Sandusky Sentenced To 30 To 60 Years For Sex Abuse."
Detroit Free Press. (2022). "University of Michigan to settle sexual abuse lawsuits for $490 million."
The New York Times. (2023). "Columbia to Pay $236 Million in Settlements Over Gynecologist’s Abuse."
Harvard Crimson. (2021). "Domínguez Investigation Finds 40 Years of Sexual Misconduct, Institutional Failures."
USA Today. (2021). "LSU mishandled sexual misconduct complaints."
American Sociological Review. (2007). “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape,” Armstrong, Hamilton, Sweeney.
The Atlantic. (2014). "The Dark Power of Fraternities."
CNN. (2017). "LSU Student Dies in Hazing Incident."
Rolling Stone. (2014, Retracted). “A Rape on Campus.”
Columbia Journalism Review. (2015). “The Lessons of Rolling Stone.”
ProPublica. (2021). “The Liberty Way.”
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2022). “After USC Fraternity Suspensions, Students Push for Greek Life Abolition.”
Inside Higher Ed. (2021). “Fraternity and Sorority Misconduct: Policy Gaps and Institutional Avoidance.”
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2024). “Open Title IX Investigations in Postsecondary Institutions.”
North American Interfraternity Conference. (2023). Public Statements on Campus Regulation.