Higher Education Inquirer: Transparency, Accountability, and Value

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia on US Higher Education Nearly Abandoned

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

At a glance:

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

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

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

---

Why This Page Is Falling Behind

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

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

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

---

Why It Matters

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

---

Wikipedia’s Imperfections and Value

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

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

---

What Readers Can Do

Donate Time

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

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

Donate Money

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

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

Knowledge for All

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

---

Sources

• Wikipedia: Higher education in the United States

• Wikipedia: Issues in higher education in the United States

• Wikimedia Foundation – Participate

• Donate to Wikipedia

• Wired, Wikipedia’s inequality problem: who gets to edit for free? (2023)

Scam Alert: American Financial Solutions and Borrower Defense to Repayment

[Editor's Note: The Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a Freedom of Information Request F-2025-02034 for any Federal Trade Commission consumer complaints against American Financial Solutions. We expect student loan relief scams to grow over the next few years as federal government oversight is reduced.]

American Financial Solutions (AFS) positions itself in social media as a lifeline for student loan borrowers, offering help with programs like Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR), PSLF, closed-school discharge, teacher loan forgiveness, and income-driven repayment. They advertise a “95 percent success rate,” more than $25 million in loans discharged, and over 10,000 clients helped. AFS promotes a three-step approach: a free consultation, documentation collection, and federal application submission—with implied guarantees of approval. They even suggest that discharges can occur in as little as 12 to 36 months.

Behind this polished marketing is a disturbing reality. When contacted directly, AFS quoted a $1,500 fee to file a Borrower Defense claim. The Department of Education provides this service for free, which makes the fee an unnecessary financial burden on people already struggling with debt. Worse still, AFS representatives falsely claimed that approval would be “guaranteed” because the borrower’s school was named in the Sweet v. Cardona settlement. That is not how the Sweet settlement worked, and no private company can guarantee outcomes in federal relief programs.

AFS also collects a troubling amount of data from borrowers. According to its own disclosures, the company asks for names, contact information, educational histories, student loan details, financial information, and documentation of borrowers’ school experiences. It also stores communications and any additional information provided. Beyond that, the company automatically harvests website usage data, including IP addresses, device and operating system information, pages visited, time spent on the site, referring websites, and even search terms. This means that vulnerable borrowers are not only charged excessive fees but also exposed to unnecessary risks regarding their personal and financial data.

While AFS presents itself as a nonprofit credit counseling agency with A+ BBB accreditation, consumer complaints suggest a lack of transparency and responsiveness. One unresolved 2024 complaint alleged billing issues, with the consumer insisting they were not liable for a debt and had no contract, while the company failed to respond. Independent review platforms show a mix of praise and criticism, with some clients reporting successful debt management experiences, but others raising questions about hidden costs, communication problems, and misleading claims.

The bigger problem is that AFS fits a well-documented pattern of predatory practices in the student loan relief industry. Over the past decade, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have repeatedly shut down companies that charged for free government services, misrepresented their powers, and lied about forgiveness guarantees. In one case, the CFPB shut down Student Aid Institute, only to see its operator resurface under a new name and steal more than $240,000 from borrowers. In another, Monster Loans and its associates were sued for defrauding over 23,000 borrowers. The FTC has also acted against multiple operations that bilked millions of dollars from borrowers by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. Even Navient, a major loan servicer, agreed in 2024 to pay $120 million after deceiving borrowers about repayment options.

The risks to borrowers are increasing as federal oversight weakens. In 2025, reports revealed that the CFPB planned to scale back enforcement of student loan cases, leaving state regulators—who often lack resources—to fill the gap. Critics warned this would create “open season” for scammers. Against that backdrop, companies like AFS are free to charge high fees, collect sensitive data, and make deceptive promises while vulnerable borrowers remain unprotected.

American Financial Solutions is not a solution. It is part of the problem, a business model that profits by charging people for free services, misrepresenting the law, and exposing them to new risks. Unless stronger oversight and enforcement are restored, borrowers will continue to be victimized first by predatory schools and then by predatory “relief” companies cashing in on their desperation.

---

Sources

American Financial Solutions marketing claims. amerifisolutions.com
AFS data collection disclosure (website policy provided by user)
Better Business Bureau profile. bbb.org
BBB consumer complaint (2024). bbb.org
Trustpilot reviews. trustpilot.com
ConsumerAffairs reviews. consumeraffairs.com
BestCompany review. bestcompany.com
CuraDebt expert analysis. curadebt.com
Federal Trade Commission. “American Financial Benefits Center Refunds.” ftc.gov
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Seeks Ban Against Operator of Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Reboot.” consumerfinance.gov
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Takes Action Against Operators of an Unlawful Student Loan Debt Relief Scheme.” consumerfinance.gov
Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Acts to Stop Scheme that Bilked Millions out of Student Loan Borrowers.” ftc.gov, December 2024
Federal Trade Commission. “Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Operators Agree to be Permanently Banned.” ftc.gov, May 2025
Time Magazine. “Navient Settlement: Student Loan Borrowers to Receive Payments.” time.com, 2024
The Guardian. “Brad Lander: CFPB Cuts Create Open Season for Fraudsters.” theguardian.com, May 2025

EANGUS: Nonprofit Shill for University of Phoenix

The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), which claims to advocate for enlisted National Guard members, has long presented itself as a supporter of military families and career advancement. However, its ongoing partnership with for-profit institutions like the University of Phoenix raises serious questions about whose interests the organization truly serves.

On August 13, the University of Phoenix announced the winners of the 2025 EANGUS Future Phoenix Scholarship, which awards full tuition for bachelor’s or master’s programs to current enlisted National Guard servicemembers and their immediate family members. The winners—Nitasa Freund, Isabella Hunsicker, and John Wellington—were celebrated in press materials that emphasized the school’s commitment to veteran students.

University of Phoenix framed the scholarships as a way to “empower our members to turn their service-driven experience into academic achievement,” while EANGUS Executive Director John Gipe described the partnership as helping military members “step forward not just for the individual, but for the communities they continue to serve.”

But the reality behind these programs is far less altruistic. University of Phoenix, owned by the for-profit Apollo Global Management, has a long history of predatory recruitment practices targeting military and veteran populations. The school has faced multiple federal investigations and lawsuits over deceptive marketing, inflated job placement claims, and aggressive enrollment tactics that funnel servicemembers into costly, high-debt programs.

EANGUS’s role in promoting scholarships to the University of Phoenix illustrates how military associations can be co-opted by for-profit educational interests. By lending credibility and direct access to servicemembers, EANGUS effectively functions as a shill, steering military personnel and their families toward programs that often prioritize corporate profit over educational quality or genuine career outcomes.

Scholarship recipients’ stories, highlighted in University of Phoenix press materials, are framed as evidence of success. Nitasa Freund, a National Guard Staff Sergeant, is pursuing a master’s in criminal justice; John Wellington, a 101st Signal Battalion Company First Sergeant, is returning to higher education after decades of service; and Isabella Hunsicker is studying psychology. These narratives, while compelling, mask the broader systemic risks associated with enrolling in high-cost for-profit programs that may saddle veterans with unmanageable debt.

For an organization that claims to represent the interests of enlisted service members, EANGUS’s alignment with a for-profit education juggernaut raises ethical concerns. Military families seeking higher education deserve advocacy that prioritizes transparency, quality, and long-term outcomes—not promotion of institutions with a documented history of exploiting the very population they claim to serve.

As for-profit colleges continue to target veterans and military families, it is incumbent on military associations, watchdogs, and policymakers to scrutinize partnerships that appear charitable on the surface but may perpetuate financial harm behind the scenes. EANGUS’s ongoing collaboration with University of Phoenix is a stark reminder that even well-intentioned organizations can become complicit in corporate profiteering when oversight and accountability are lacking.

Sources:

• University of Phoenix Press Release, August 13, 2025

• EANGUS Official Website

• Apollo Global Management, University of Phoenix corporate information

• Government Accountability Office and Department of Education reports on for-profit colleges

Jin Huang, Higher Education’s Harry Houdini

Ambow CEO Has Repeatedly Slipped Through the Fingers of Shareholders and Regulators

In the opaque world of for-profit higher education, few figures have evoked the mixture of fascination and alarm generated by Jin Huang, CEO—and at times interim CFO and Board Chair—of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. Huang has repeatedly navigated financial crises, regulatory scrutiny, and institutional collapse with a Houdini-like flair. Yet the institutions under her control—most notably Bay State College and NewSchool of Architecture & Design—tell a far more troubling story.

---

Ambow’s Financial Labyrinth

Ambow, headquartered in the Cayman Islands with historic ties to Beijing (former address: No. 11 Xinyuanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China), has endured years of financial instability. As early as 2010, the company pursued ambitious acquisitions in the U.S. education market, including NewSchool and eventually Bay State College, often relying on opaque financing and cross-border investments.

By 2013, allegations of sham transactions and kickbacks forced Ambow into liquidation and reorganization. Yet the company repeatedly avoided delisting and collapse. Financial reports reveal a recurring pattern: near-catastrophe followed by minimal recovery. In 2023, net revenue fell 37.8% to $9.2 million with a $4.3 million operating loss. By 2024, Ambow reported a modest $0.3 million net income, narrowly avoiding another financial crisis. 

---

Early Years: 2010–2015

From 2010 to 2015, Ambow aggressively pursued U.S. acquisitions and technology projects while expanding its presence in China. The company leveraged offshore corporate structures and relied heavily on PRC-linked investors. Huang’s leadership style during this period prioritized expansion and publicity over sustainable governance, leaving institutions financially vulnerable.

Despite claims of educational innovation, Ambow’s track record in these years included multiple warnings from U.S. regulators and questionable accounting practices that would later contribute to shareholder lawsuits and delisting from the NYSE in 2014.

---

Bay State College: Closed Doors, Open Wounds

Acquired in 2017, Bay State College in Boston once enrolled over 1,200 students. By 2021, enrollment had collapsed, despite millions in federal COVID-era relief. In 2022, the Massachusetts Attorney General secured a $1.1 million settlement over misleading marketing, telemarketing violations, and inflated job-placement claims.

Accreditation probation followed, culminating in NECHE’s withdrawal of accreditation in January 2023. Eviction proceedings for over $720,000 in unpaid rent preceded the college’s permanent closure in August 2023. Bay State’s demise exemplifies the consequences of Ambow’s pattern: the CEO escapes, the institution collapses, and students and faculty are left in the lurch.

---

NewSchool of Architecture & Design: Stabilization in San Diego

NewSchool, Ambow’s other U.S. acquisition, has faced persistent challenges. Enrollment has dropped below 300 students, and the school remains on the U.S. Department of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring list. Leadership instability has been chronic: five presidents since 2020, with resignations reportedly tied to unpaid salaries and operational dysfunction.

As of 2025, lawsuits with Art Block Investors, LLC have been settled, and NewSchool is now housed in three floors of the WeWork building in downtown San Diego. Despite receiving a Notice of Concern from regional accreditor WSCUC, the college remains operational but financially precarious.

---

Questionable Credentials and Leadership Transparency

Huang has claimed to hold a PhD from the University of California, but investigation reveals no record of degree completion. This raises further concerns about leadership credibility and transparency. Ambow’s consolidated executive structure—Huang serving simultaneously as CEO, CFO, and Board Chair—exacerbates governance risks.

While headquartered in Cupertino, California, Ambow continues to operate with ties to Chinese interests. SEC filings from the PRC era acknowledged that the Chinese government exerted significant influence on the company’s business operations. Ambow has also expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners.

---

HybriU and the EdTech Hype

In 2024, Ambow launched HybriU, a hybrid learning platform promoted at CES and the ASU+GSV conference. Marketing materials claim a 5-in-1 AI-integrated solution for teaching, learning, connectivity, recording, and management, including immersive 3D classroom projections.

Yet there is no verifiable evidence of HybriU’s use in actual classrooms. A $1.3 million licensing deal with a recently formed Singapore company, Inspiring Futures, is the only reported commercial transaction. Photos on the platform’s website have been traced to stock images, and the “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology introduced in China in 2021 has not demonstrated measurable results in U.S. education settings.

Reports suggest that Ambow may be in preliminary talks with Colorado State University (CSU) to implement HybriU. HEI has not confirmed any formal partnership, and CSU has not publicly acknowledged engagement with the platform. Any potential relationship remains unverified, raising questions about the legitimacy and scope of Ambow’s outreach to U.S. universities.

Ambow’s 2025 press release promotes HybriU as a transformative global learning network, but HEI’s review finds no verified partnerships with accredited U.S. universities, no independent validation, and continued opacity regarding student outcomes or data security.

---

Financial Oversight and Auditor Concerns

Ambow commissioned a favorable report from Argus Research, but its research and development spending remains minimal—$100,000 per quarter. Prouden CPA, the current auditor based in China, is new to the company’s books and has limited experience auditing U.S. education operations. This raises questions about the reliability of Ambow’s financial reporting and governance practices.

---

The Illusion of Rescue

Jin Huang’s repeated escapes from regulatory and financial peril have earned her a reputation akin to Harry Houdini. But the cost of each act is borne not by the CEO, but by institutions, faculty, and students. Bay State College is closed. NewSchool remains operational in a WeWork facility but teeters on financial fragility. HybriU promises innovation but offers no proof.

Ambow’s trajectory demonstrates that a company can survive on hype, foreign influence, and minimal governance, while leaving the real consequences behind. Any unconfirmed talks with CSU highlight the ongoing risks for U.S. institutions considering engagement with Ambow. For regulators, students, and higher education stakeholders, Huang’s Houdini act is less a marvel than a warning.

---

Sources

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education Facing NYSE Delisting.” May 2022.

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education and NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” October 2023.

• Higher Education Inquirer. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design Lawsuits.” March 2025.

• Boston Globe. “Bay State College Faces Uncertain Future.” January 3, 2023.

• Inside Higher Ed. “Two Colleges Flounder Under Opaque For-Profit Owners.” October 18, 2022.

• Inside Higher Ed. “Bay State College Loses Accreditation Appeal.” March 21, 2023.

• GlobeNewswire. “Ambow Education Announces Full-Year 2024 Results.” March 28, 2025.

• Ambow Education Press Releases and SEC Filings

• Wikipedia. “Bay State College.” Accessed August 2025.

• Wikipedia. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” Accessed August 2025.

Was Turning Point USA inflitrated by a Russian informant?

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

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

Hollenbeck’s Background and Unusual Affiliations

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

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

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

Attempts at Federal Oversight and Silence

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

Why TPUSA Could Be Vulnerable

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

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

Implications for Student Organizations

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

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

Vigilance and Transparency Are Essential

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

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

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

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

HEI's Most Popular Recent Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

The Higher Education Inquirer: Investigating the Dark Corners of U.S. Higher Ed

For nearly a decade, the Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has cultivated a reputation for relentless, independent journalism in a field often dominated by press-release rewrites and trade-conference boosterism. In 2024 and 2025, that commitment has been on full display, with a series of investigations that not only expose institutional negligence and corporate greed, but also demand structural change.

Following the Money: GI Bill Loopholes and Veteran Betrayal

One of HEI’s most impactful 2025 stories examined how billions in GI Bill funds—more than Pell Grants or state scholarships—are diverted to for-profit and low-performing nonprofit institutions. Despite promises of career advancement, many veterans end up underemployed and in debt. The reporting points to deliberate policy gaps, such as the weakened 90–10 rule, that incentivize predatory recruitment over educational quality.

Student Debt Transparency: A FOIA Offensive

HEI has also launched an ambitious Freedom of Information Act campaign to shed light on the federal student loan portfolio and on how rarely student loan debt is discharged through bankruptcy. Requests to the Department of Education seek data going back to 1965—records that could help quantify decades of policy drift away from borrower relief.

The FOIA strategy doesn’t stop at the Department of Education. HEI has queried the Securities and Exchange Commission for complaint data against online program managers 2U and Ambow Education, bringing corporate accountability into sharper focus.

Beyond the Campus: Immigration, Religion, and Geopolitics

While student debt remains a central concern, HEI has broadened its investigative reach. In March 2025, it filed a FOIA with the State Department for details on more than 300 revoked student visas, a move to illuminate opaque policies that can upend lives without public explanation.

Other pieces have examined the rise of Christian cybercharter schools, warning of a drift toward ideological indoctrination in taxpayer-funded education. Internationally, HEI has scrutinized the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s U.S. media tour, questioning the intersection of higher education, faith-based advocacy, and political agendas.

Why This Work Matters

What makes HEI’s journalism unique is its sustained follow-through. Many outlets publish a single exposé and move on. HEI revisits stories months or years later, tracking the real-world consequences of policy changes and institutional behavior. This persistence has helped keep public attention on issues like the Corinthian Colleges collapse and the broader failure to deliver promised student debt relief.

By pairing data-driven reporting with insider accounts and whistleblower input, HEI not only documents abuse but also lays out pathways for reform. In a higher education system where financialized logic often outweighs student welfare, that combination is increasingly rare—and increasingly necessary.

---

Sources:

• Higher Education Inquirer

• Higher Education Inquirer – GI Bill Reform

• University Leadership Central

• Student Affairs Connection

The Data on Marijuana Harms: A Higher Education Inquirer Perspective

Amid the normalization of marijuana use across the United States, the risks and costs associated with the drug are often minimized or ignored altogether. In academic settings, this normalization presents a public health challenge that intersects with issues of student success, mental health, and institutional responsibility.

Research over the past decade has revealed a set of concerns with both recreational and medical cannabis use—particularly among adolescents and young adults, the age group that encompasses most traditional college students. According to a 2024 report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), daily marijuana use among college students has reached historic highs, with more than 11% reporting daily or near-daily consumption. While legalization has reduced arrests and the stigma of use, it has also coincided with increases in cannabis-related hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and reported cases of Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD).

Cognitive impacts are especially relevant in educational settings. Multiple longitudinal studies, including those published in JAMA Psychiatry and The Lancet Psychiatry, have linked regular cannabis use with decreased memory, attention, and learning outcomes. These impairments are often more pronounced in individuals who began using the drug in adolescence. A 2022 study conducted at Duke University found measurable IQ decline in long-term users who began before age 18.

There are also growing concerns about the mental health effects of high-potency cannabis products, now commonly available in legal markets. THC concentrations in commercial marijuana have increased significantly in the past two decades, with some concentrates exceeding 80-90% THC. The increased potency has been associated with heightened risks of psychosis, particularly in genetically predisposed individuals. A 2019 study led by researchers in the UK and Europe found that daily use of high-THC cannabis increased the risk of psychotic disorders by a factor of four to five, compared to non-users.

The link between marijuana and anxiety or depression is less clear-cut but increasingly studied. While some individuals use marijuana to self-medicate for anxiety, evidence suggests that chronic use can worsen symptoms over time. Colleges and universities have reported rising levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among students, raising questions about whether cannabis use is a contributing factor or a response to already worsening mental health conditions.

Another area of concern is academic performance and persistence. A multi-institution study published in Addictive Behaviors in 2023 found that regular cannabis use was associated with lower GPA and increased likelihood of dropping out. These findings are consistent across different types of institutions—public, private, and community colleges. At the same time, many campus counseling and health centers are ill-equipped to address substance use disorders, particularly those involving marijuana, which is often not viewed as a serious problem by students or staff.

The cannabis industry has also become a lobbying force in education and public health discourse. Legal cannabis companies, like their counterparts in alcohol and tobacco, have invested in youth-oriented branding, influencer marketing, and campus-adjacent advertising. This has occurred with relatively little pushback from higher education institutions or state governments, many of which have financial interests in cannabis tax revenues.

As more states legalize marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, the responsibility of higher education institutions to respond thoughtfully and evidence-based becomes more urgent. Silence or ambiguity can be interpreted as approval. At the same time, overreaction risks alienating students and perpetuating distrust. A public health approach—grounded in data, transparency, and consistent messaging—may offer the most constructive way forward.

Sources:

National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Monitoring the Future Survey, 2024.” University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
Meier, M. H., et al. (2012). “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Di Forti, M., et al. (2019). “The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe.” The Lancet Psychiatry.
Arria, A. M., et al. (2023). “Marijuana use and academic outcomes among college students: A multi-institution study.” Addictive Behaviors.
Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. (2020). “Assessing the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use: the US experience.” World Psychiatry.
JAMA Psychiatry. (2021). “Association of cannabis potency with mental health outcomes.”
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.”

Trump DOJ Intensifies “Revenge Tour” Amid Epstein Fallout

The Department of Justice, under the renewed influence of former President Donald Trump’s network, appears to be escalating a politically charged “revenge tour.” Critics argue this wave of federal legal actions is increasingly aimed at discrediting prominent critics—most notably New York Attorney General Letitia James—as a distraction from the persistent and troubling Epstein scandal and its unsettling connections to elite institutions.

HEI’s Ongoing Epstein Reporting

HEI has consistently sounded the alarm on how universities and higher education institutions are complicit in the Epstein network—whether through silence, financial entanglements, or willful ignorance. As highlighted in recent pieces like "Are the Epstein Files the Watergate of Our Time?", HEI stressed how the scandal’s true weight lies not only in its crimes but in the cover‑ups and institutional complicity that enabled it Higher Education Inquirer.

An editorial titled "Elite Higher Education and the Epstein Files" went further, warning that restoring any moral authority in academe demands radical transparency—disclosing donor histories, instituting independent oversight, and dismantling the secrecy that protects powerful actors Higher Education Inquirer.

HEI also described how Epstein’s infiltration of higher ed wasn’t incidental—it was symptomatic of neoliberal corruption: where ethical standards bow to big money, and university allegiance lies with donors, not truth or justice Higher Education Inquirer+1.

The DOJ’s Target: Letitia James

Now, against this backdrop, the Justice Department has launched aggressive scrutiny of Letitia James’s record:

• Subpoenas issued today by the DOJ and an Albany grand jury seek documents related to her successful $454–$500 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and her NRA fraud case PoliticoReutersThe GuardianThe Washington PostNew York Post. Authorities are probing whether her actions violated Trump’s civil rights—a highly unusual inquiry into a sitting attorney general ReutersThe Washington Post.

• Parallel to that, there's a separate investigation into mortgage fraud based on allegations she manipulated property records to get favorable loan terms—a referral reportedly emanating from the Federal Housing Finance Agency New York PostPolitico.

James rejects the charges as politically motivated retaliation—labeling them part of Trump’s “revenge tour” designed to punish opponents for doing their jobs PoliticoThe Washington Post.

Former FBI Official James E. Dennehy Forced Out Amid DOJ Clashes

Compounding the turmoil, former FBI assistant director James E. Dennehy, who led the FBI’s New York Field Office, was forced to resign in early 2025. Dennehy reportedly clashed with the DOJ over demands to identify agents involved in January 6 investigations and expressed concern that federal law enforcement officials were being removed for simply doing their jobs.

His departure underscores ongoing instability and politicization within key federal law enforcement agencies during this period of intensified DOJ retaliation.

Why This Matters for Higher Education

HEI’s mission is to expose how power, money, and politics distort institutions meant to serve the public good. The Trump DOJ’s apparent weaponization of federal power to target legal critics—under the guise of legitimacy—poses a broader risk: it could eclipse critical investigations into elite networks like Epstein’s. Distracting from those deeper, systemic stories benefits entrenched power structures and lets accountability fade.

Sources:

• HEI articles on Trump’s DOJ politicization and Letitia James investigations

• FBI leadership changes, 2025 (James E. Dennehy’s resignation)

• Investigative reports on the Epstein case and its fallout

Stanford's student newspaper sues President Trump

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

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

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

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

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

HEI’s Commitment to Student-Led Accountability

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

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

Sources:

• Stanford Daily: “Stanford to lay off over 360 staff following $140 million budget cuts”

• TIME: “Stanford Daily Sues Trump Over Threats to Free Speech for International Students”

• SF Chronicle: “Stanford’s Student Paper Sues Trump Amid Budget Crisis”

UF’s Climate Commitment Cancelled—Student Journalists Pick Up the Slack

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we’ve long tracked the creeping politicization, corporatization, and hollowing-out of American higher education. But we also know that some of the most important journalism in this space isn’t coming from cable news or legacy media—it’s being done by student reporters working late nights in underfunded college newsrooms.

That’s why we’re launching a new initiative: to amplify and highlight outstanding student journalism that exposes institutional failures, lifts up marginalized voices, and brings transparency to power.

We begin by spotlighting vital reporting from The Independent Florida Alligator, the student-run newspaper at the University of Florida.

In an August 7th article, "UF shuts down Office of Sustainability," student journalists revealed that UF has abruptly dismantled its Office of Sustainability. The decision was made quietly, with no input from students or faculty. The office had led the university’s efforts on climate action, environmental education, waste reduction, and green infrastructure.

The story goes far beyond campus housekeeping—it reflects a larger pattern of political interference under Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Programs tied to environmentalism, racial equity, and academic freedom have come under fire as part of a sweeping campaign to reshape public education into a vehicle for conservative ideology.

Staff from the sustainability office have reportedly been reassigned to facilities management, signaling a shift in priorities from systemic environmental change to mere operational efficiency. The message is clear: climate action is no longer a public commitment, but a liability.

This is happening in a state already suffering the consequences of climate change—rising sea levels, stronger hurricanes, dangerous heat waves. Universities, especially public ones, should be at the forefront of scientific and civic leadership. Instead, they’re retreating. And student journalists are left to do the work that administrators won’t.

HEI’s New Commitment to Student Journalism

The Higher Education Inquirer is proud to support and amplify the work of student journalists who are holding institutions accountable. With shrinking professional newsrooms and growing institutional secrecy, student-run papers remain a critical watchdog in American higher education.

We encourage our readers to follow, share, and support publications like The Alligator. Their work is a public service—and they’re doing it with fewer resources and greater risks than many professionals.

We’ll be featuring more stories like this in the months ahead. If you’re a student journalist breaking news, blowing whistles, or investigating injustice in higher education, we want to hear from you.

Source:

• The Independent Florida Alligator, August 7, 2025: “UF shuts down Office of Sustainability”

ShadowStats Gone Silent: A Loss for Independent Economic Accountability

The sudden disappearance of updated economic series from ShadowStats.com in late 2023 represents a significant loss for those seeking alternative metrics on inflation, unemployment, GDP, and money supply. For nearly two decades, John Williams offered alternative calculations using older methodologies—like pre-1997 CPI and the pre-1993 U-6 unemployment series—that pushed back against official narratives from Washington.

As of mid-2023, Williams had announced server transitions and communication delays. But since then, there have been no new numbers. The ShadowStats homepage now feels like a ghost town—quiet in a moment when alternative data is arguably more vital than ever.

A Counterpoint to Politicized Official Data

In early August 2025, President Donald Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the Biden-appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, following a disappointing July jobs report and significant downward revisions to previous months. McEntarfer was accused, without evidence, of manipulating the numbers. The move alarmed economists across the political spectrum and cast new doubts on the independence of federal data reporting.

ShadowStats long operated in this shadowy realm—challenging official statistics not just for technical flaws but for what Williams saw as systemic obfuscation. Critics often scoffed at his high inflation numbers and methodology, but many respected the necessity of an outsider audit, especially as trust in federal institutions wanes.

Now, with McEntarfer gone and the BLS under renewed political pressure, the absence of ShadowStats leaves a void for watchdogs, skeptics, and independent researchers. Whatever one thought of Williams’ conclusions, his presence forced a more honest conversation.

Independent Scrutiny, Silenced

ShadowStats wasn’t perfect. Economists questioned its internal consistency, and some warned that it exaggerated inflation by double-counting or overestimating price pressures. But Williams’ work was never meant to replace the BLS—it existed to question it. Without that challenge, what’s left?

The timing of the silence is especially troubling. As jobs reports become politicized, as inflation is gamed to manage perception and investor sentiment, as federal agencies come under threat of dissolution or reorganization, the independent mirrors held up to power are fading.

And make no mistake: even flawed mirrors can reflect uncomfortable truths.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The disappearance of ShadowStats doesn’t just affect monetary theorists or Austrian school economists. It matters to ordinary Americans who sense that the numbers don’t match their lived experiences—at the pump, in the grocery store, in their paychecks. It matters to working-class families whose struggles are minimized by rosy job reports. And it matters to journalists, educators, and activists who rely on independent data to inform the public honestly.

If ShadowStats doesn’t return, its legacy will still endure as a case study in resistance—however imperfect—against technocratic opacity. But the need for independent, adversarial data has not gone away. It’s only grown louder.

We shouldn’t have to wait for another fired statistician—or another economic crisis—to demand better numbers and more transparency. The silence of ShadowStats should be a warning. Independent oversight must be rebuilt, or we’ll be flying blind into the next storm.

Sources:

• Shadow Government Statistics, John Williams. www.shadowstats.com

• Washington Post, August 1, 2025. “Trump fires BLS chief after weak jobs report.”

• New York Magazine, August 2, 2025. “Trump’s Firing of the BLS Commissioner Is Bound to Backfire.”

• Business Insider, August 2, 2025. “Why the market is shrugging off Trump's firing of the BLS chief.”

• Wikipedia: Shadowstats.com. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowstats.com

• Moneyness blog by JP Koning. “Cross-checking ShadowStats.”

• MarketWatch, August 3, 2025. “There’s no sure cure for what ails the U.S. jobs report.”

• AP News, August 1, 2025. “Economists warn BLS independence at risk after Trump ousts chief.”

The Data We Can Still Trust: Holding Colleges Accountable When Transparency Declines

In an age where facts are contested and data manipulated, the question "Can we trust the numbers?" has become not just philosophical but political—and deeply consequential. Nowhere is this more evident than in higher education policy, where recent moves by the federal government have drastically undermined transparency, oversight, and public trust.

The dismantling of truth has reached new heights in 2025. Under the second Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Education has seen unprecedented budget cuts, including the near-evisceration of offices responsible for data collection and analysis. Key functions of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) have been gutted or quietly privatized, leaving researchers, journalists, and the public in the dark about the state of America's colleges and universities.

While much of the media has focused on the culture wars roiling campuses, the real war—against accountability—has played out more quietly through bureaucratic defunding and the removal of inconvenient truth-tellers.

In a stunning move this summer, President Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), reportedly over the refusal to manipulate job figures and educational attainment data to suit administration talking points. The firing came just days after the BLS declined to revise downward the number of unemployed college graduates—a number that contradicted public claims of an “education-fueled economic boom.”

The Department of Labor's statistical integrity had been under increasing pressure in recent months. Sources within the agency described an atmosphere of intimidation and growing self-censorship. Internal memos revealed efforts to suppress long-term wage stagnation data and the underemployment rates among recent college grads.

Meanwhile, the Department of Education—once tasked with producing detailed reports on student outcomes, loan default rates, and institutional effectiveness—has abandoned major longitudinal studies. The College Scorecard website, once a marginal tool for transparency, now offers cherry-picked metrics and lacks any independent oversight. Public datasets are incomplete or years out of date. Critical tools like the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) are being quietly dismantled under the guise of "streamlining."

These changes don’t just affect policy wonks and higher ed insiders. They directly impact students, families, and communities trying to navigate a rapidly shifting and often predatory education marketplace. Without reliable data on debt loads, job placement, or graduation rates, how can anyone make informed decisions about college?

The answer, increasingly, is: they can’t. And perhaps that’s the point.

For an administration and its allies pushing voucher-style education reforms, expanded online programs, and reduced regulatory scrutiny, ignorance is a strategic asset. In a data vacuum, ideology prevails. Numbers become whatever those in power say they are.

This erosion of statistical integrity is part of a broader trend of de-democratizing knowledge. When facts become partisan tools and empirical research is defunded or delegitimized, the public loses its capacity to make informed decisions—not just about higher education, but about the future of the country itself.

The Higher Education Inquirer has long reported on the College Meltdown—the slow-motion unraveling of a bloated, debt-fueled, and increasingly corporatized higher ed system. But what happens when the meltdown is obscured by manipulated metrics and silenced dissent?

We are entering a phase where the collapse is not just structural or economic, but epistemological. Without reliable data, accountability vanishes. And when accountability dies, so does democracy.

The Numbers We Can Still Trust

Despite the chaos at the federal level, not all is lost. Gary Stocker, founder of College Viability and a long-time analyst of college financial health, emphasizes that historical data from IPEDS, audited financial statements, and IRS 990s remain largely intact—and still extremely valuable.

“There might be some risk for future numbers,” Stocker explains, “but I contend there is little risk for historical numbers from IPEDS, financial statements, and IRS 990s. Those numbers are baked in and would be very difficult to alter.”

This long-view perspective is critical in a time when many colleges and universities are trying to spin short-term narratives of recovery.

“If the enrollment trend is down over the past 8–10 years, that is the indicator of a college in trouble,” Stocker says. “Any college that tries to spin a 1-year, full enrollment recovery story will face extensive doubt and disbelief—especially from me.”

These longitudinal patterns—whether in enrollment, tuition discounting, administrative bloat, or student outcomes—are more important than ever. And while IPEDS may be on the chopping block, Stocker reminds us that nonprofit institutions are still legally obligated to submit audited financials and IRS 990 forms.

“Those two resources alone will be a tool with which to identify and expose those colleges willing to risk taking poetic license with their data.”

At The Higher Education Inquirer, we agree—and we thank Gary Stocker for his clarity and persistence. Transparency doesn’t depend solely on the federal government. It depends on those willing to dig, analyze, and expose the truth—even when that truth is buried in spreadsheets and footnotes.

We urge journalists, researchers, students, and faculty to continue examining the data that remains. The numbers don’t lie. But silence, distortion, and disappearance are forms of policy. And right now, those policies are accelerating.

Sources:

– U.S. Department of Education Budget Summary, FY2025
– Internal whistleblower reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
– “Bureau Head Fired Over Data Dispute,” Washington Post, June 2025
– American Council on Education analysis of NCES defunding, July 2025
– U.S. Department of Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
– IRS Form 990 Search: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
– Gary Stocker, College Viability – https://collegeviability.com/
– Gary Stocker, Personal communication with The Higher Education Inquirer, August 2025
– Chronicle of Higher Education, “Enrollment Trends and Institutional Closures,” accessed 2025
– National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), “Tuition Discounting Study,” various years
– Higher Education Inquirer archives on data transparency and College Scorecard manipulation