Higher Education Inquirer : Search results for transparency

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

Friday, April 25, 2025

Trump Backs Down on Threats to International Students, But Students Should Still Be Wary

In a stunning and unexplained reversal, the Trump administration has reinstated the legal statuses of hundreds of international students whose records were recently terminated—an aggressive move many immigration attorneys, advocates, and higher education leaders saw as a politically motivated purge.

Elizabeth D. Kurlan, a Justice Department attorney, announced during a federal hearing on Friday that the administration is restoring the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) records of affected students while Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) crafts a new framework for future terminations.

But for many in the higher education community, this about-face raises more concerns than it resolves.

“Like Somebody Flipped a Light Switch”

International students across the country were stunned Thursday afternoon when their status records were quietly reactivated, often without explanation or notice. “It’s like somebody flipped a light switch on,” said Cleveland-based immigration attorney Jath Shao, whose clients were among those reinstated.

Universities from UC Berkeley to the Rochester Institute of Technology reported sudden, uneven restorations—some students were reinstated, others left in limbo. The randomness of it all has underscored what critics call the administration’s disregard for due process and the human cost of erratic immigration enforcement.

At UC Berkeley, only about half of the impacted students saw their records restored. In Minnesota, immigration attorney David Wilson said that while some of his clients had their statuses reinstated, others remain legally adrift. And even for those reinstated, the problems don’t end there.

Not Fully “Made Whole”

Despite the government’s public pivot, immigration experts warn that the long-term consequences of the status terminations may still follow these students. The terminated statuses, even if reversed, remain part of the official record—and could jeopardize future visa renewals, green card applications, or even employment opportunities.

“The time that they had their SEVIS status terminated could still have harmful effects,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic. “It’s not enough for the federal government to simply restore service records. The government would need to somehow make the students whole.”

What’s more, many students remain trapped inside the United States. Their reinstated statuses do not automatically mean reinstated visas—many of which were revoked in the same sweep. Without valid visas, these students risk being barred from reentry if they leave the country.

A Campaign of Retaliation

Attorneys and student advocates point to what appears to be a pattern of targeted enforcement by ICE. Many of the students who lost their status were flagged for political activism, minor infractions like DUIs, or simply for being out of status during bureaucratic transitions.

“There’s little doubt that this was about sending a message,” said Shao. “By now it’s obvious that the Trump administration spent the four years of Biden plotting their revenge on the immigration system. But once some brave students and lawyers went to the courts — the administration’s defenders were unable or unwilling to explain the rationale.”

The legal pushback may have forced the administration’s hand—for now. But ICE’s authority to terminate SEVIS records remains intact, and a new policy is reportedly in development. Without transparency or oversight, advocates fear a more durable system of punitive enforcement is on the horizon.

Higher Education at the Crossroads

The Trump administration’s crackdown on international students is not happening in a vacuum. It reflects a broader shift toward nationalist, authoritarian governance—one that sees immigrants, universities, and dissent itself as threats to be neutralized.

For U.S. colleges and universities, international students are more than just tuition revenue—they are integral members of the academic and social fabric. Their vulnerability, however, is increasingly evident. And unless institutions begin to use their political and legal capital to protect these students, they risk becoming complicit in a system of silent expulsions and bureaucratic cruelty.

Thursday, April 24, 2025

Department of Education No Longer Posting Freedom of Information Requests

The US Department of Education (ED) has stopped posting up-to-date Freedom of Information (FOIA) logs. These logs had been posted and updated from 2011 to September 2024 to improve transparency and accountability to the agency. We have reached out ED for a statement. We are also awaiting for a number of information requests, some of which have taken more than 18 months for substantive replies.

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

Trump’s Higher Education Crackdown: Culture War in a Cap and Gown

In a recent flurry of executive orders, former President Donald Trump has escalated his administration’s long-running war on American higher education, targeting college accreditation processes, foreign donations to universities, and elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia. Framed as a campaign for accountability and meritocracy, these actions are in reality part of a broader effort to weaponize public distrust, reinforce ideological purity tests, and strong-arm colleges into political obedience.

But even if Trump's crusade were rooted in good faith—which it clearly is not—his chosen mechanism for “fixing” higher education, the accreditation system, is already deeply flawed. It’s not just that Trump is using a broken tool for political ends—it's that the tool itself has long been part of the problem.

Accreditation: Already a Low Bar

Accreditation in U.S. higher education is often mistaken by the public as a sign of quality. In reality, it’s often a rubber stamp—granted by private agencies funded by the very schools they evaluate. “Yet in practice,” write economists David Deming and David Figlio, “accreditors—who are paid by the institutions themselves—appear to be ineffectual at best, much like the role of credit rating agencies during the recent financial crisis.”

As a watchdog of America’s subprime colleges and a monitor of the ongoing College Meltdown, the Higher Education Inquirer has long reported that institutional accreditation is no sign of academic quality. Worse, it is frequently used by subprime colleges as a veneer of legitimacy to mask predatory practices, inflated tuition, and low academic standards.

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the nation’s largest accreditor, monitors nearly a thousand institutions—ranging from prestigious schools like the University of Chicago and University of Michigan to for-profit, scandal-plagued operations such as Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, University of Phoenix, and Walden University. These subprime colleges receive billions annually in federal student aid—money that flows through an accreditation pipeline that’s barely regulated and heavily compromised.

On the three pillars of accreditation—compliance, quality assurance, and quality improvement—the Higher Learning Commission often fails spectacularly when it comes to subprime institutions. That’s not just a bug in the system; it’s the system working as designed.

Who Watches the Watchers?

Accreditors like the HLC receive dues from member institutions, giving them a vested interest in keeping their customers viable, no matter how exploitative their practices may be. Despite objections from the American Association of University Professors, the HLC has accredited for-profit colleges since 1977 and ethically questionable operations for nearly two decades.

As Mary A. Burgan, then General Secretary of the AAUP, put it bluntly in 2000:

"I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich..."

[Image: From CHEA: Higher Learning Commission dues for member colleges. Over the last 30 years, HLC has received millions of dollars from subprime schools like the University of Phoenix.]

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which oversees accreditors, acts more like a trade association than a watchdog. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education—the only federal entity with oversight responsibility—has done little to ensure quality or accountability. Under the Trump-DeVos regime, the Department actively dismantled what little regulatory framework existed, rolling back Obama-era protections that aimed to curb predatory schools and improve transparency.

In 2023, an internal investigation revealed that the Department of Education was failing to properly monitor accreditors—yet Trump’s solution is to hand even more power to this broken apparatus while demanding it serve political ends.

Harvard: Not a Victim, But a Gatekeeper of the Elite

While Trump's attacks on Harvard are rooted in personal and political animus, it's important not to portray the university as a defenseless bastion of the common good. Harvard is already deeply entrenched in elite power structures—economically, socially, and politically.

The university’s admissions policies have long favored legacy applicants, children of donors, and the ultra-wealthy. It has one of the largest endowments in the world—over $50 billion—yet its efforts to serve working-class and marginalized students remain modest in proportion to its vast resources.

Harvard has produced more Wall Street bankers, U.S. presidents, and Supreme Court justices than any other institution. Its graduates populate the upper echelons of the corporate, political, and media elite. In many ways, Harvard is the establishment Trump claims to rail against—even if his own policies often reinforce that very establishment.

Harvard is not leading a revolution in equity or access. Rather, it polishes the credentials of those already destined to lead, reinforcing a hierarchy that leaves most Americans—including working-class and first-generation students—on the outside looking in.

The Silence on Legacy Admissions

While Trump rails against elite universities in the name of “meritocracy,” there is a glaring omission in the conversation: the entrenched unfairness of legacy admissions. These policies—where applicants with familial ties to alumni receive preferential treatment—are among the most blatant violations of meritocratic ideals. Yet neither Trump’s executive orders nor the broader political discourse dare to address them.

Legacy admissions are a quiet but powerful engine of privilege, disproportionately benefiting white, wealthy students and preserving generational inequality. At institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, legacy applicants are admitted at significantly higher rates than the general pool, even when controlling for academic credentials. This practice rewards lineage over talent and undermines the very idea of equal opportunity that higher education claims to uphold.

Despite bipartisan rhetoric about fairness and access, few politicians—Democratic or Republican—have challenged the legitimacy of legacy preferences. It’s a testament to how deeply intertwined elite institutions are with the political and economic establishment. And it’s a reminder that the war on higher education is not about fixing inequalities—it’s about reshaping the system to serve different masters.

A Hypocritical Power Grab

Trump’s newfound concern with educational “results” is laced with hypocrisy. The former president’s own venture into higher education—Trump University—was a grift that ended in legal disgrace and financial restitution to defrauded students. Now, Trump is posing as the savior of academic merit, while promoting an ideologically-driven overhaul of the very system that allowed scams like his to thrive.

By focusing on elite universities, Trump exploits populist resentment while ignoring the real scandal: that billions in public funds are siphoned off by institutions with poor student outcomes and high loan default rates—many of them protected by the very accrediting agencies he now claims to reform.

Conclusion: Political Theater, Not Policy

Trump's latest actions are not reforms—they're retribution. His executive orders target symbolic elites, not systemic rot. They turn accreditation into a partisan tool while leaving the worst actors untouched—or even empowered.

Meanwhile, elite institutions like Harvard remain complicit in maintaining a class hierarchy that benefits the powerful, even as they protest their innocence in today’s political battles.

Real accountability in higher education would mean cracking down on predatory schools, reforming or replacing failed accreditors, and restoring rigorous federal oversight. But this administration isn't interested in cleaning up the swamp—it’s repurposing the muck for its own ends.

The Higher Education Inquirer remains committed to pulling back the curtain on these abuses—no matter where they come from or how well they are disguised.

Sunday, April 20, 2025

Canary Mission: A Threat to Democracy on US Campuses

In recent years, the rise of organizations like Canary Mission has raised serious concerns about the state of free speech, academic freedom, and democracy on American college campuses. Operating under the guise of combating anti-Semitism and extremism, Canary Mission’s tactics and objectives have sparked widespread debate about its impact on campus life and the broader implications for democracy in the U.S.

Who is Canary Mission?

Founded in 2015, Canary Mission is a controversial online platform that compiles and publishes dossiers on students, professors, and organizations it deems to be associated with anti-Semitism or support for groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. While it claims to be an anti-extremist initiative, critics argue that Canary Mission’s activities are part of a broader, coordinated effort to silence pro-Palestinian voices, suppress critical discourse, and undermine academic freedom.

The organization's name derives from the "canary in the coal mine" metaphor, suggesting that it is warning the public about supposed dangers related to individuals and groups it monitors. But in practice, Canary Mission’s database often targets individuals solely for their political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with no proven ties to terrorism or violence. Students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian activism or who criticize Israel’s policies, have found themselves the subject of detailed and often misleading profiles that can haunt their careers.

The impact of Canary Mission is far-reaching: students who appear on the site have reported facing backlash in the form of social ostracism, job discrimination, and even legal action, all because their political activities or beliefs have been highlighted on this platform. Canary Mission’s website claims to provide a “public service” by exposing individuals “advocating for hate,” but its methods often conflate political activism with extremism, which can create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship within academic circles.

Funding and Connections

Canary Mission’s funding sources remain somewhat opaque, which raises questions about its backing and potential influence. According to investigative reports and public disclosures, it is widely believed that the organization is funded by a network of right-wing pro-Israel groups, including wealthy donors, philanthropic organizations, and think tanks like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. These connections underscore a broader ideological agenda that aligns with certain political interests, particularly those that aim to stifle critical discussions surrounding Israel’s policies and its occupation of Palestine.

The secrecy surrounding its financial backing and the lack of transparency in its operations have led many to draw parallels between Canary Mission and other shadowy entities designed to police speech and dissent. It appears to operate in the shadows, with little public oversight or accountability. This lack of transparency further erodes trust in its motivations and methods.

Undermining Democracy and Free Speech

At its core, Canary Mission's activities are a direct attack on the fundamental principles of democracy: free speech and the right to dissent. In a healthy democracy, universities serve as incubators for diverse ideas, where students are encouraged to debate and challenge ideas without fear of retribution. However, by tracking and blacklisting individuals who express views about Israel, Palestine, or other sensitive geopolitical issues, Canary Mission is chilling free expression on campuses across the country.

The organization’s efforts to publicly shame individuals who participate in peaceful political activism not only threatens their personal and professional futures but also discourages others from speaking out. In effect, it promotes an atmosphere of fear where students are reluctant to engage in legitimate political discourse out of concern for being targeted.

Moreover, Canary Mission’s activities can create a toxic, polarized environment on campuses. By labeling individuals as extremists based on their political positions rather than their actions or behaviors, the organization fuels division and resentment. This undermines the civil discourse that should thrive in academic settings, where ideas are meant to be debated and critically examined. Instead, it creates an echo chamber that only accepts one viewpoint, forcing out dissent and opposition.

The claim that Canary Mission is a controversial organization that undermines democracy on U.S. campuses can be supported by multiple sources from investigative journalists, academic scholars, and civil rights organizations who have analyzed the organization's activities. Here are a few sources that substantiate the concerns regarding Canary Mission:

The New York Times (2016) – An article titled "A Shadowy Online Group Is Targeting American Students" highlights the growing concerns about Canary Mission's activities and its impact on free speech on campuses. The piece discusses how students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian activism, are being targeted and profiled on the platform, leading to career and personal repercussions.
The Electronic Intifada (2016) – This online news platform dedicated to issues surrounding Palestine and Israel published several articles that discuss how Canary Mission disproportionately targets students and activists critical of Israeli policies. The site’s reports argue that the platform acts as an intimidation tool against those who challenge mainstream narratives regarding Israel.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) – The CCR has expressed concern over the chilling effects Canary Mission has on academic freedom and free speech. They highlight how the organization often labels political activism as extremism, without proper evidence, and argues that it is a form of political repression aimed at silencing certain voices.
The Forward (2018) – A Jewish publication, The Forward ran a story detailing how Canary Mission had led to the harassment and blacklisting of students, and how its methods were drawing criticism from many who saw it as an attack on academic freedom.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Reports – While the ADL has supported efforts to combat anti-Semitism, they have also raised concerns about the unintended consequences of organizations like Canary Mission, suggesting that their approach to monitoring student activism can blur the line between legitimate political expression and hate speech.
The Guardian (2017) – A Guardian article explored how Canary Mission's controversial practices affected student life, particularly those involved in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. The article discusses the potential damage to reputations and careers due to Canary Mission's online blacklist.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – The SPLC has been vocal about the ways in which Canary Mission’s tactics align with other surveillance programs aimed at quelling dissent. The SPLC has voiced concern about its potential for misusing "extremism" labels to stifle legitimate political views, undermining democracy and the right to free speech.

Canary Mission's efforts to stifle free speech and intimidate those who hold opposing views on sensitive political issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represent a dangerous erosion of democratic values in American higher education. By using fear, intimidation, and a lack of transparency to silence critical voices, it undermines the very foundation of academic freedom and democratic engagement.

Universities should be spaces where open dialogue and differing opinions are encouraged, not spaces where students are targeted for their political beliefs. As the influence of groups like Canary Mission continues to grow, it is imperative that the broader academic community pushes back against these efforts and defends the principles of free speech, democratic engagement, and intellectual diversity. Without these values, our campuses—and our democracy—will be all the poorer for it.

Friday, April 18, 2025

The Haves and Have Nots of Higher Education and Student Loan Debt

In a move that has raised eyebrows across Washington and beyond, President Donald Trump recently announced a plan to transfer the U.S. Department of Education’s vast student loan portfolio—totaling a staggering $1.8 trillion—to the Small Business Administration (SBA). This bold step is ostensibly designed to streamline the management of federal student loans, but it is also seen by many as the first move in a larger effort to dismantle the Department of Education entirely, reduce federal oversight, and privatize key aspects of the student loan system. Alongside this plan, there are growing discussions about eliminating essential borrower protections, including programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), and the Borrower Defense to Repayment program, all of which have offered critical relief to millions of students. Additionally, the rollback of Gainful Employment regulations—which were designed to protect students from predatory for-profit institutions—further signals a shift toward private sector control, which has historically benefited lenders over borrowers.

The Alleged 'Rescue' of the Loan Portfolio

The White House has framed the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA as a necessary step to relieve the Department of Education (ED) of a heavy burden, positioning the SBA as the new “caretaker” of the nation’s student debt. According to President Trump, the SBA—under the leadership of Kelly Loeffler—will now handle the $1.8 trillion student loan portfolio, while the Department of Education focuses on other key educational initiatives.

For some, the move seems like a fresh approach to a problem that has long plagued U.S. higher education: the overwhelming student debt crisis. However, a deeper look into the mechanics of the transfer suggests that this could be the first step toward a far more troubling goal: the dismantling of the federal student loan system and the privatization of debt, a shift that could harm millions of consumers in the process.

The SBA’s Inexperience with Student Loans

The SBA, traditionally tasked with managing small business loans, lacks the expertise to effectively manage the complex structure of federal student loans, which include income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and various protections for struggling borrowers. With the agency also facing significant staffing cuts, it’s highly unlikely that the SBA will be able to competently handle such a vast and complicated portfolio—especially when 40% of these loans are already in default or behind on payments.

This raises an obvious question: is the SBA being set up to fail? Some insiders suggest that the failure of the SBA to properly manage the student loan portfolio could be deliberate—creating a crisis that would justify selling off the portfolio to private companies, thus privatizing the entire system.

The Planned Failure: A Strategy for Privatization?

According to several former senior officials within the Department of Education, the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA could be a calculated move to destabilize the federal loan system. The apparent failure of the SBA to manage the loans would then serve as a justification for transferring the loans to the private sector. This mirrors tactics used in other sectors where privatization was pursued under the guise of government inefficiency. The fear is that this move could ultimately lead to for-profit companies taking over the loan system, with borrowers facing higher interest rates, stricter repayment terms, and the loss of essential protections.

Who Stands to Gain from Privatizing Student Loans?

The shift toward privatizing student loans stands to benefit several key players in the financial and educational sectors, particularly for-profit companies and private lenders who have long pushed for deregulation and profit-driven management of student debt. The primary beneficiaries would include:

Private Lenders and Financial Institutions: Banks, investment firms, and loan servicing companies are the most obvious winners in a privatized student loan system. With the federal government stepping back, these entities would gain control over the $1.8 trillion portfolio, allowing them to set higher interest rates, stricter repayment terms, and impose fees on borrowers. This would turn student loans into even more lucrative financial products for the private sector.
For-Profit Educational Institutions: For-profit colleges, which often rely on student loans to fund their operations, could also stand to gain. These institutions—many of which have faced significant scrutiny for high tuition costs and poor student outcomes—would benefit from a less regulated environment. Without the Gainful Employment regulations, which were designed to hold these institutions accountable for their job placement and earnings data, they would face fewer restrictions on their recruitment practices and financial dealings, potentially allowing them to continue enrolling students in expensive, low-quality programs.
Servicers and Debt Collection Agencies: Loan servicers and debt collection agencies that would likely take over the management of student loans in a privatized system stand to profit greatly. By controlling the servicing of student loans, these companies can increase their fees and aggressively pursue defaulting borrowers, further exacerbating the financial hardship for many students. These entities would benefit from a less regulated environment where the focus would shift toward profitability, often at the expense of borrowers.
Political Donors and Lobbyists: Financial institutions and for-profit education providers have historically been major political donors and lobbyists, particularly to policymakers who have pushed for deregulation of student loan systems. Privatization could provide these stakeholders with the opportunity to consolidate their power over the student loan industry, influencing policy decisions in their favor and ensuring continued access to profits from the student loan market.

A History of Struggles: Lack of Oversight and Privatization Since the 1980s

The idea of privatizing student loans and dismantling federal oversight is not entirely new. In fact, the U.S. student loan system has been struggling for decades due to a lack of oversight and a trend toward privatization dating back to the 1980s. The federal government’s role as a guarantor of student loans—starting with the creation of the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program in the 1960s—was eventually scaled back, leading to a rise in private student loans. As private lenders entered the student loan market, particularly during the 1990s and 2000s, the system became increasingly unregulated, leading to rising debt levels and predatory lending practices.

By the 1980s, the federal government’s reliance on private institutions to handle student loans led to a lack of transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. In particular, private lenders began to offer loans with fewer safeguards, contributing to the explosion of student loan debt and the proliferation of for-profit colleges that preyed on vulnerable students. The government, despite its involvement, increasingly stepped back from actively managing the loan system, leaving students with limited options for relief when they fell into financial distress.

The Consequences of Deregulation: Elite Colleges and the Growing Educated Underclass

One of the most significant byproducts of the shift toward privatization and deregulation in U.S. higher education has been the growth of a growing educated underclass. While elite colleges have continued to thrive, expanding their endowments and increasing their tuition fees, a large segment of the population is left with a degree and overwhelming debt that fails to deliver on its promise. Over the past several decades, prestigious universities have only gotten wealthier, with many now sitting on endowments of billions of dollars. These institutions benefit from the student loan system, which allows students to take on more debt to afford high tuition costs, all while their wealthy alumni networks and expansive endowments only grow larger.

At the same time, a growing number of students from lower-income backgrounds—many of whom attend for-profit or underfunded public colleges—are graduating with significant debt and few prospects for stable, high-paying careers. This has created a growing “educated underclass,” where graduates with degrees struggle to find employment that pays enough to manage their loan repayment, further exacerbating wealth inequality.

The Dangers of Future Issues: AI, Automation, and the Loss of Good Jobs

Looking to the future, the privatization of student loans and the increasing burden of student debt could be exacerbated by emerging technological shifts, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation. As industries evolve and more jobs become automated, many middle-class careers traditionally accessible to graduates may disappear or evolve into low-wage, low-security positions. This could lead to an even larger divide between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society, where only those with connections or elite educational backgrounds can secure stable, high-paying employment.

For students entering the workforce with massive student loan debt, this would present a troubling scenario where their ability to repay their loans becomes even more difficult as fewer well-paying jobs are available. This, in turn, would increase the financial strain on future generations of students who are already navigating a rapidly changing job market. For many, student loans could become an insurmountable barrier, keeping them trapped in cycles of debt that are impossible to escape.

Moreover, the increasing reliance on private companies to manage student loans, with their focus on profitability, could exacerbate these issues by offering fewer opportunities for income-driven repayment plans or relief options that account for the economic realities of an AI-powered, automation-driven economy. As the job market continues to shrink and evolve, the need for federal programs to support borrowers through tough economic times will only grow.

The Impact of Eliminating Borrower Protections

The elimination of borrower protections—such as PSLF, PAYE, ICR, and Borrower Defense to Repayment—would significantly worsen the student loan crisis. Public Service Loan Forgiveness, for example, allows individuals working in essential public service careers to receive loan forgiveness after ten years of qualifying payments. Without this program, many public servants would face a lifetime of insurmountable debt. Similarly, income-driven repayment programs allow borrowers to repay loans based on their income, making it easier for those in low-paying fields to manage their debt.

The Borrower Defense to Repayment program provides vital relief to students who were defrauded by their institutions. Without strong enforcement of this program, students may have no recourse to seek relief from predatory schools. The rollback of Gainful Employment regulations could further expose students to the risks of attending for-profit institutions that fail to deliver on their promises.

The Long-Term Fallout: A Dangerous Precedent

The long-term consequences of privatizing student loans could include exacerbating wealth inequality, widening the racial wealth gap, and creating an economic landscape where education debt is a permanent burden on a generation of students. If privatization moves forward, the financial burden of education will likely become a far more persistent and overwhelming problem, especially for those who can least afford it.

What’s particularly concerning is that in past crises, it’s the elites—wealthy colleges, financial institutions, and large corporations—that have consistently received the bulk of government bailouts. The same institutions that contribute the least to solving the country’s educational inequities continue to benefit from taxpayer-funded relief. If privatization moves forward, we cannot allow the same pattern to repeat itself. The majority of relief should go to those most burdened by student debt, not those who already have the means to navigate the system with ease.

The Future of Higher Education Debt: A Call to Protect Federal Loan Programs

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we stand in full support of federal student loan forgiveness and repayment programs, including PSLF, PAYE, and ICR, as they offer essential pathways for borrowers, especially public service workers and low-income individuals. These programs provide vital relief to borrowers, allowing them to focus on their careers without the burden of overwhelming debt. We urge policymakers to protect, enhance, and expand these vital initiatives to ensure that education remains accessible and equitable for all.

As we continue to face challenges in higher education financing, it is crucial to learn from past mistakes and advocate for systems that prioritize the well-being of students, not profit. The proposed privatization of the student loan system threatens to undo decades of progress and burden future generations with lifelong debt. It is essential that we protect these programs and work toward a solution that prioritizes education and fairness over corporate interests.

Sunday, April 13, 2025

The Failure of DOD Tuition Assistance

In a world where military service members are promised educational opportunities as part of their service, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) operates a Tuition Assistance (TA) program that offers financial support to active duty and reserve servicemembers seeking to further their education. The program, overseen by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training (ODASD FE&T), offers veterans a pathway to enhance their skills and prepare for life beyond the military. However, findings from the DoD Voluntary Education (VolEd) program show that the very institutions that are meant to support servicemembers may be failing them instead.

As part of their oversight, the DoD requires educational institutions to sign a Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the Tuition Assistance program. By signing this agreement, institutions commit to adhering to strict guidelines designed to protect service members from deceptive practices. These guidelines cover a wide range of areas, including avoiding aggressive recruitment, ensuring transparent pricing information, and providing access to essential services such as academic counseling and job search support. However, compliance with these policies has been under scrutiny, as the Department of Defense’s compliance monitoring team reveals troubling trends.

The Problem with Accreditation Misrepresentation

One of the most alarming trends identified by the DoD VolEd MOU Partnership Institutional Compliance Program (ICP) was the misrepresentation of institutional accreditation. Institutions often displayed accreditation information, but a significant number had accreditation agencies listed that were no longer recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In some cases, institutions completely omitted this important information from their websites, a serious oversight that can mislead prospective students into spending valuable time and money on degrees that fail to meet industry standards or qualify for employment in their chosen fields. This failure to provide accurate or transparent accreditation information can have long-lasting consequences for military students, who may unknowingly invest years of their life in programs that ultimately leave them unprepared for the workforce.

Lack of Support for Military Students

Another concerning finding involved a lack of support for service members once they entered educational institutions. According to the ICP’s compliance checks, many institutions failed to comply with the MOU requirement to provide a knowledgeable point of contact (POC) for students seeking assistance with military Tuition Assistance, federal Title IV funding, and VA education benefits. In some cases, the institutions provided no POC information at all. In others, they only offered a name or a hyperlink to a page that lacked substance—no qualifications or training information for the individual listed.

This oversight reflects a deeper systemic issue: military students are not receiving the necessary academic, financial, or job search counseling they need to succeed. Without proper support, these students may struggle to navigate the complexities of education benefits and find themselves lost in a sea of bureaucratic inefficiencies. In turn, this increases the risk that they may drop out, accumulate unnecessary debt, or be left with an education that does not help them transition smoothly to civilian life.

The Numbers Behind the Failures

The findings are staggering. Over a five-year period from 2017 to 2022, the DoD’s compliance program uncovered a total of 10,560 compliance-related issues across 1,414 assessments of institutions participating in the TA program. This indicates systemic problems in the delivery of education to military members and points to an alarming trend of disregard for the agreements made between the institutions and the DoD. Despite efforts to monitor compliance, these violations continue to undermine the integrity of the TA program and threaten to harm servicemembers seeking educational opportunities.

Each year, the ICP team provides feedback to the institutions involved, offering corrective action plans (CAPs) to improve their compliance. Institutions are expected to address these issues to align with the MOU and provide the necessary improvements to better serve military students. However, even with this support, the issues persist, leading to questions about the effectiveness of the DoD’s compliance program and whether enough is being done to hold institutions accountable.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The Department of Defense’s efforts to hold institutions accountable through the VolEd program and the MOU agreement are commendable, but the findings clearly show that much more needs to be done. The onus should be on these educational institutions to provide servicemembers with the highest standards of transparency, support, and educational quality. After all, these men and women risk their lives for the nation, and in return, they deserve to receive the best education possible, with all the necessary tools to succeed in their civilian careers.

As DoD works to refine its compliance programs, it is imperative that it pushes for stronger accountability mechanisms and greater transparency from institutions. With new initiatives, clearer regulations, and a culture of compliance, DoD can ensure that all service members are equipped with the education they were promised—and avoid leaving them vulnerable to misleading and deceptive practices from educational institutions.

Looking Ahead

While the ICP has made significant strides in assessing institutional compliance, the overall effectiveness of these efforts will ultimately depend on whether the institutions take responsibility for making the necessary changes. DoD's mission of protecting and supporting military students remains a vital one, and it is crucial that all educational institutions participating in the TA program take their commitments seriously. Only through true compliance and a dedication to military students’ success can we ensure that those who serve this country are treated with the respect and care they deserve.

If educational institutions fail to hold up their end of the bargain, it is time for the DoD to take stronger actions to protect military members from being deceived. It’s time to demand that these schools do better—for the sake of the brave men and women who serve.

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

More Schools Report Visa Revocations and Student Detentions

Reports have surfaced of a significant increase in the number of international student visas being revoked and students being detained across various universities in the United States. This follows heightened immigration scrutiny, particularly under the administration of Donald Trump. According to Senator Marco Rubio, more than 300 international student visas have been pulled in recent months, primarily targeting students involved in political activism or minor infractions. WeAreHigherEd has named 30 schools where students' visas have been revoked.

Campus Abductions — We Are Higher Ed

Key Universities Affected

University of California System (UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley):
Universities within the University of California system, which hosts a large international student population, have reported multiple visa cancellations. These revocations have affected students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, political activism, or perceived violations of U.S. immigration policies. For instance, the University of California has seen as many as 20 students affected in recent weeks.
Columbia University:
At Columbia University, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist, has gained significant media attention. Khalil, who was detained and faced deportation, exemplifies the growing concerns over student rights and the growing impact of politically charged visa revocations.
Tufts University:
Tufts University is currently battling the Trump administration over the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student whose visa was revoked. Her detention and the ensuing legal battles highlight the growing tensions between academic freedom and government policy. Tufts and its student body are advocating for Öztürk's release and seeking clarification on the legal processes involved.
University of Minnesota:
At the University of Minnesota, one international graduate student was detained as part of an ongoing federal crackdown on visa violations. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions continue to raise concerns over the rights of international students to remain in the country, especially as visa renewals and compliance checks become more stringent.
Arizona State University:
Arizona State University has also reported incidents of international students having their visas revoked without prior notice. These revocations have affected students from various countries, creating uncertainty within the international student community at the university.
Cornell University:
At Cornell University, international students have similarly faced unexpected visa cancellations. This has raised concerns about the ability of universities to adequately support their international student populations, as students are left to navigate the complexities of visa status without sufficient notice or explanation.
North Carolina State University:
North Carolina State University is another institution where international students have had their visas revoked without notice. The university has expressed concern over the lack of clarity from immigration authorities, which has left students in a precarious situation.
University of Oregon:
The University of Oregon has experienced several cases of international students having their visas revoked. This has been particularly troubling for students who were actively pursuing their education in the U.S. and now face the prospect of deportation or being forced to leave the country unexpectedly.
University of Texas:
At the University of Texas, international students have faced visa issues, with several reports of revocations and detentions, affecting students who are working toward completing their degrees. This has sparked protests and advocacy efforts from both students and university administration, seeking more transparency in the process.
University of Colorado:
The University of Colorado has similarly reported instances of international student visa revocations, particularly affecting those involved in political activism. The university has been working to support students impacted by these actions, although many are left in limbo regarding their ability to continue their studies.
University of Michigan:
The University of Michigan has also been impacted by a wave of visa revocations. Similar to other institutions, students involved in political protests or activism have found themselves under scrutiny, facing the risk of detention or deportation. Students, faculty, and staff are pushing for clearer policies and legal protections to support international students, who are increasingly at risk due to the political environment.

The Broader Implications

These incidents of visa revocation and detentions are seen as part of a broader trend of increasing immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that these actions infringe upon students' rights, potentially violating freedom of speech and academic freedom. International students, especially those participating in protests or political discourse, have found themselves at risk of being detained or deported, with little prior notice or transparency regarding the reasons for such actions.

Moreover, the economic impact of these actions is significant. In 2023, a record 253,355 student visa applications were denied, representing a 36% refusal rate. This has major implications not only for the affected students but also for U.S. universities that rely heavily on international students for tuition revenue. The financial loss could be as much as $7.6 billion in tuition fees and living expenses, further emphasizing the broader consequences of these policies.

Legal and Administrative Responses

Many universities are rallying behind their international student populations, with advocacy efforts from institutions like Tufts University and Columbia University. These universities have criticized the abruptness of the visa cancellations and detentions, calling for more transparency and due process.

However, despite these efforts, the political climate surrounding U.S. immigration remains volatile, and it is unclear whether policy changes will result in more lenient or more restrictive measures for international students.

Conclusion

These stories underscore the fragile position of international students in the U.S. today. With incidents of detentions and visa revocations increasing, students face significant challenges navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law, particularly those involved in political or activist circles. University administrations and students alike continue to call for clearer policies, protections for international student rights, and more transparent practices to avoid the unintended consequences of politically motivated visa actions.

This issue remains ongoing, with much at stake for both

Wednesday, April 2, 2025

Yale Law School Firing Sparks Debate Over Free Speech and the State of American Academia

In a statement shared on social media on March 28th, Helyeh Doutaghi, the Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy Project at Yale Law School (YLS), revealed that her employment was terminated by the prestigious institution. The firing came just days before Muslims across the world marked the second Eid under the shadow of an ongoing genocide against Palestinian families. Doutaghi’s termination followed her outspoken criticism of Zionist policies in Palestine, igniting a wider conversation about free speech, academic freedom, and institutional silencing in American universities.

According to Doutaghi, the circumstances surrounding her firing raise critical questions about the role of elite educational institutions in suppressing dissent. She criticized universities like Yale, Cornell, Columbia, and Harvard for what she described as the normalization of "fascistic governance." In her statement, Doutaghi argued that these institutions were increasingly functioning as "sites of surveillance and oppression," actively collaborating with state apparatuses to criminalize resistance movements.

Doutaghi's termination was preceded by her being placed on administrative leave in February, following allegations of ties to Samidoun, the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, which the U.S. government has labeled a terrorist-linked organization. Doutaghi has denied any unlawful affiliation with the group, asserting that she was never given an opportunity for a fair hearing before her abrupt dismissal. In her view, Yale’s actions exemplify a broader trend of academic institutions suppressing pro-Palestinian voices, especially as the geopolitical tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalate.

In a chilling warning about the broader implications of her firing, Doutaghi emphasized the troubling precedent her case could set for academic freedom. "This sets a chilling precedent," she wrote. "If any Al bot – or anyone at all – accuses a Yale faculty or student of wrongdoing, that alone can now suffice to end their career." Doutaghi's comments draw attention to concerns about due process in academic settings, especially when external pressures—such as politically motivated surveillance or AI-generated campaigns—are used to target and silence critical voices.

The investigation into Doutaghi's alleged ties to Samidoun came to light after an article in Jewish Onliner, an Israeli publication. However, doubts have been raised about the credibility of the publication. Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Jewish Onliner might be an AI-generated bot with potential links to the Israeli government and military, further casting uncertainty on the investigation’s motives. Doutaghi’s attorney, Eric Lee, pointed out that the basis for the investigation was flimsy, with the sole evidence being an online article, raising serious questions about the fairness and transparency of Yale’s decision-making process.

Doutaghi has also linked her termination to broader shifts in U.S. policy, particularly under the Trump administration, which she claims has escalated attacks on noncitizen students and faculty supporting Palestinian human rights. For Doutaghi, her firing is symptomatic of a deeper crisis in American institutions, one that reflects the decline of what she calls "Western liberal democracy." She contends that these systems, despite their outward commitment to democracy and human rights, are built to serve the interests of the propertied classes, often at the expense of marginalized communities.

The implications of Doutaghi’s termination extend beyond her personal case, signaling a potentially dangerous precedent for academic freedom in the U.S. As universities increasingly become sites of ideological conformity, there is growing concern that dissenting voices—particularly those in solidarity with Palestine—are being systematically silenced. The firing raises questions about the extent to which academic institutions are willing to protect free speech in the face of external political and social pressures.

In the wake of Doutaghi’s dismissal, students, faculty members, and advocacy groups have rallied in support of her, condemning Yale’s actions as an affront to academic freedom. Protests have erupted at various campuses, demanding accountability from university administrators and calling for the protection of Palestinian human rights.

As the case continues to unfold, the larger debate about the role of universities in upholding democratic values, academic freedom, and social justice remains at the forefront. Doutaghi’s statement serves as a reminder of the precarious nature of dissent in today’s political climate, where even academic institutions that once stood as bastions of free thought and expression are increasingly vulnerable to the pressures of political influence and ideological control.

The question now facing the broader academic community is how to respond to the growing trend of censorship and silencing on campuses. Will institutions like Yale take a stand in defense of free speech, or will they continue to bow to external political and social pressures? The answers to these questions will have far-reaching consequences for the future of academic freedom in the United States.

Thursday, March 27, 2025

Potential Title IV Disruption Catastrophic (Glen McGhee)

Impact of Department of Education Dismantlement on Higher Education Act Programs

On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to begin dismantling the Department of Education, a move that threatens to create significant upheaval across higher education's federal support system. While the order cannot immediately eliminate the department without congressional approval, it has already resulted in substantial workforce reductions and signals major changes ahead for the administration of federal education programs 1.

Title IV: The Most Vulnerable and Consequential Program

Among all eight titles of the Higher Education Act (HEA), Title IV federal student aid programs would create the most severe upheaval for the higher education sector if destabilized through the Department of Education's dismantling. Title IV represents the foundation of federal financial support for higher education, administering approximately $111.6 billion in financial assistance to 9.8 million students in FY202211. This massive program encompasses Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study opportunities that directly enable student access and persistence.

Financial Impact Scale

The sheer financial magnitude of Title IV makes its disruption particularly consequential. In 2021 alone, 10.5 million students received $125 billion in federal student aid through the Department of Education15. Title IV's Office of Federal Student Aid received the largest departmental budget allocation - over $68 billion, with $20 billion promised for distribution during 20254. This represents the largest financial relationship between the federal government and higher education institutions.

Enrollment Consequences Already Evident

Even small disruptions to Title IV administration have already demonstrated severe enrollment impacts. Recent problems with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) system implementation led to measurable enrollment declines:

43% of private institutions reported smaller freshman classes
27% noted fewer financial aid recipients
18% reported decreased racial or ethnic diversity in incoming students2

These enrollment impacts disproportionately affect disadvantaged student populations. The FAFSA completion rates dropped nearly 10%, showing how administrative dysfunction can directly reduce educational access2.

Complex Regulatory Framework

Title IV administration involves an extraordinarily complex regulatory structure that would be challenging to transfer or maintain during a departmental transition. The program includes more than 300 pages of regulations, with significant compliance requirements for institutions6. Recent rule changes have created new financial responsibility, administrative capability and certification requirements applicable to institutions participating in Title IV programs7.

Presidential Assurances vs. Implementation Reality

While President Trump has indicated that essential functions like Pell Grants, Title I funding, and programs for students with disabilities would be "fully maintained and redistributed to various other agencies and departments," the implementation details remain unclear1 8. The executive order instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "undertake all necessary actions to facilitate the dissolution" while ensuring continuous provision of services8.

However, the Department's workforce has already been reduced from over 4,000 to approximately 2,000 employees through layoffs and voluntary resignations1 4. This reduction in administrative capacity raises serious questions about the continuity of Title IV program implementation.

Other HEA Titles: Significant but Less Catastrophic Impact

While all HEA titles would face disruption through departmental dismantling, Title IV's combination of massive funding scale, direct impact on enrollments, and regulatory complexity makes its destabilization particularly consequential.

Other HEA titles, while important, would not create the same level of immediate financial and enrollment chaos:

Title I: Provides general provisions and administrative requirements, but lacks direct funding mechanisms
Title II: Supports teacher preparation programs, but with significantly smaller funding scales
Title III: Provides institutional aid for minority-serving institutions, representing important but more targeted support
Titles V-VIII: Offer specialized program support for specific institutional types or educational priorities

Conclusion

The dismantling of the Department of Education threatens all federal higher education programs, but Title IV student aid programs represent the most consequential area for potential upheaval. The scale of financial support, direct impact on enrollment and access, complexity of administration, and early evidence from FAFSA disruptions all indicate that Title IV destabilization would produce the most severe consequences for higher education institutions and students.

While the administration has promised to maintain essential functions, the mechanisms for doing so remain unclear, and the significant reduction in departmental workforce suggests potential administrative challenges ahead. The higher education community must closely monitor this transition to ensure that critical student financial support systems remain functional during this unprecedented departmental restructuring.

Citations:

Search This Blog