Medicaid Cuts Threaten Medical and Mental Health Providers Dependent on Medicaid — and Graduates of Online “Robocolleges”

As states grapple with budget shortfalls and federal funding shifts, Medicaid—the nation’s largest public health insurance program—faces potential cuts that could severely impact medical and mental health providers who depend heavily on Medicaid reimbursements. This looming threat not only jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services but also risks destabilizing the very providers that serve some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States.

Medicaid: A Lifeline for Providers and Patients

Medicaid covers over 80 million Americans, including low-income families, people with disabilities, and seniors. For many medical and mental health providers, Medicaid reimbursements constitute a significant portion of their revenue. Clinics in underserved areas, community health centers, and behavioral health providers often rely on Medicaid funding to stay afloat.

The federal-state partnership funds Medicaid, but states have discretion in determining eligibility and reimbursement rates. When states face fiscal pressures, cutting Medicaid funding or tightening reimbursement rates is often considered a quick fix.

The Domino Effect of Medicaid Cuts

Cuts to Medicaid funding translate directly into lower payments to providers. Unlike private insurance, Medicaid rates are often already low. Further reductions can mean providers lose money on each Medicaid patient treated.

This financial strain can force clinics and mental health programs to:

• Reduce services or limit patient intake

• Cut staff, including essential behavioral health professionals

• Close locations, especially in rural or underserved areas

These outcomes create barriers for patients who already face challenges accessing care. Individuals with serious mental illness, chronic conditions, or disabilities are particularly at risk of losing consistent care.

Impact on Medical Education and Training

Medicaid cuts can also disrupt medical and mental health education programs affiliated with teaching hospitals and universities. These programs often serve Medicaid patients in their clinical training sites. Reduced funding means fewer training opportunities for students and residents, potentially exacerbating workforce shortages in critical health fields.

Mental Health Providers: A Vulnerable Sector

Mental health providers are especially vulnerable to Medicaid cuts. Behavioral health services are frequently underfunded compared to general medical care. Medicaid often serves as the primary payer for mental health treatment, including therapy, psychiatric care, and substance use disorder programs.

Cuts could reduce access to outpatient therapy, crisis intervention, and community-based services, worsening outcomes for people with mental health conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the urgent need for robust mental health infrastructure, and cuts threaten to reverse progress made.

Robocollege Graduates: An Overlooked Impact

Another group at risk from Medicaid cuts are recent graduates of online for-profit colleges, sometimes disparagingly called "robocolleges." These institutions often produce graduates with degrees in healthcare-related fields such as nursing, health administration, or medical assisting.

Many of these graduates rely on Medicaid-funded healthcare settings for employment. Clinics and community health centers that serve Medicaid patients are common entry points for these workers. Cuts in Medicaid funding could lead to reduced hiring or layoffs in these settings, disproportionately affecting graduates struggling to launch their careers.

Moreover, the limited job security and lower wages typical of such entry-level positions compound the economic challenges for these workers, many of whom already face significant student debt and limited career mobility.

Broader Social and Economic Consequences

Limiting access to healthcare and mental health services has far-reaching consequences beyond individual health. Untreated illness can lead to increased hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and interactions with the criminal justice system. These outcomes are far more costly to society than preventative or ongoing care.

Policy Recommendations

To protect the health and stability of vulnerable populations, the providers who serve them, and entry-level healthcare workers including robocollege graduates, policymakers should:

• Avoid disproportionate Medicaid cuts that undermine care quality

• Invest in community health centers and behavioral health programs

• Maintain adequate reimbursement rates to sustain provider networks and employment

• Support integrated care models that combine physical and mental health services

• Consider workforce development initiatives that support graduates entering Medicaid-funded care settings

Medicaid is a cornerstone of America’s healthcare safety net, especially for medical and mental health providers serving those in greatest need. Cuts to Medicaid funding threaten not only provider viability but the health and well-being of millions—including the newest healthcare workers striving to build careers. As budget debates continue, preserving and strengthening Medicaid funding is essential to ensuring equitable access to quality care and supporting the providers and workforce on the front lines.

Cambridge Chancellor Candidate Urges UK Universities to Welcome US Academic Exiles

Gina Miller, the high-profile British activist and candidate for Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, is calling on UK universities to seize a rare moment of global academic realignment by welcoming American scholars fleeing political repression and institutional decay in the United States. Miller, who rose to prominence for her legal battles against Brexit, told The Telegraph that Britain’s top institutions—particularly Cambridge—should become havens for academics and students seeking intellectual freedom and safety as Donald Trump’s political resurgence escalates.

“This last year we’ve seen the biggest uptick in U.S. students and academics looking for opportunities outside the country,” said Miller. “Why is Cambridge not making the most of that?”

Her comments arrive as the U.S. faces what many describe as an academic crisis. Donald Trump’s war on higher education has included freezing billions in research funds, shutting off international student visas, dismantling diversity and equity programs, and threatening tenure protections. Scholars have increasingly found themselves under attack—not only from politicians but from coordinated campaigns of harassment, surveillance, and intimidation. The chilling atmosphere has led some to flee, while others are actively exploring exit strategies.

Canada has emerged as the leading destination for these academic exiles. Among them is Dr. Cornel West, the noted philosopher and public intellectual, who accepted a position at the University of Toronto’s Massey College in 2024. West cited political censorship and corporate interference at elite U.S. universities as the primary reasons for his departure. Similarly, sociologist Dr. Saida Grundy left Boston University for McGill University in Montreal after sustained threats and harassment tied to her anti-racist scholarship. Grundy has spoken openly about feeling physically and intellectually safer in Canada.

The University of British Columbia welcomed Dr. Michael Sauder, a tenured sociologist from the University of Iowa, after he resigned in protest of proposed state legislation targeting faculty speech and tenure. In another example, Dr. Janelle Wong, a scholar of American politics and Asian American studies, relocated to York University after a combination of political threats and defunding of federal grants for her research on democracy and racial equity.

These are not isolated moves, but part of a growing wave of flight from U.S. institutions—especially public colleges in Republican-controlled states—where academic freedom is rapidly eroding. What had once seemed like hypothetical fears are now becoming lived realities for faculty, staff, and students.

Miller argues that UK institutions, particularly those with Cambridge’s global stature, should respond to this moment by offering refuge and opportunity. While Canada and Germany have already implemented formal “exile campus” initiatives, British universities have largely stayed silent—perhaps out of concern about being seen as anti-American.

But for Miller, who is undergoing treatment for breast cancer and was persuaded to run by a group of Cambridge faculty, this silence represents a missed moral and strategic opportunity. In her view, Cambridge could not only safeguard endangered scholars but also reinvigorate its intellectual community and global relevance.

She has also pledged to bring her long-standing campaign for transparency and ethical accountability to the university, including a commitment to divest Cambridge’s £4 billion endowment from arms companies. She praised King’s College’s recent decision to cut financial ties with weapons firms and argued that the university must act as a beacon of values as well as knowledge.

Miller has been critical of past chancellors who, she claims, have failed to use their positions to speak on important global issues or promote UK higher education on the world stage. “Why is Cambridge not at Davos, for example?” she asked. “Cambridge has the opportunity to be an ambassador not just for itself, but for the entire sector.”

Her campaign intersects with rising concerns about authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, and the hollowing out of liberal institutions worldwide. She warned that the line between anti-elitism and anti-scholarship is eroding, as exemplified by Trump’s alignment with populist tech leaders while undermining academic expertise.

Miller’s own life story, from her childhood in Guyana to legal triumphs against the British government, reflects the kind of global connectivity she envisions for Cambridge. She also shared a personal connection to the university: the rare cancer she is now battling was genetically profiled by a research team at Cambridge, deepening her admiration for its life-saving scientific work.

“If Cambridge is going to lead, it has to get off the page and into the world,” she said. “It must act now to uphold the values of open inquiry and human progress. If we wait until universities fall to authoritarian control, it will be too late.”

As Trump’s influence reshapes the American university landscape, the choice for UK higher education is stark: retreat inward, or rise to the challenge of global academic leadership. Gina Miller is betting that Cambridge still has the courage—and conscience—to do the latter.

---

For more on academic freedom, global education policy, and higher education in crisis, follow The Higher Education Inquirer.

Veterans Left Behind: How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

[Editor's note: Michael S. Hainline is a member of Restore the GI Bill for Veterans.]

Veterans across the country rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) approval system to ensure their education and job training programs are safe, legitimate, and lead to meaningful employment. Yet, thousands have been failed by a system riddled with oversight gaps, conflicting interests, and regulatory loopholes that allow unsafe equipment, poor training, and deceptive schools to remain approved — often at great personal and financial cost to the veterans and taxpayers.

I know this all too well. As a former military police officer who trained as a truck driver in 2016 under a VA-approved program, I was exposed to dangerous, poorly maintained equipment that ultimately caused me to lose the use of my right arm for over a year, a disability I will carry for life. 

Despite repeated complaints to the program staff and the assigned State Approving Agency (SAA), the official body responsible for oversight, my concerns were dismissed, and no corrective action was taken until years later — and only after significant evidence surfaced.

Unsafe Equipment Ignored

During my class, veteran student Mike and I, and non-veteran students Dustin & Richard, discovered that the landing gear on the 1977 Stoughton trailer assigned for training was missing an axle and four wheels. I reported this to the staff, who admitted the equipment was faulty but took no timely corrective action. A veteran student later informed me that the school replaced the landing gear on a similar 1987 Great Dane trailer sometime after our class ended, contradicting official reports submitted to the VA and state approving agencies that claimed no issues existed.

To confirm these claims, I located the trailer used in program advertising and compared photos taken during and after our training. The landing gear had indeed been replaced—freshly painted and altered, as confirmed by Great Dane Trailers’ manufacturer. 

The trucks used for training showed similar problems. According to Vehicle Identification Numbers, three trucks had modifications—such as frame cutting between tandem axles—that Daimler Trucks North America (the manufacturer) neither recommended nor approved. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines were not followed, creating additional safety concerns, per conversations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

Systemic Oversight Failures

These issues highlight a broader problem: the State Approving Agencies, under contract with the VA, are failing to provide adequate oversight and ensure program quality. The VA Office of Inspector General’s 2018 report (OIG Report #16-00862-179) found that 86% of SAAs did not sufficiently oversee educational programs to ensure only eligible, high-quality programs were approved. The report estimated that without reforms, the VA could improperly pay out $2.3 billion over five years to subpar or fraudulent institutions.

Alarmingly, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is restricted in its ability to question or audit the reports submitted by SAAs. There is no mechanism for veterans to challenge or appeal SAA findings, effectively leaving veterans powerless within a system that is supposed to protect them.

Veteran Service Organizations’ Silence

I sought help from veteran service organizations but found little interest in addressing these critical problems. The American Legion initially responded to my outreach in 2017, engaging in conversations and phone calls. However, within months, communication ceased without explanation. Attempts to meet with American Legion leadership and their legislative contacts, including Dr. Joe Wescott—an influential consultant on veterans’ education—were unsuccessful. Dr. Wescott dismissed concerns about the integrity of the SAA’s targeted risk-based reviews, citing that schools typically fix problems before SAAs visit, and failed to investigate conflicts of interest between report authors and SAA officials.

At the 2024 American Legion convention, a planned meeting between a fellow veteran and Legion leadership was abruptly canceled. Meanwhile, other veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and Veterans Education Success (VES) showed engagement, but the American Legion and Student Veterans of America remained unresponsive.

The American Legion’s own 2016 Resolution #304 warned of the exact issues I and countless other veterans have endured: deceptive practices by some education providers, poor accreditation standards, and underfunded and understaffed SAAs unable to enforce proper oversight.

A Cycle of Scandal

Congressional staff admitted privately that veterans’ education legislation rarely progresses without support from key players like Dr. Wescott and the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA), whose leaders have repeatedly declined to meet with veterans raising concerns. These complex relationships between SAAs, VA officials, veteran groups, and legislators perpetuate a “cycle of scandal” that leaves veterans vulnerable and taxpayers footing the bill.

In 2023, a combat veteran attending the same program I did reported similar frustrations: only one of three trucks was roadworthy, severely limiting practical training time for a full class of students. Despite numerous documented complaints, the NASAA president refused to meet or discuss these issues.

The Human Cost

Beyond financial waste and bureaucratic failures, real human harm occurs. My injury, caused by training on unsafe equipment, robbed me of a year of mobility and continues to affect my life. Thousands of veterans have lost their G.I. Bill benefits, incurred debt for worthless or limited degrees, or been misled about their job prospects after completing programs approved by the very agencies meant to protect them.

The internet is rife with investigative reports exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in VA-approved programs. Headlines like “School Scammers Are Robbing Veterans and the Government Blind” and “For-Profit Colleges Exploit Veterans’ G.I. Bill Benefits” are far too common.

A Call for Reform

Despite these glaring failures, meaningful reform remains elusive. The VA OIG report and numerous investigations call for increased accountability, transparency, and cooperation between the VBA, SAAs, veteran service organizations, and Congress. Veterans deserve a system that genuinely safeguards their education and wellbeing.

My fellow former veteran students and I have organized online and turned to media outlets to break the silence. It’s time for the public and policymakers to hear our stories—not just slogans and “catchy” legislative titles that fail to restore lost benefits or improve program quality.

We veterans demand change—because we have earned more than empty promises and a broken system that leaves us behind.

---

Michael S. Hainline is a veteran and advocate living in Pensacola, Florida. He served in active duty and reserve military components and now works to expose the failures of oversight in VA-approved education and job training programs. He can be reached at hainline1962@gmail.com.

A Growing Crisis: Student Loan Delinquency Surges After Pandemic Pause

After a five-year pandemic-related pause in federal student loan repayment and a temporary grace period, the student debt crisis has returned—arguably more severe than ever. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, nearly six million student loan borrowers—or 13.7 percent—are now seriously delinquent or in default on their loans. Even more troubling, nearly one in four borrowers required to make payments are behind, a figure masked by millions of others who remain in deferment, forbearance, or income-driven repayment plans requiring no immediate payment.

This dramatic increase in delinquency stems from the expiration of the federal "on-ramp" policy in October 2024, which had temporarily shielded missed payments from credit reporting after the repayment pause ended in September 2023. Now that reporting has resumed, the financial and personal consequences for borrowers are quickly becoming evident.

---

Delinquency by the Numbers

The NY Fed’s report reveals that while the total number of student loan borrowers has slightly decreased since 2020—from 44.6 million to 43.7 million—the number of borrowers behind on their payments is nearly the same. More striking is the conditional borrower delinquency rate—which excludes those without a current payment due. Among borrowers required to pay, 23.7 percent are delinquent, a reflection of a deepening affordability crisis and repayment system that continues to fail millions.

The burden is not equally distributed across the country. The highest rates of delinquency are concentrated in the South, with Mississippi leading at 44.6 percent, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana—all states where more than 30 percent of borrowers with payments due are behind. In contrast, states like Illinois, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have delinquency rates under 15 percent.

---

An Aging, Struggling Borrower Base

Another notable shift is the aging of the delinquent borrower population. Delinquency is no longer confined to young graduates just entering repayment. Borrowers over age 40 now make up a significant portion of those falling behind, with more than one in four of these borrowers delinquent. The average age of a delinquent borrower rose from 38.6 in 2020 to 40.4 in 2025.

This is consistent with what higher education watchdogs have long observed: student loan debt is no longer just a young adult issue. Millions of older Americans—many of them parents who borrowed for their children or who returned to school later in life—are now in financial jeopardy.

---

Credit Damage and Economic Consequences

The return of delinquency has immediate and potentially devastating impacts on borrowers’ credit health. Over 2.2 million borrowers saw their credit scores drop by more than 100 points in the first quarter of 2025. Over one million borrowers suffered drops of 150 points or more.

Of those who became newly delinquent, nearly 44 percent had credit scores above 620 before missing payments—scores that typically qualify for auto loans, mortgages, and credit cards. These borrowers now face steeply increased borrowing costs or total exclusion from credit markets, potentially compromising their ability to secure housing, transportation, and even employment in some cases.

The cascading effects of damaged credit and rising debt may not be limited to student loans. The NY Fed warns that it remains to be seen whether delinquencies will spill over into defaults in other types of debt. This is especially concerning in a macroeconomic environment marked by high interest rates and increasing cost-of-living pressures.

---

Punitive Collections Resume

Adding to the pressure, federal collections have resumed. The U.S. Department of Education, working with the U.S. Treasury, began collecting on defaulted loans in May 2025, including garnishing wages, tax refunds, and Social Security payments. These harsh penalties, halted during the pandemic, are now back in full force—often hitting borrowers already in financial distress.

Millions of borrowers who once benefited from temporary protections now face permanent financial consequences, not only through collection actions but also through long-term credit damage.

---

A System Under Strain

The resurgence in student loan delinquency reflects not only the impact of resumed repayment but deeper systemic flaws in the American higher education and student loan systems. Despite well-publicized attempts at cancellation and reform, tens of millions remain trapped in a system that is neither affordable nor forgiving.

While much political attention has been directed toward one-time cancellation efforts and income-driven repayment plans, the growing delinquency rates suggest those efforts have not gone far enough—or fast enough. Borrowers in states with the highest delinquency rates tend to have lower incomes and fewer resources to navigate complex federal repayment options.

Without bold and comprehensive reform—including principal reduction, easier access to cancellation, and a robust safety net for vulnerable borrowers—millions of Americans will continue to suffer the consequences of educational debt they were told was an investment in their future.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer’s View

We see this resurgence in delinquency not simply as a data point, but as a clear warning. The Biden administration’s incremental reforms and the Supreme Court’s rebuke of broader cancellation efforts have left the most financially vulnerable exposed.

As wage garnishment resumes and credit scores plummet, student loan debt is quickly becoming a national emergency—especially for Black borrowers, older Americans, and those in the South and Midwest. These are not isolated failures. They are structural, policy-driven failures—decades in the making.

For the U.S. to truly address its student loan crisis, it must go beyond payment pauses and cosmetic fixes. It must confront the predatory aspects of its higher education financing system, the ballooning cost of college, and the promise that higher education is a guaranteed path to prosperity.

Until then, expect these numbers—and the pain behind them—to grow.

---

Sources:

• Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, Q1 2025

• New York Fed Center for Microeconomic Data Blog

• Equifax Consumer Credit Panel data

Having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? (Student Borrower Protection Center)

 

Are you having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? Don’t worry; we got you. There’s a lot going on right now and we’re here to break it all down. Here are some of the most pressing things that happened this week. On Tuesday, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee chaired an education forum to spotlight the Trump Administration’s radical effort to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Tasha Berkhalter, a U.S. Army veteran and student loan borrower who had her debt discharged by the Biden Administration after being defrauded by a predatory for-profit college, gave powerful testimony at the hearing.

Watch Tasha’s testimony here:

The Trump Administration announced a couple of weeks ago that it would begin collections on student loans for the first time in five years, beginning this Monday, May 5. ED started sending borrowers emails this week to let them know that the Treasury Offset Program—which lets them take tax refunds and federal benefits like Social Security—was starting. ED said administrative wage garnishment is expected to resume later in the summer. There are currently 5.5 million federal student loan borrowers in default who should be receiving this email, and another 8 million delinquent folks who could face these consequences later this summer. If you are currently in default and unsure of what to do, check out this great resource from the National Consumer Law Center. Our Deputy Executive Director Persis Yu was featured on both PBS News Hour and CBS Mornings this week to explain what is happening.  Watch Persis on PBS here:   On Monday, we submitted a comment letter to oppose the Trump Administration's efforts to implement its Project 2025 agenda through a process called negotiated rulemaking (Neg Reg). The Trump Administration is threatening a massive overhaul of the student loan safety net, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program and affordable repayment options. 184 organizations joined SBPC and Democracy Forward in signing on to the letter. These organizations will keep fighting on behalf of borrowers!

ICYMI, here is a roundup of other coverage this week: SBPC Executive Director Mike Pierce broke down the restart of collections on defaulted borrowers with Danielle Douglas-Gabriel of The Washington Post on NPR's 1A. He also spoke with KCAL News, The Associated Press, Investigate TV, and more! SBPC Counsel Khandice Lofton spoke on CBS News about the struggles of borrowers right now. SBPC Policy Director Aissa Canchola Bañez discussed on NPR’s Morning Edition how collections will, in particular, harm older borrowers. She also spoke with LAist about PSLF and The Hill about the House Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, and answered borrowers' questions on ABC7. SBPC Legal Director Winston Berkman-Breen was featured in The New York Times commenting on the chaos borrowers are facing right now. He also spoke with Gray Media about this.

Hang in there, Amy Czulada Outreach & Advocacy Manager Student Borrower Protection Center

Clashes at Columbia: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Arrested in Butler Library Standoff

On the evening of May 7, 2025, the ongoing student protest movement at Columbia University reached a new flashpoint, as dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators occupied Butler Library, prompting the university to summon the New York Police Department. According to multiple reports, approximately 76 individuals were removed in handcuffs after a tense standoff, raising fresh concerns about civil liberties, campus governance, and escalating political pressure from the federal government.

The occupation, which unfolded during Columbia’s reading week, was part of a wave of student-led actions protesting Israel's military campaign in Gaza and what activists call institutional complicity through academic and financial ties. Video footage and eyewitness accounts show masked individuals entering Butler Library, hanging banners, and clashing with public safety officers. One banner reportedly displayed a map of Israel with the words “There is only one state,” a message critics argue denies Israel’s right to exist.

While Columbia officials have condemned the action as disruptive and dangerous, the heavy-handed response—and the invocation of police force on an Ivy League campus—has reignited longstanding debates about academic freedom, student dissent, and the criminalization of protest.

“We had no choice but to ask for the assistance of the NYPD,” said Acting President Claire Shipman in a video statement. “These actions... posed a serious risk to our students and campus safety.”

Shipman reported that two public safety officers were injured as demonstrators surged through the building, and one individual was later removed by stretcher. In a post-incident response, the university implemented tighter access controls, requiring ID checks at campus entrances and suspending alumni and guest access.

Meanwhile, city and state officials swiftly voiced their support for the crackdown. Mayor Eric Adams stated that lawlessness would not be tolerated and urged non-students to leave the campus. Governor Kathy Hochul echoed that sentiment, praising law enforcement for “keeping students safe.” Senator Marco Rubio went further, announcing a federal review of the visa status of any non-citizen participants.

But from the protestors’ perspective, the events told a different story. A message posted by students inside the library alleged that public safety officers “choked and beaten us,” and that protestors were refusing to show IDs or leave under “militarized arrest.” The group rejected characterizations of violence and said they were exercising their rights to peaceful protest.

The administration’s response is occurring under heightened scrutiny from the Trump administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funding from universities perceived as allowing “antisemitic or anti-American” protests. Columbia, once seen as a stronghold of progressive activism, has become a political battleground in the broader culture war over speech, protest, and Zionism.

A controversial university guideline—announced earlier this year under pressure from the Trump White House—requires masked protestors to present identification upon request. Civil liberties groups argue the rule infringes on students’ rights and makes peaceful protest vulnerable to legal and administrative reprisal.

As students prepare for final exams, Columbia remains a campus under siege—caught between its own history of student activism and an increasingly authoritarian political climate. What happened inside Butler Library was more than a student protest gone awry; it was the collision of global politics, domestic surveillance, and higher education’s complicity in both.

What’s next for the Columbia protest movement remains uncertain, but the crackdown at Butler is unlikely to be its final chapter. Rather, it may serve as a blueprint—either for suppression or resistance—for how universities across the country respond to the growing tension between conscience and compliance.

The Role of U.S. Higher Education in Mass Surveillance: A Cornerstone of Authoritarianism and Fascism

In the digital age, surveillance has become a pervasive aspect of daily life. It reaches far beyond the government’s watchful eye; it infiltrates our personal spaces, our interactions, and even our educational institutions. In the United States, universities and colleges—typically seen as bastions of free thought and intellectual exploration—have, over the years, quietly embraced practices that align more with authoritarian surveillance than the fostering of academic freedom. The result is an unsettling convergence of education, technology, and control that deserves close scrutiny.

The Rise of Mass Surveillance in U.S. Higher Education

Mass surveillance is not a concept confined solely to government agencies or the private sector. U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly adopted surveillance technologies, often in ways that blur the lines between student safety, security, and governmental overreach. The methods used are diverse: from sophisticated digital monitoring of online activity to the installation of cameras throughout campuses, as well as the tracking of students’ movements and behaviors.

On-Campus Surveillance

Many campuses are equipped with thousands of security cameras, often without students' knowledge of the exact extent of their monitoring. These cameras track students' movements around buildings, dorms, and even outdoor spaces. Security personnel, working alongside private contractors, have access to this footage, creating a network of real-time surveillance. Additionally, some universities have partnered with police departments or government entities to share data from campus surveillance, effectively extending the government’s reach into spaces historically seen as separate from state control.

In some instances, universities have utilized facial recognition technology—a tool that, while growing in popularity among law enforcement and private corporations, is still highly controversial due to concerns about privacy, accuracy, and racial biases. Campuses like the University of California, Berkeley, and George Washington University have implemented or explored the use of facial recognition, drawing criticism from civil rights groups who argue that such technologies contribute to surveillance regimes that disproportionately target marginalized communities.

Digital Surveillance: Monitoring Online Activity

In the realm of digital surveillance, universities have also emerged as key players. The rapid digitization of academic spaces has made it easier for educational institutions to monitor and record students' online activities, including emails, internet browsing habits, and even participation in online discussions. These tools, ostensibly designed to protect students from online threats or cheating, can also be used to track the political views or social connections of students and faculty members.

University systems that monitor students' academic behavior are often integrated with third-party services that collect vast amounts of data. Companies like Google, which provide software for research and communication, have been instrumental in creating environments where personal data can be easily harvested and stored. As a result, students and faculty members are under constant scrutiny, even if they are unaware of the depth of data being collected on them.

Off-Campus Surveillance and Law Enforcement

While much of the surveillance happens on university grounds, the cooperation between educational institutions and law enforcement extends far beyond campus boundaries. Many universities share information with federal agencies like the FBI or local police departments, creating a synergy of surveillance that goes beyond the walls of academia. This collaboration is often justified as part of maintaining national security or preventing crimes, but it carries profound implications for privacy and civil liberties.

After the 9/11 attacks, for example, universities in the U.S. were encouraged to collaborate with federal intelligence agencies under the auspices of the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism measures. This led to the surveillance of students’ political activities, associations, and even participation in protests. While much of this occurred covertly, the ramifications were far-reaching, particularly for marginalized groups who found themselves disproportionately surveilled due to their activism.

Surveillance of International Students: A First Step Toward Widespread Control

One of the most chilling aspects of surveillance on U.S. campuses is the specific targeting of international students. Historically, international students have been a vulnerable demographic in the context of surveillance and control. This began in earnest post-9/11, when the U.S. government imposed stricter regulations on foreign students, requiring universities to report on students' status, academic performance, and even their physical locations.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was established to track international students in real-time, linking student data to immigration and law enforcement agencies. While this system was presented as a means of ensuring national security, it effectively treated international students as suspects, placing them under heightened scrutiny. Universities, in turn, became instruments of surveillance, forced to comply with federal mandates to report any changes in a student's enrollment status, academic performance, or even the duration of their stay in the U.S.

For international students, this surveillance has been particularly invasive, as their movements—whether related to academic matters or personal lives—are constantly monitored by both their institutions and government entities. The stigma of being under the microscope contributes to a sense of alienation and powerlessness. It also encourages conformity, making it difficult for international students to freely express political or ideological dissent for fear of jeopardizing their academic status or immigration status.

The Threat of TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist

Another troubling element of surveillance within higher education is the growing trend of surveillance outside official university systems. Conservative student groups, particularly Turning Point USA (TPUSA), have taken it upon themselves to monitor and track the activities of professors whose political views they deem “liberal” or “left-wing.” One of TPUSA’s most controversial initiatives has been the creation of the Professor Watchlist, which compiles and publicly names professors accused of engaging in “liberal indoctrination” or promoting “liberal agendas.”

While TPUSA claims the Professor Watchlist is a tool to expose bias in academia, its purpose appears to be less about fostering academic debate and more about intimidating faculty members and curbing academic freedom. Professors listed on the watchlist are often subjected to harassment, threats, and, in some cases, professional repercussions, as conservative groups or donors seek to pressure universities into disciplining or firing faculty. The Watchlist represents a form of extrajudicial surveillance—non-governmental in origin but with highly political aims.

The real danger of such initiatives lies in their ability to undermine the independence of higher education. It is not just the professors listed who are impacted, but the entire academic community. Faculty members may begin to self-censor, avoiding controversial or politically sensitive topics for fear of being targeted, and students may find their ability to engage in free inquiry increasingly stifled.

The Professor Watchlist serves as a reminder that surveillance of academic institutions is not just the work of government agencies or private corporations; it is also deeply politicized, with various ideological groups using the tools of surveillance to exert control over education and the intellectual freedoms that it should represent.

Little Resistance: The Silence of Academia

Despite these troubling developments, resistance within academia has been minimal. Universities, which are supposed to serve as protectors of free speech, intellectual diversity, and civil liberties, have largely failed to challenge the growing surveillance apparatus both on and off their campuses. This silence is not without reason—many academic institutions have willingly participated in these surveillance efforts, citing concerns over campus security, student safety, and the desire to combat terrorism.

Additionally, many students and faculty members have become desensitized to surveillance. A generation raised in the digital age, where privacy is increasingly an afterthought and constant connectivity is the norm, may not fully grasp the implications of mass surveillance. Those who do speak out often find themselves at odds with institutional priorities or are silenced by threats of punishment, surveillance of their own activities, or other forms of retaliation.

The fear of retribution has also led to a chilling effect on dissent. Students who voice political opinions, especially those that challenge the status quo, may find themselves under increased scrutiny. This environment creates a culture where conformity reigns, and open discourse is stifled, not necessarily by overt repression, but by the omnipresent surveillance that discourages any behavior that might be deemed "out of line."

Mass Surveillance as a Tool of Authoritarianism and Fascism

The convergence of surveillance practices on college campuses with broader state interests should not be dismissed as incidental. Throughout history, mass surveillance has been a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. From Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany, the power to monitor and control individuals through surveillance has been a tool used by oppressive governments to stifle dissent, control behavior, and consolidate power.

In a fascist regime, surveillance serves not just as a means of security, but as a tool of indoctrination and social control. The existence of surveillance constantly reminds individuals that they are being watched, creating a pervasive sense of fear and self-censorship. The same mechanism is increasingly visible in today’s U.S. higher education system, where students and faculty members may unconsciously internalize the need to comply with institutional norms, which are often shaped by external pressures from governmental and corporate entities.

The Implications for Democracy

The implications of this trend are far-reaching. When educational institutions no longer stand as a safe space for the free exchange of ideas, when they themselves become complicit in the surveillance of their own communities, it erodes the very foundation of democratic society. Free thought and intellectual exploration—the core tenets of higher education—cannot thrive in an atmosphere of constant monitoring and fear.

Mass surveillance on campuses also reinforces systemic inequalities. As surveillance technologies disproportionately affect marginalized groups—whether due to racial profiling, political dissent, or nationality—it contributes to a broader structure of control that undermines the principles of equal treatment and justice. In a society where the surveillance state extends into universities, it’s not hard to imagine a future where academic freedom becomes a thing of the past, with institutions serving instead as instruments of political and corporate control.

Conclusion

The role of U.S. higher education in the rise of mass surveillance—both on and off-campus—raises serious concerns about privacy, freedom, and the future of democratic values. Universities, which once stood as symbols of intellectual autonomy, are now complicit in the surveillance mechanisms that have come to define authoritarian and fascist regimes. The lack of widespread resistance from within academia only exacerbates the situation, highlighting the need for a renewed commitment to the values of free thought and privacy.

If we are to preserve the integrity of higher education as a space for critical thinking and dissent, we must confront the creeping normalization of surveillance in these institutions. It’s time for students, faculty, and administrators to take a stand, not just against the overt surveillance on campus, but against the creeping authoritarianism that it represents in the broader context of our society. The fight for academic freedom and privacy is not just a fight for the rights of students and educators—it’s a fight for the soul of democracy itself.

The Tragedy of NCAA Athletes Who Died Young

[Editor's note: This article was written before the tragic death of former LSU football player Kyren Lacy, who died of an apparent suicide.]  

The NCAA has long been a cornerstone of American college sports, offering a platform for student-athletes to showcase their talent while pursuing higher education. These athletes are revered for their commitment, discipline, and often exceptional abilities, balancing the pressures of academics and the demands of competitive sports. However, there exists a darker side to this world—a series of tragedies that have shattered lives and futures. The untimely deaths of NCAA athletes, often in their youth, cast a long shadow over the collegiate sports landscape and demand reflection, discussion, and action.

A Stark Reality: The Lives Cut Short

In the past decade, there have been numerous heartbreaking stories of NCAA athletes who have tragically passed away at a young age. These athletes, in the prime of their lives, were known for their fierce dedication to their sports and the promise of success that lay ahead. From football players to track stars, the common thread among these stories is the shock and disbelief that accompany such sudden losses.

The deaths of athletes like Zachary Easter, a football player at the University of Iowa, or Mitch Petrus, a former Arkansas Razorback who played in the NFL, demonstrate the vulnerability of young athletes. These athletes, often strong and healthy, were still susceptible to the dangers of both physical and emotional stress, and the grim reality is that their stories are not isolated.

The causes of these deaths vary greatly. Some, like Easter, succumb to the pressures of mental health struggles, while others, like Petrus, tragically fall victim to cardiovascular events or other undiagnosed health conditions. However, the impact on families, friends, teammates, and the entire college community remains the same: profound grief and a relentless questioning of how such a loss could occur.

The High Stakes of College Sports

One of the underlying factors contributing to these tragedies is the intense pressure faced by student-athletes. The NCAA and its member institutions hold their athletes to extraordinarily high standards, both on and off the field. The expectation is often that they must excel in their sport while maintaining their academic standing—balancing an often grueling schedule of training, games, classes, and personal life.

While these demands can shape athletes into disciplined and resilient individuals, they can also contribute to physical and mental strain. Physical exhaustion, injuries, and the demands of performance can take a severe toll on the body, sometimes in ways that are not immediately visible or diagnosable. Mental health struggles, too, are increasingly recognized as a significant challenge for student-athletes, with many feeling isolated or overwhelmed by the pressure to succeed. Tragically, this pressure sometimes leads to a point where the athlete cannot carry on.

Further complicating matters is the culture of silence surrounding mental health in sports. Athletes are often expected to "push through" pain and adversity, leading many to mask their struggles, avoid seeking help, or underreport symptoms. This cultural stigma, combined with a lack of adequate mental health support, creates a deadly cocktail for some athletes, whose needs go unnoticed until it is too late.

The Role of Colleges and the NCAA

As institutions of higher education, colleges and universities have a responsibility to care for the well-being of their students—athletes included. However, there is a growing concern that some universities and the NCAA as a whole have not done enough to address the physical and mental health challenges faced by student-athletes.

The NCAA has made some strides in recent years, implementing policies designed to improve the health and safety of athletes. From concussion protocols to mental health awareness initiatives, these measures reflect a growing acknowledgment of the risks that student-athletes face. However, critics argue that these efforts are still insufficient and that the culture of winning at all costs often takes precedence over athlete welfare. The pressure to perform continues to outpace efforts to safeguard the well-being of athletes, leaving some to wonder whether the systems in place are truly protecting those who are most at risk.

Moreover, the lack of comprehensive long-term health care, especially for former athletes who may face long-term consequences from injuries or undiagnosed conditions, further highlights the systemic shortcomings in how the NCAA handles athlete health. While some colleges have programs to support former athletes, many feel that these programs are often inadequate for the long-term needs of those who were once part of the athletic community.

Mental Health: A Critical Issue

One area that has garnered increasing attention in recent years is the mental health of student-athletes. While the physical demands of sports are often the focus of attention, the psychological toll of being a college athlete can be equally, if not more, devastating.

Studies show that student-athletes are at higher risk for anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues compared to their non-athlete peers. The pressure to perform at a high level, combined with the stress of academic work, social expectations, and sometimes traumatic injuries, can be overwhelming. Tragically, this sometimes leads to self-destructive behaviors or even suicide.

In 2020, the death of Riley O’Neill, a University of Texas swimmer, shocked the collegiate community. O’Neill, a highly talented swimmer, struggled with depression and the pressure to perform. His death highlighted a broader issue of how universities and athletic programs often fail to provide adequate mental health resources or to address the stigma surrounding mental health struggles.

The tragedy of O’Neill’s passing, like others, underscores the need for universities and the NCAA to take proactive steps to ensure that student-athletes have access to counseling and mental health services. These services must be integrated into the athletic programs in a meaningful way, removing barriers to access and ensuring that athletes feel safe and supported in seeking help.

A Call for Change

The untimely deaths of NCAA athletes serve as a painful reminder of the sacrifices these young individuals make in pursuit of excellence. Their lives, cut short too soon, represent not only personal tragedies but a systemic issue that demands attention.

To prevent further heartbreak, colleges, universities, and the NCAA must make a more concerted effort to prioritize the physical and mental well-being of student-athletes. This means improving access to mental health services, providing better protections against physical risks, and creating a culture that values health and safety over performance and achievement.

In honor of those who have passed, we must ensure that future athletes do not have to suffer in silence, that their health is protected, and that their futures remain bright, even as they face the unique pressures of being a student-athlete. It is only through such efforts that the untimely deaths of these young athletes will lead to meaningful change, sparing others from the same fate.

The tragic loss of so many young athletes calls for us to reflect on the human cost of competitive sports, pushing for a shift in how we view success—one that values life and well-being as much as it does athletic performance. The NCAA and its member institutions must rise to the occasion, ensuring that these tragedies do not continue to define the legacy of college sports.