The War on Education: Reclaiming Critical Thought in an Age of Fascism (Henry Giroux)

As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt note in How Democracies Die, authoritarianism no longer announces itself with marching boots or military coups. It now emerges through culture, through the seductive rhythms of social media, viral spectacles, and the normalization of cruelty. Today, culture is not just a backdrop to politics and historical amnesia; it is politics embedded in the erasure of historical memory. It teaches us how to see, what to remember, whom to fear, and what to forget. In this age of resurgent authoritarianism, culture functions as a powerful pedagogy of domination.

We are living through a dismal age, one where anti-intellectualism is no longer masked, but paraded as a form of virtue. A fascist monoculture thrives, dull and mechanized, overrun by wooden stuntmen, empathy-hating billionaires, and artists like Kanye West who unashamedly praise Hitler. Meanwhile, podcast ventriloquists spew algorithmic bile into the void. In the ruins of the university, too many so-called leaders and their bureaucratic accountants now lend legitimacy to what Herbert Marcuse once called “scholarshit,” a travesty of thought, dressed in the empty rituals of managerial reason, budget-cutting cruelty, and unapologetic brutality. “Scholarshit'” masquerades as intellectual discourse while stripping it of genuine engagement with critical inquiry. It thrives on jargon and pretension, prioritizing form over substance, and favoring self-congratulatory cleverness over meaningful argument. In its hollow rhetoric, the complexities of society are reduced to buzzwords and superficial analyses, its practitioners more concerned with appearing intellectually sophisticated than engaging in any real critique. This approach to scholarship fosters intellectual laziness, encouraging an atmosphere where complexity is simplified, nuance is erased, and true critical thought is marginalized in favor of what passes for cleverness but lacks depth or insight. Never has the need for critical education and a shift in mass consciousness been more urgent. Never has it been more crucial to recognize education as both a force for empowerment and a powerful mode of colonization.

In an age when instrumentalism and techno-fascism dominates the culture, reducing education to mere training and suffocating pedagogy under the weight of indoctrination, it becomes more urgent than ever to reclaim the university as a space for reflection, critique, and ethical imagination. Instrumentalism erases social responsibility, dismisses matters of justice, and detaches learning from the deeper relations of power. It exchanges depth for compliance and, in the process, robs education of its emancipatory promise.

We have witnessed this logic unfold in so-called liberal movements like "teaching to the test" and in the ongoing proliferation of Teaching and Learning Centers, which often reduce education to a toolbox of technical skills. As Ariella Aïsha Azoulay warns, these practices resemble the workings of "imperial technologies", systems designed to manage learning without nurturing an awareness of injustice, to flatten thought, and to detach education from the struggle for democratic agency and pedagogical citizenship.

Consider Elon Musk, hailed by some as a visionary for creating Tesla and fueling fantasies of colonizing Mars. Beneath this gleaming myth, however, lies a far more disturbing reality. Musk has made Nazi salutes, trafficked in dangerous conspiracy theories, and, as Michelle Goldberg noted in The New York Times, exhibits a chilling disdain for empathy, paired with "breathless cruelty." This cruelty is not abstract; it manifests in the real world, where the policies Musk champions have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Africa. His power is not merely technological; it is ideological, shaping a culture that confuses megalomania with genius and elevates indifference to suffering as a mark of strength. This is more than a collapse of civic literacy, it is a toxic poison, destroying any vestige of civic consciousness, solidarity, and social responsibility.

Cruelty has become the currency of power, the measure by which dominance is asserted and human worth discarded. Bill Gates, in a moment of moral clarity, acknowledged the gravity of shuttering USAID, conceding that he “bore the responsibility of risking a resurgence of diseases such as measles, HIV, and polio.” But his warning grew even more damning when, in The Financial Times, he described Elon Musk—once heralded as a symbol of techno-utopian promise—as “the world’s richest man killing the world’s poorest children.” Yet even Gates understates the larger architecture of violence at work. Trump’s so-called “beautiful budget bill” is not merely a policy document—it is a blueprint for social abandonment, a death sentence rendered in the language of austerity. It slashes funding for child nutrition programs, strips health care from millions, and eviscerates what remains of the social state. In its wake rises a machinery of disposability—a punishing state that targets the poor, the vulnerable, and people of color, turning the politics of governance into a war zone where compassion is silenced and suffering normalized. This is gangster capitalism on steroids--unleashed, utterly devoid of any social responsibility and drunk on its own greed, power, corruption, and fascist principles.

This silence speaks to a deeper void in higher education, one that raises crucial questions about the burden of conscience in education. It is no longer enough to champion STEM disciplines while starving the liberal arts and humanities. It is not enough for humanities students to dwell only in critique, disconnected from the technological world around them. What we need is a fusion of literacies, a pedagogy that teaches technical competence without sacrificing moral imagination; a pedagogy that nurtures civic literacy, historical awareness, the capacity to think beyond disciplines, and the courage to cross borders of culture, identity, and thought.

The attacks facing higher education today are more than a political or economic crisis, they also speak to a cultural catastrophe, a struggle over civic consciousness, critical literacy, and the promise of higher education as a democratic public good. Higher education has become prime target because it offers the promise to students of pedagogical citizenship—a pedagogy that enables young people to attentive, critical, knowledgeable, and able to hold power accountable. That is why higher education is viewed as dangerous to the authoritarian neanderthals attacking higher education. At the core of the crackdown on higher education is a project that successfully enables society to forget how to think, to feel, and to remember, practices that provide a fertile ground for creating fascist subjects.  Under such conditions, grotesque acts become normalized,  children are starved in Gaza, immigrant families are torn apart, and the horror of state terrorism fades into the background noise of spectacle and distraction.

And yet, culture remains a vital site of possibility. José Mujica, former president of Uruguay, reminded us that real change does not begin with laws or institutions, but with the values that shape how people see the world. You cannot build a society rooted in justice with individuals trained to prize greed, selfishness, and domination. As he put it, “You can’t construct a new kind of future with people whose hearts still belong to the old one.” The struggle for radical democracy must begin in the realm of culture, where imagination is nurtured, public conscience awakened, and the seeds of transformation take root.

Language itself has been hijacked, bent to the will of a colonizing legacy steeped in hatred, disposability, genocide, and a culture of unapologetic cruelty. Neo-Nazis march without shame, white supremacists shape the conservative cultural machinery, and racist policies are no longer whispered but codified. Nazi salutes are back in fashion. Universities are increasingly transformed into sites of indoctrination and surveillance, more attuned to the logic of police precincts than places of critical learning. Students who dare to protest the genocidal assault on Palestinians in Gaza are abducted, vilified, and silenced. The most powerful white nationalist on the planet parades corruption as a political virtue and deploys state terror as a primary tool of governance. Solidarity is reconfigured into communities of hate, while resistance to fascism is rebranded as terrorism. Beneath these crimes against humanity lies a culture hollowed out by the absence of reason, moral clarity, and the capacity to hold power accountable. The ghost of fascism has not merely returned; it has taken up residence and been made ordinary.

The age of lofty visions has been cast aside, discarded like ideological refuse. Yet without such visions, rooted in the hard labor and hopeful promise of democracy and the critical function of education, we are left adrift. In their place stand administrators who act as high-powered accountants, students shaped by a culture of commodification and conformity, and a precarious academic labor force paid less than Wall-Mart greeters and clerks. Meanwhile, racism, white nationalism, and Christian fundamentalism gather momentum, extinguishing the flickering lights that once illuminated the path toward a radical democracy. When higher education no longer serves as a vessel for ethical imagination and collective hope, it becomes complicit in its own undoing, and with it, democracy itself teeters on the edge.

As educators, we must fight for a vision of higher education as both sanctuary and catalyst, a place where democracy is not only studied but enacted, where students are not trained to be efficient machines, but cultivated into thinking, feeling, and acting human beings. We need an education in which a culture of questioning is not punished but nurtured, where talking back is a civic virtue, and where the pursuit of equity and justice is central to the very purpose of teaching and learning. Such an education must be grounded in the principles of civic literacy, historical consciousness, and a systemic understanding of power—one that connects private troubles to public issues and expands the possibilities for individual and collective agency.

This is the foundation upon which a radical democracy must be built, and it is the defining pedagogical task of our time. If we fail in this responsibility, higher education will surrender its role as a vital civic sphere—one essential to producing the narratives, knowledge, and capacities that sustain the promise of equality, justice, freedom, and compassion. In abandoning that mission, it will not merely falter; it will aid in its own unraveling. And with it, democracy will edge ever closer to collapse.

Donald Trump understands this. That is why he fears critical education. That is why he wages war on it.

University of Florida Rejects Santa Ono in Favor of Right-Wing Conformity

In a stunning rebuke that underscores the escalating politicization of public higher education, the Florida State University System’s Board of Governors has rejected Santa Ono, the sole finalist to become president of the University of Florida, after hours of grilling over his past support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The 10-to-6 vote came despite Ono’s public disavowal of DEI and a pivot toward conservative values that aligned with the policies of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his allies.

Ono, a seasoned academic leader with past presidencies at the University of Cincinnati, the University of British Columbia, and most recently the University of Michigan, was offered a package reportedly worth up to $3 million annually. But that wasn’t enough to satisfy Florida's right-wing political apparatus, which has increasingly treated university leadership as an arm of the culture wars.

“This is a guy who by all accounts was a true believer,” said Paul Renner, a DeSantis appointee to the board and former Republican Speaker of the Florida House. “Only after he comes to Florida does he do a complete, whiplash-style 180.” Renner and others said Ono’s reversal wasn’t convincing and lacked authenticity — a surprising take given that he had already dismantled the DEI infrastructure at Michigan under political pressure.

In Florida, however, even ideological surrender is not enough. What matters most is loyalty to a hardline version of conservatism, and Ono’s intellectual pedigree and past advocacy were red flags that could not be erased. Prominent GOP voices, including Rep. Byron Donalds (a Trump-endorsed gubernatorial candidate) and Donald Trump Jr., lobbied against his appointment, seeing it as an opportunity to further purge public universities of any perceived “wokeness.”

The University of Florida’s Board of Trustees had already selected Ono in May. But this week’s rejection by the Board of Governors — a higher body stacked with political appointees — is another clear example of how higher education in Florida has become a battleground for ideological purification rather than academic excellence or professional leadership.

A Troubled Exit and Reinvention

Ono’s rejection in Florida follows his abrupt and unexplained resignation from the University of Michigan earlier this year — a departure The Higher Education Inquirer previously reported as puzzling and suspiciously timed. As noted in our May 2025 article "Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run", his exit came amid growing pressure from anti-DEI forces, alumni dissatisfaction with his leadership, and internal upheaval within the Board of Regents.

Sources close to Michigan’s administration suggested that Ono’s “resignation” may have been forced, with pressure mounting after he slashed DEI budgets and issued a controversial column disavowing DEI as “more about ideology, division and bureaucracy, not student success.” Despite these moves, his attempts to pivot politically appear to have satisfied no one. Progressive critics accused him of betrayal; conservatives dismissed his conversion as opportunistic.

Ono’s shifting stance, from playing cello tributes to George Floyd as president of the University of British Columbia to abandoning DEI at Michigan, appears to reflect broader national political realignments. However, his experience now serves as a case study in how rapid repositioning in a hyper-partisan environment can backfire.

Academic Fallout

Faculty leaders in Florida have expressed concern that rejecting a candidate of Ono’s stature — one of the most experienced and internationally recognized university leaders in North America — will make it significantly more difficult to attract top-tier talent in the future.

“This means we can expect the continued politicization of the state university system,” said Amanda Phalin, a UF professor and former member of the Board of Governors, who warned the rejection could open the door for a purely political appointment — someone with more allegiance to DeSantis than to higher education itself.

The University of Florida declined to comment.

The Bigger Picture

At stake is not just one university presidency but the autonomy and credibility of public education in a climate where loyalty tests are replacing merit. Florida’s aggressive stance — gutting DEI programs, installing ideological loyalists, and rejecting leaders who fail to toe the line — reflects a broader authoritarian shift that is spreading to other Republican-controlled states.

Santa Ono’s rejection is not just about DEI. It’s about the closing of the Overton Window for what is acceptable in higher education leadership under a regime that demands ideological alignment above all else. The message is clear: even if you change your views, it might already be too late — unless you were always one of them.

Investigative Journalism Sheds Light on University of Phoenix Acquisition Attempts

In the realm of higher education, the proposed acquisitions of the University of Phoenix by public institutions have sparked significant debate and scrutiny. Two journalists, Kevin Richert of Idaho Education News and Debra Hale-Shelton of the Arkansas Times, have been at the forefront of reporting on these developments, providing in-depth analyses and uncovering critical details about the respective efforts in Idaho and Arkansas.

Kevin Richert's Reporting on Idaho's Attempted Acquisition

Kevin Richert, a seasoned journalist with over 35 years of experience in Idaho journalism, has extensively covered the University of Idaho's proposed $685 million acquisition of the University of Phoenix. His reporting delved into the financial implications, legal challenges, and public concerns surrounding the deal. Richert highlighted that the University of Idaho had spent over $14 million on legal and consulting fees related to the acquisition, raising questions about fiscal responsibility and transparency. He also brought attention to a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Raúl Labrador concerning the State Board of Education's closed-door meetings, which were central to the approval process. Furthermore, Richert analyzed the potential reputational risks for the University of Idaho, with critics arguing that acquiring a for-profit institution like the University of Phoenix could undermine the university's brand. His diligent pursuit of public records and insistence on governmental transparency have been pivotal in informing the public and fostering accountability.

Debra Hale-Shelton's Investigation into Arkansas's Pursuit

In Arkansas, Debra Hale-Shelton's investigative journalism for the Arkansas Times provided a comprehensive look into the University of Arkansas System's efforts to acquire the University of Phoenix. Her reporting revealed that even after the UA System's board of trustees rejected President Donald Bobbitt's proposal for a nonprofit affiliate to buy the online university, negotiations continued. According to court documents, representatives of the UA System remained engaged in discussions with the University of Phoenix and its financial adviser, Tyton Partners, exploring options to garner support from trustees or bring in external partners for the acquisition. Hale-Shelton's work also uncovered concerns about the lack of transparency and the use of nondisclosure agreements, which raised questions about compliance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Her persistent inquiries and detailed reporting brought to light the complexities and controversies surrounding the proposed deal.

The Impact of Investigative Journalism

The efforts of Kevin Richert and Debra Hale-Shelton underscore the vital role of investigative journalism in holding public institutions accountable. Their meticulous reporting not only informed the public but also prompted discussions about governance, transparency, and the future of higher education. By shedding light on these significant developments, they have contributed to a more informed and engaged citizenry.

Mergers in U.S. Higher Education: A Sign of the Times

Over the past five years, the American higher education landscape has undergone profound structural changes, as financial pressures, demographic shifts, and political headwinds have forced dozens of colleges and universities to consider mergers, consolidations, or outright closures. Among the most significant and telling of these developments is the proposed merger of two of New Jersey’s public institutions: New Jersey City University (NJCU) and Kean University—a deal emblematic of the broader realignment reshaping higher education across the country.

The New Jersey Merger: A Case Study in Crisis and Adaptation

In March 2025, NJCU and Kean University signed a letter of intent to merge, a move that drew praise from financial watchdogs and marked a pivotal step in NJCU's long road to fiscal recovery. NJCU, with approximately 5,500 students, had faced a steep financial decline over several years, prompting the state of New Jersey to direct the institution to find a fiscally sound partner by April 1, 2025. Kean University, with around 17,000 students and a more stable balance sheet, emerged as that partner.

Just four days after the announcement, Moody’s Investors Service upgraded NJCU’s financial outlook from “stable” to “positive,” citing the planned merger as a major factor. This marked the university’s second ratings boost in just over a year; Moody’s had previously raised its outlook from “negative” to “stable” in early 2024. The credit agency’s report highlighted NJCU’s improved financial strategy, risk management, and leadership credibility—factors that strengthened its standing as a viable merger partner.

NJCU interim president Andrés Acebo called the upgrade “a powerful affirmation of what is possible when a university chooses resilience over retreat, and purpose over paralysis.” Under the terms of the proposed merger, NJCU would be renamed “Kean Jersey City,” and Kean University would assume its assets, liabilities, and executive oversight. A newly appointed chancellor would lead the Jersey City campus.

While the merger is still pending regulatory and accreditation approvals, it could take up to 24 months to finalize. The universities have not yet disclosed whether staffing cuts will be part of the consolidation.

A National Trend Accelerated by Crisis

The NJCU–Kean merger is part of a larger wave of institutional consolidation across the United States—a trend driven by declining enrollment, rising operational costs, shrinking public investment, and demographic shifts, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest.

In Pennsylvania, the state’s system of higher education launched a major consolidation effort in 2021, combining six universities into two new institutions: Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania (a merger of Bloomsburg, Lock Haven, and Mansfield) and PennWest University (California, Clarion, and Edinboro). These mergers, finalized in 2022, were seen as necessary to stem the financial bleeding in a system that had lost nearly 25% of its enrollment over the prior decade.

Similarly, in Georgia, the University System of Georgia has continued its consolidation trend that began in the 2010s. By 2023, the number of public institutions in the state had been reduced from 35 to 26 through various mergers—moves aimed at cutting administrative overhead and reallocating resources.

Private Colleges Under Pressure

Private institutions, particularly small liberal arts colleges with modest endowments, have also been swept up in the merger wave. Mills College in California, a historically women’s college, merged with Northeastern University in 2022 after years of financial instability. The new institution, Mills College at Northeastern University, maintained some of Mills’ legacy programming while benefiting from Northeastern’s expansive infrastructure and global brand.

Similarly, Vermont’s Goddard College and the School of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston have either merged or been absorbed into larger institutions as stand-alone viability faltered.

In many cases, mergers have been cast as “strategic alliances” or “transformations,” but the underlying impetus has often been survival.

The Role of Credit Agencies and Political Climate

Credit rating agencies like Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch have played an increasingly influential role in shaping merger activity. By downgrading institutions at financial risk and upgrading those pursuing sound partnerships, they are guiding policy decisions and shaping public narratives.

Moody’s March 2025 sector-wide downgrade of U.S. higher education from “stable” to “negative” reflects broader concerns: cuts to research funding, increasing scrutiny of endowments, policy shifts around foreign students, and partisan attacks on academic freedom and diversity initiatives. In this context, even public institutions—once considered relatively safe—are under heightened pressure to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and political neutrality.

The Future of Mergers in Higher Ed

While mergers offer a path forward for some institutions, they are not without risk. Critics point to potential job losses, cultural clashes, mission dilution, and loss of community identity. Supporters argue that, if done thoughtfully, mergers can preserve academic programs, improve financial health, and extend access to underserved populations.

The proposed NJCU–Kean University merger, backed by both state officials and financial markets, may serve as a model—or a cautionary tale—for similar efforts across the country. In an era when higher education is being reshaped by economics, politics, and evolving student needs, mergers are likely to remain a defining feature of the post-pandemic academic landscape.

---

This story is part of the Higher Education Inquirer’s continuing coverage of structural changes in U.S. higher education. For more on campus mergers, closures, and the future of public institutions, follow our investigative series on higher ed austerity. 

“The Obsolete Man”: A Twilight Zone Warning for the Trump Era and the Age of AI

Rod Serling’s classic 1961 episode of The Twilight Zone, “The Obsolete Man,” offers a timeless meditation on authoritarianism, conformity, and the erasure of humanity. In it, a quiet librarian, Romney Wordsworth (played by Burgess Meredith), is deemed “obsolete” by a dystopian state for believing in books and God—symbols of individual thought and spiritual meaning. Condemned by a totalitarian chancellor and scheduled for execution, Wordsworth calmly exposes the cruelty and contradictions of the regime, ultimately reclaiming his dignity by refusing to bow to tyranny.

Over 60 years later, “The Obsolete Man” feels less like fiction and more like a documentary. The Trump era, supercharged by the rise of artificial intelligence and a war on truth, has brought Serling’s chilling parable into sharper focus.

The Authoritarian Impulse

President Donald Trump’s presidency—and his ongoing influence—has been marked by a deep antagonism toward democratic institutions, intellectual life, and perceived “elites.” Journalists were labeled “enemies of the people.” Scientists and educators were dismissed or silenced. Books were banned in schools and libraries, and curricula were stripped of “controversial” topics like systemic racism or gender identity.

Like the chancellor in The Obsolete Man, Trump and his allies seek not just to discredit dissenters but to erase their very legitimacy. In this worldview, librarians, teachers, and independent thinkers are expendable. What matters is loyalty to the regime, conformity to its ideology, and performance of power.

Wordsworth’s crime—being a librarian and a believer—is mirrored in real-life purges of professionals deemed out of step with a hardline political agenda. Public educators and college faculty who challenge reactionary narratives have been targeted by state legislatures, right-wing activists, and billionaire-backed think tanks. In higher education, departments of the humanities are being defunded or eliminated entirely. Faculty governance is undermined. The university, once a space for critical inquiry, is increasingly treated as an instrument for ideological control—or as a business to be stripped for parts.

The Age of AI and the Erasure of the Human

While authoritarianism silences the human spirit, artificial intelligence threatens to replace it. AI tools, now embedded in everything from hiring algorithms to classroom assessments, are reshaping how knowledge is produced, disseminated, and controlled. In the rush to adopt these technologies, questions about ethics, bias, and human purpose are often sidelined.

AI systems do not “believe” in anything. They do not feel awe, doubt, or moral anguish. They calculate, replicate, and optimize. In the hands of authoritarian regimes or profit-driven institutions, AI becomes a tool not of liberation, but of surveillance, censorship, and disposability. Workers are replaced. Students are reduced to data points. Librarians—like Wordsworth—are no longer needed in a world where books are digitized and curated by opaque algorithms.

This is not merely a future problem. It's here. Algorithms already determine who gets hired, who receives financial aid, and which students are flagged as “at risk.” Predictive policing, automated grading, and AI-generated textbooks are not the stuff of science fiction. They are reality. And those who question their fairness or legitimacy risk being labeled as backwards, inefficient—obsolete.

A Culture of Disposability

At the heart of “The Obsolete Man” is a question about value: Who decides what is worth keeping? In Trump’s America and in the AI-driven economy, people are judged by their utility to the system. If you're not producing profit, performing loyalty, or conforming to power, you can be cast aside.

This is especially true for the working class, contingent academics, and the so-called “educated underclass”—a growing population of debt-laden degree holders trapped in precarious jobs or no jobs at all. Their degrees are now questioned, their labor devalued, and their futures uncertain. They are told that if they can’t “pivot” or “reskill” for the next technological shift, they too may be obsolete.

The echoes of The Twilight Zone are deafening.

Resistance and Redemption

Yet, as Wordsworth demonstrates in his final moments, resistance is possible. Dignity lies in refusing to surrender the soul to the machine—or the regime. In his quiet defiance, Wordsworth forces the chancellor to confront his own cowardice, exposing the hollow cruelty of the system.

In our time, that resistance takes many forms: educators who continue to teach truth despite political pressure; librarians who fight book bans; whistleblowers who challenge surveillance technologies; and students who organize for justice. These acts of courage and conscience remind us that obsolescence is not a matter of utility—it’s a judgment imposed by those in power, and it can be rejected.

Rod Serling ended his episode with a reminder: “Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man—that state is obsolete.”

The question now is whether we will heed the warning. In an age where authoritarianism and AI threaten to render us all obsolete, will we remember what it means to be human?

---

The Higher Education Inquirer welcomes responses and reflections on how pop culture can illuminate our present crises. Contact us with your thoughts or your own essay proposals.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell Praises U.S. Universities Amid Political Attacks

In a pointed yet diplomatically worded commencement address at Princeton University on Sunday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell urged graduates to pursue public service, uphold democratic values, and appreciate the unique role of American higher education. His speech, though not directly confrontational, served as a subtle rebuke to recent political assaults on U.S. universities—particularly from former President Donald Trump.

Powell lauded America’s colleges and universities as “the envy of the world and a crucial national asset,” calling on the Class of 2025 not to take their education or democratic institutions for granted. “When you look back in 50 years,” he said, “you will want to know that you’ve done whatever it takes to preserve and strengthen our democracy and bring us ever closer to the Founders’ timeless ideals.”

These remarks arrive at a time of increasing hostility from some political quarters toward elite universities. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly threatened to cut federal funding to institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton—accusing them of promoting what he described as anti-American values and discriminatory admissions practices. His administration’s Department of Homeland Security even attempted to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, a move temporarily blocked by a federal judge.

Though Powell did not mention Trump by name, the timing and tone of his remarks suggest a defense of U.S. higher education against political interference. This is not the first time Powell has found himself at odds with Trump. The former president publicly berated the Fed chair over interest rate policy and even suggested he should be fired—something Powell has said is not within the president’s authority.

Powell’s defense of public service and academic excellence comes amid a broader political campaign to undermine trust in elite institutions. The Trump-era attacks on higher education continue to resonate through Republican state legislatures and federal policy proposals, including executive orders aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and threatening Title IX protections.

Meanwhile, Powell emphasized that America's leadership in science, economics, and global innovation is no coincidence but the product of robust institutions—including its universities. “Look around you,” he told graduates. “Take none of this for granted.”

His call for public service may also ring hollow to graduates facing a daunting job market and a mountain of student debt—problems compounded by decades of underinvestment in public higher education, skyrocketing tuition, and the adjunctification of the academic workforce. Nonetheless, Powell’s appeal was rooted in idealism: that the next generation can help repair democracy and rebuild the public sector from within.

The Higher Education Inquirer notes that Powell’s remarks reflect a quiet but important ideological struggle in American politics: between those who see universities as engines of democratic progress and economic vitality, and those who view them as bastions of liberal elitism in need of reform—or retribution.

As the political and economic landscape of higher education continues to shift, Powell’s speech at Princeton may be remembered not just as a traditional commencement address, but as a line in the sand.

Between Empire and Enterprise: Harvard, Trump, and the Exploitation of International Students

As the Trump administration again targets immigrants and global institutions with punitive policies, international students at Harvard University—one of the world’s most prestigious academic brands—are experiencing what one student leader called “pure panic.” At the center of the storm: a now-halted move by the White House to revoke Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, threatening the legal status of thousands of students from nearly every country in the world.

Harvard responded with swift legal action, accusing the federal government of ideological retaliation. But while the Trump administration deserves criticism for its xenophobic and authoritarian maneuvers, it is equally important to interrogate Harvard’s own role in creating a system where international students are treated as both intellectual capital and financial assets.

Nearly 27% of Harvard’s student body—close to 7,000 individuals—comes from abroad. For decades, Harvard has positioned itself as a global institution, a magnet for the so-called "best and brightest" regardless of national origin. It has used this cosmopolitan image to bolster its prestige, attract philanthropic donations, and justify sky-high tuition rates. In reality, Harvard is not just a university—it is a flagship enterprise in the global neoliberal order.

This model—recruiting international students as both symbols of diversity and sources of income—reflects the logic of global capitalism more than the ideals of education. Harvard’s operations increasingly mirror those of a multinational corporation: high-end branding, worldwide recruitment, aggressive legal defense, and political lobbying. The foreign students it attracts are often among the global elite, or, in many cases, indebted strivers betting their futures on the supposed merits of a Harvard degree. When the political winds shift, as they have under Trump, these students are left exposed.

This is precisely what’s happening now.

Abdullah Shahid Sial, co-president of Harvard’s student body and a Pakistani national, told CNN that students are “very clearly, extremely afraid” about their legal status and whether they can return to campus. Some are stuck abroad, unsure if they’ll be allowed back. Others face suspended research projects or financial uncertainty. Sial praised Harvard officials for trying to help but also acknowledged the limitations. The window to transfer to other schools is closed for many. Aid packages, crucial to international students, don’t travel with them.

This crisis reveals the tension at the heart of elite higher education’s global ambitions. Harvard, like other elite U.S. universities, thrives on internationalism—so long as it serves its institutional goals. But when international students are treated not as community members but as liabilities or bargaining chips in political disputes, the myth of benevolent globalization unravels.

Yes, the Trump administration’s policies are driven by xenophobia and an open hostility to intellectual exchange. But they also expose the fragility and hypocrisy of the global education marketplace. International students are recruited into a system that offers opportunity but no guarantees, prestige but little protection.

Harvard cannot simply claim the moral high ground by suing the federal government. It must also reckon with its deep entanglement in the very structures that commodify students and expose them to geopolitical risk. For all its rhetoric about global citizenship, Harvard’s model remains fundamentally extractive—built to serve elite interests, not global equity.

If the United States is to remain a serious destination for global education, and if Harvard is to be more than a luxury brand in academic robes, the model must change. International students deserve more than branding and brochures. They deserve stability, legal protection, and a voice in the institutions that profit from their presence.

Until then, they remain trapped—between the nationalist paranoia of Washington and the neoliberal empire of Cambridge.

Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

We got great news yesterday: In a suit we brought with Democracy Forward, the AFT, and other allies in the labor movement, a district court in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education.  The massive reduction in force proposed by the administration would decimate crucial services the department provides to families across the country, severely limit access to education, and eviscerate funding for HBCUs and tribal colleges. We can’t do this work without your support. Will you become a member or make a donation to the AAUP Foundation today? Here’s some background on the case. In March, after having repeatedly expressed a desire to eliminate the Department of Education, the Trump administration announced a reduction in force that would cut its staff in half. Recognizing that the department was created by an act of Congress and was mandated to carry out a number of statutorily required programs, the administration claimed that it was not trying to eliminate the department but rather was seeking to improve “efficiency” and “accountability.” The court definitively rejected this claim, saying that the “defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute. . . . A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.” The court also highlighted the impact of the cuts on students, educational institutions, and unions. For example, the court found that “higher education is also likely to become more expensive for students” as the staffing cuts “will put federal funding for Pell grants, work-study programs and subsidized loans at risk, reducing the pool of students able to attend college and posing an existential threat to many state university systems such as those intended to serve first generation college students.” The court found that the administration had violated two clauses of the US Constitution, and that its actions were beyond its authority as well as arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the department to reinstate staff and resume operations disrupted by the cuts. Perhaps because of skepticism about the administration’s willingness to follow directives of the judiciary, the court specifically required that the administration provide notice of this order of preliminary injunction within twenty-four hours to all its officers, and that it “file a status report with this Court within 72 hours of the entry of this Order, describing all steps the Agency Defendants have taken to comply with this Order, and every week thereafter until the Department is restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025.” What’s next: It is almost certain that the administration will appeal this decision and will likely seek to have the preliminary injunction stayed by the court of appeals while the case is pending. Trump’s agenda is a clear path to setting America back in quality and fairness in education. The AAUP will continue to stand up against these attacks and fight for a higher education system that serves all Americans. We can’t do it without you. Please join us as a member or make a donation today! In solidarity, Todd Wolfson, AAUP President Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel

Trump Administration Cancels $37 Million Fine Levied Against Grand Canyon U For Deceiving Students (David Halperin)

The Donald J. Trump administration, which claims its DOGE-driven reshaping of the federal government is aimed at cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, quietly cancelled a $37 million fine that the Department of Education, under the Biden administration, imposed in 2023 on Grand Canyon University. The fine was levied after Department investigators documented extensive findings that GCU, which takes billions in taxpayer dollars, systematically deceived students about the costs of their educations.

Grand Canyon announced the cancellation of the fine on its website on Friday.

Grand Canyon had appealed the fine to a review panel inside the Department. Republic Report contacted Grand Canyon spokesperson Bob Romantic last Wednesday inquiring about the status of the appeal; he messaged me that he would get back in touch Thursday to respond, but he didn’t respond to my follow-up message that day. The Department of Education did not reply to my request last week for comment on the appeal.

In its announcement Friday, Grand Canyon stated that the Department, by means of “a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal order issued by ED’s Office of Hearings and Appeals” acted to “dismiss[ ] the case with no findings, fines, liabilities or penalties of any kind.”

Grand Canyon, which bills itself as a Christian school, had waged a public campaign claiming it was attacked by the Biden administration on the basis of politics and religious persecution.

In reality, the $37 million fine, indeed unusually large for the Department, was pegged to the gravity and scope of the abuses, as well as the size of the institution and the taxpayer funds it receives: Phoenix-based Grand Canyon, which in 2022-23 enrolled more than 100,000 students in-person and online, gets the largest amount of federal student aid of any college or university in the country. GCU received $862 million from taxpayers for Department of Education federal student grants and loans in 2022-23 out of $1.3 billion in revenue, and received additional federal funding for student aid from the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

In a 34-page letter addressed to Grand Canyon president Brian Mueller in October 2023, the Department described in detail the deceptive conduct found by its investigators.


The Department concluded that Grand Canyon “lied to more than 7,500 former and current students about the cost of its doctoral programs over several years. GCU falsely advertised a lower cost than what 98% of students ended up paying to complete certain doctoral programs.”


The probe found that going back to 2017, GCU violated the prohibition in federal law against making “substantial misrepresentations” by failing to tell students enough about the cost of the school’s doctoral programs and stating on the school website and in other materials that the programs cost between $40,000 and $49,000. GCU’s own data, according to the Department, shows that less than 2 percent of graduates completed their students within the cost range that GCU advertised. Most students needed to enroll in and pay for “continuation courses” to complete the dissertation requirement in these doctoral programs. The school’s data also showed that 78 percent of doctoral program graduates had to pay between $10,000 and $12,000 more than GCU had advertised.

According to the Department, Grand Canyon “did not contest [the Department’s] determination that 98% of students enrolled in certain doctoral programs had to pay more than GCU’s advertised cost.”

Yet the Department under new Trump education secretary Linda McMahon has now let Grand Canyon off the hook.

GCU President Mueller said in a statement Friday, “The facts clearly support our contention that we were wrongly accused of misleading our Doctoral students and we appreciate the recognition that those accusations were without merit.”

Educator Mueller, who makes $661,000 as president of non-profit Grand Canyon University, and then another $2 million a year as CEO of the school’s for-profit servicing arm Grand Canyon Education, held a scare rally on the GCU campus in 2023 after his school was fined. There, he warned his audience, “There is a group of people in Washington DC who has the intention to harm us.” He also advanced the baseless and incendiary claim, subsequently echoed by conservative influencers, that Grand Canyon was targeted because it presents itself as a Christian school.

But the evidence developed by the Department’s investigation that GCU deceived doctoral students was echoed by many of those affected: The Department said last year that it had received more than 750 complaints by doctoral students against GCU since 2020.

As in the first Trump administration, people connected to for-profit colleges now have influence over higher education decisions at the Department. For example, Trump’s nominee for Under Secretary of Education, Nicholas Kent, currently a senior adviser at the Department, once was a senior staff member at the for-profit college lobbying group CECU. Prior to that, Kent was an executive at Education Affiliates, a Baltimore-based for-profit college operation that faced civil and criminal investigation and actions by the Justice Department for deceptive practices.

Another federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission, also has taken action against Grand Canyon, suing the school, for-profit arm Grand Canyon Education, and Mueller in Arizona federal court in December 2023 over the same deceptive claims to doctoral students about the costs and course requirements of programs — and claims about the school’s nonprofit status. The FTC also alleged that Grand Canyon engaged in deceptive and abusive telemarketing.

Grand Canyon has twice moved to throw out the FTC lawsuit, and the judge has dismissed some aspects of it, including removing GCU as a defendant, but the case is still pending, bogged down in disputes over discovery. (Mueller’s personal attorneys in the case include former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement and Steven Gombos.)

Grand Canyon said on Friday that the FTC lawsuit continues “despite the fact the lawsuit essentially raises the same manufactured nonprofit and doctoral disclosure claims that have been refuted, rejected and dismissed.”

The Trump administration has cancelled numerous law enforcement investigations against entities that have shown fealty to or ideological kinship with President Trump, and has fired the two Democratic commissioners on the FTC. But the FTC case against GCU, at least for now, is proceeding.

While some in the career college industry donated big to Trump, federal records show only one political contribution by Brian Mueller in the last federal cycle: $1000 in 2023 to Mike Pence for President.

Part of Grand Canyon’s righteous anger toward the Department of Education during Biden’s term focused on the Department’s refusal to recognize Grand Canyon as a non-profit school for purposes of Department rules, even though, after Grand Canyon converted its school from for-profit to non-profit, the IRS granted the school that status for tax purposes. But the ties between supposed non-profit Grand Canyon University and for-profit Grand Canyon Education were so blatant — GCU sends most of its revenue to publicly-traded GCE, and Brian Mueller is the head of both operations — that GCU’s non-profit status was rejected not by Biden education secretary Miguel Cardona, but by his predecessor, deeply Christian and deeply for-profit college-loving Betsy DeVos. (Last November, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed a district court decision upholding the Department’s denial of non-profit status to GCU and remanded to the Department to revisit the decision under a different legal standard.)

Even if the Trump administration has cancelled the Biden education department’s effort to protect America’s students from Grand Canyon’s deceptive and predatory practices, Grand Canyon’s legal troubles are not over. Beyond the FTC case, in June 2024, students filed a class action lawsuit against Grand Canyon Education, alleging that the company “orchestrated a deceitful racketeering scheme by misleading prospective students about the true cost of doctoral degrees at Grand Canyon University….” On May 6, a federal judge in Arizona rejected all but one of the arguments raised by GCE in a motion to dismiss, meaning the case will move forward on most of the students’ claims.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]  

Moolenaar, Walberg Call on Duke to Terminate China-Based Campus Over National Security Risks (House Select Committee on China)

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Moolenaar, Walberg Call on Duke to Terminate China-Based Campus Over National Security Risks

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) are calling on Duke University President Vincent Price to end the Duke Kunshan University (DKU) in China. Through its partnership with Chinese entities, DKU enabled the CCP to access sensitive U.S. technology, including Department of Defense-funded research into advanced camera systems—now used to surveil Tiananmen Square and track millions of people across China. The university has also allowed American students to be exploited in CCP propaganda and showcases imagery of DKU students participating in military-style training on its website. This partnership raises serious concerns about research security, academic freedom, technology transfer, and the manipulation of U.S. students for authoritarian purposes. In their letter, Moolenaar and Walberg write: “DKU, established in 2018 in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), now enrolls over 3,000 students across undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs and specializes in high-technology fields with direct military applications, including data science, artificial intelligence, and materials science. As part of these programs, many DKU students spend time at Duke University, gaining access to federally funded U.S. research. Given the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) well-documented efforts to exploit academic openness, this partnership creates a direct pipeline between U.S. innovation and China’s military-industrial complex…" “…Students were coached to recite “I love China” in Mandarin on camera, while others were repeatedly pressed to “sa[y] what they wanted [students] to say” about Chinese climate policies. Students described feeling “used” as part of a “traveling circus” that was “paraded in front of local press”—their faces later appearing on state media. This was not education but exploitation: a calculated component of Xi Jinping’s “50,000 Initiative” with “no genuine cultural exchange.” Your university’s partnership with Wuhan University directly facilitated the use of these American students as pawns for CCP propaganda." Additional Background: DKU was established as a joint institute between Duke and Wuhan University in 2018.  Wuhan University conducts research in at least five designated defense research areas, trains People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cyber warfare specialists, and plays a central role in China’s Beidou satellite system, which supports missile guidance and military intelligence operations. In February, Duke student Jacqueline Cole wrote an article for the North Carolina news site The Assembly detailing how she and her fellow students were used for CCP propaganda purposes during a DKU-sponsored trip to China. Finally, in a report released in September of 2024, titled “CCP on the Quad,” the House Select Committee on China and the House Education and Workforce Committee listed 21 American universities that have STEM focused joint institutes with Chinese universities. The report identified concerns about Defense Department funded research furthering the PRC's national security goals in areas including high-performance explosives, drone operation networks, nuclear and high-energy physics, artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and hypersonics. So far, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of California -Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and Oakland University are universities named in the report that have ended their joint institutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run

In a stunning development that has sent ripples through the world of higher education, University of Michigan President Santa J. Ono announced he will step down this summer to take the helm at the University of Florida. The announcement comes just seven months after he signed a lucrative contract extension at U-M—one that brought his salary to $1.3 million per year and was among the most generous in the nation.

Ono’s exit will mark the shortest presidential tenure in University of Michigan history—just two and a half years. And it’s happening at a moment of profound political and institutional tension, with many in Ann Arbor voicing frustration at what they perceive as the university's muted resistance to a suite of controversial measures emanating from the Trump administration.

From Rising Star to Abrupt Exit

When Santa Ono arrived in Ann Arbor in late 2022, he brought with him a sterling academic pedigree and a reputation as a charismatic, student-focused leader. His hiring was seen as a stabilizing move after years of controversy surrounding his predecessor.

But beneath the surface, Ono’s relationship with the university community frayed. Faculty members and students alike cite his increasing absence from public discourse in 2024, particularly as the federal government—under a resurgent Trump administration—moved to slash research funding, roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, and scrutinize university partnerships, including U-M’s involvement with The PhD Project, which aims to diversify business faculty.

“He’s been more or less invisible particularly this year,” said Faculty Senate Chair Derek Peterson. “What we need is a fighter, not a conformer.”

The Florida Move

Ono’s move to the University of Florida has sparked speculation about his motivations. On paper, Michigan is more prestigious, enjoys greater autonomy thanks to a unique governance structure, and has a massive $19.2 billion endowment. Florida, by contrast, is under the thumb of a politically active governor and a centralized board that has exerted pressure on universities to conform to ideological mandates.

Yet the financial allure may have been too great to ignore: reports suggest Florida’s presidential compensation could total $3 million annually—more than double Ono’s current pay.

Brendan Cantwell, a professor of higher education policy at Michigan State University, noted the irony: “He’s leaving a more prestigious, more autonomous institution. That says a lot about the pressures he faced.”

A State Under Fire: The Regressive Politics of Higher Education in Florida

For those familiar with the political climate in Florida, Ono’s move to the University of Florida is far from surprising. Over the past few years, Florida has become a hotbed for right-wing political maneuvering in higher education, with Governor Ron DeSantis spearheading efforts to reshape universities in line with his conservative agenda.

From banning certain books to defunding DEI programs and trying to control academic curriculum, DeSantis has made it clear that higher education in Florida is now a battleground for ideological warfare. His administration has launched aggressive campaigns against what he describes as “woke” politics in academia, citing the need to root out “liberal indoctrination” and promote “freedom” from progressive influences.

Florida’s approach to higher education has included an unprecedented wave of budget cuts to diversity programs, particularly those aimed at supporting historically underrepresented students. The state’s universities are now grappling with the loss of funding for programs designed to increase access for Black, Latino, and Indigenous students. DeSantis has also pushed for "anti-woke" laws that bar universities from offering certain courses or diversity-related initiatives. This is not only affecting the curriculum, but also the very way in which faculty and staff are hired and evaluated.

In 2023, the University of Florida eliminated many of its DEI programs under pressure from the state. The state’s Board of Governors is now actively involved in scrutinizing university curriculums, and its influence extends even to hiring practices, where faculty members are increasingly expected to align with a more conservative view of American history and culture. These moves have drawn ire from academics nationwide, who argue that Florida’s political leadership is attempting to stifle intellectual freedom and academic independence.

Moreover, Florida’s universities face a severe erosion of academic freedom, as DeSantis has sought to impose strict guidelines on speech and research. This includes revising what can and cannot be taught in classrooms and restricting discussions around race, gender, and political identity. The state's newly imposed curriculum laws have made it more difficult for universities to engage in meaningful discourse about topics such as climate change, systemic racism, and gender equality.

For Ono, stepping into this highly charged, politicized environment will represent a dramatic shift from his more moderate, research-focused tenure at Michigan. His leadership will likely be tested not just by university-level challenges but also by the state's political apparatus, which has shown a willingness to intervene in nearly every facet of higher education.

Institutional Challenges Ahead

Ono’s departure leaves U-M with significant challenges. The Board of Regents announced that he will remain in Ann Arbor until an interim president is named—a process that may take weeks. But finding a long-term leader capable of navigating the rapidly shifting higher education landscape could take much longer.

The next president will have to address:

• Federal Research Cuts: The loss of federal contracts—particularly from agencies like the National Institutes of Health—has cost Michigan and its peer institutions hundreds of millions of dollars. A $15 million Social Security study was among the casualties. U-M is using endowment funds to plug gaps, but that is not a sustainable strategy.

• DEI Backlash and Retrenchment: The university recently shuttered two DEI offices and scaled back programming, citing political and legal risks. While Ono promised to bolster financial aid and mental health support, many faculty and students felt betrayed by the move.

• Campus Unrest and Free Speech: Protests over the Gaza war led to harsh disciplinary action against student groups, including the suspension of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE). Critics say the campus has become increasingly authoritarian, and several lawsuits have been filed by terminated employees alleging First Amendment violations.

• Board Relations and Governance: U-M’s elected Board of Regents is ideologically divided. While five Democratic regents penned a passionate op-ed in defense of academic independence, the board’s stance on DEI and other political flashpoints appears fractured.

A Bigger Crisis in Public Higher Ed?

Beyond the immediate concerns, the university’s upheaval reflects deeper anxieties about the future of public higher education in America. Declining public trust, rising tuition, and the politicization of universities—especially around issues of race, gender, and free speech—have created an atmosphere of volatility.

While the University of Michigan continues to see strong application numbers, including from international students, enrollment of in-state high school graduates is dropping. The university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free tuition to families earning under $125,000, is a step toward addressing affordability concerns. But will it be enough?

Sandy Baruah of the Detroit Regional Chamber sees a broader mission: “Our research universities all have a responsibility to make the case for higher education. The value of higher ed is critical to the state of Michigan.”

What’s Next?

The Faculty Senate has passed resolutions urging the university to join a “mutual defense pact” with other Big Ten schools to resist political interference and defend academic freedom. But U-M is not obligated to act on those resolutions.

Interim leadership will be announced soon, and the search for a permanent successor will follow. Whoever takes the reins next will need to be a deft political operator—someone capable of rebuilding trust internally while weathering mounting external threats.

In the words of Cantwell: “Whoever they hire has to be prepared to be under intense scrutiny—locally, federally, ideologically. The next leader of Michigan must have both a spine and a strategy.”

As the University of Michigan enters this uncertain chapter, one thing is clear: the battle over the soul of public higher education is far from over.

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.