Trump’s War on Intellectualism Is a Threat to Democracy—But Elite Universities Aren’t Innocent Victims

When Donald Trump and his political allies go after elite universities like Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, it’s easy—too easy—for defenders of higher education to circle the wagons. We’re told that these attacks are a threat to academic freedom, to knowledge, even to democracy itself.

There’s some truth to that. But let’s not romanticize the institutions being targeted. Elite universities are not innocent victims in America’s democratic unraveling. They have, for decades, cultivated privilege, preserved inequality, and insulated themselves from the real-world consequences of their decisions. If we’re going to talk honestly about the dangers of anti-intellectualism, we must also confront the failures of the so-called intellectual elite.

That said, the Trump movement’s war on expertise, critical thinking, and education isn't aimed at reforming these institutions—it’s about dismantling the very idea of an informed, questioning citizenry. And that’s where the true danger lies.

Elite Universities: Power Without Accountability

Let’s start with the obvious: the Ivy League and its peers are deeply complicit in America’s meritocratic mythology. They’ve served as finishing schools for the ruling class, minting the bankers, judges, presidents, and policymakers who have overseen widening inequality, endless wars, mass incarceration, and climate inaction.

These schools have protected legacy admissions, turned a blind eye to labor exploitation on their campuses, and sat on billion-dollar endowments while adjunct faculty and graduate workers scrape by. They have not been champions of democracy so much as guardians of a highly stratified status quo.

So when critics accuse them of elitism, they’re not entirely wrong. But the Trump-era populism that claims to speak for “the people” doesn’t aim to democratize education—it aims to destroy its democratic function altogether.

The Real Target: Critical Thought

The Trump Administration's true grievance isn’t with elite universities per se; it’s with what these institutions represent in the public imagination: facts, complexity, and the right to question power. This resentment manifests in everything from attacks on “woke” curricula to efforts to ban books and gut public education.

The Trumpist strategy is clear: discredit intellectual institutions not to make them more accountable, but to replace expertise with loyalty, and dialogue with propaganda. This isn’t about fixing higher education. It’s about gutting the tools people need to resist authoritarianism—tools like historical context, scientific reasoning, and moral imagination.

And while elite universities may have failed to democratize knowledge, they are still among the few places where critical inquiry is possible. For all their hypocrisy, they produce some of the research and dialogue that fuels social progress. That’s precisely why they’re under attack.

The Cost of Cynicism

It's tempting to dismiss the fight over academia as a clash between out-of-touch elites and performative populists. But this is bigger than a feud between two privileged factions. At stake is whether truth itself still matters in American political life.

Yes, universities need to be held accountable—for their exclusivity, for their economic entrenchment, for their detachment from working-class realities. But that critique must be grounded in a desire to expand and democratize knowledge, not to destroy it.

Trumpism offers no such vision. It’s not trying to fix a broken higher ed system; it’s trying to ensure fewer people can question the system at all.

A Choice for the Future

We shouldn’t fall into the trap of defending elite universities just because Trump attacks them. Nor should we accept the false populism that scapegoats education while consolidating power in the hands of the ignorant and the loyal.

The choice we face is not between Ivy League hypocrisy and Trumpian anti-intellectualism. It’s between a democracy that values critical thought and a movement that seeks to suppress it—between a flawed system that can be reformed and an ideology that rejects the very notion of reform.

If we care about democracy, we must critique our institutions honestly—and defend the democratic values they too often betray but must ultimately uphold.

HELU's Wall-to-Wall and Coast-to-Coast Report – April 2025 (Higher Ed Labor United)

 

April 2025 HELU Chair’s Message – May Day Strong From Levin Kim, HELU Chair Over the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, higher ed workers from coast to coast have been fighting back against attacks on critical lifesaving research, on immigrant workers, on education and research in the public interest. We’re in the fight of our lives, for our work, our communities, and our future.  Despite alarming news on the daily—from students and workers removed from our campuses, firings, program closures, government intervention in classroom curriculum, and brazen attacks on academic freedom—we refuse to be immobilised into inaction because we know a better world is possible if we fight for it. We’re standing up for the future of higher ed by building a wall-to-wall, coast-to-coast movement of workers ready to organize, to fight, and to win. Now is the time for coalition-building, for moving your coworkers to take action together, and getting out in the streets. Find and attend a May Day event near you tomorrow, and stay tuned for more ways to take action.    Learn more and find a May 1 event near you Solidarity Asks STRIKE SUPPORT: University of Oregon Student Workers on strike starting April 29 Donate: UR Grad Labor Union Strike and Hardship Fund Salem, OR on May 8 –  HANDS OFF: HIGHER EDUCATION RALLY  Sign: Unite to Defend Arizona Public Education Against Federal Attacks Support a fair contract for Lane Community College faculty Wellesley Organized Academic Workers – Help us win a contract! From the HELU Blog: Visa Revocations at Binghamton University Reflect Broader National Crackdown Over 1,000 international students across more than 170 colleges and universities in at least 40 states have reportedly had their visas revoked. The administration’s actions have often been sudden and lacking clear explanations, leading to confusion and fear within academic communities. As the situation continues to evolve, it is imperative for academic institutions and communities to remain vigilant and supportive of international students, faculty, and staff. The potential for further visa revocations and the broader implications for academic freedom and free speech necessitate a collective response to uphold the values of higher education... Read more.   Delegates: Think about running for HELU officer positions! HELU will be conducting elections for new leadership in at the quarterly General Assembly in November 2025. They will serve from January 2026 to January 2028. There has never been a more important time for higher ed activists from all job positions in the higher ed workforce to step up and keep the ball rolling... Read more. Higher Ed Labor in the News As Universities Yield to Trump, Higher Ed Unions Are Fighting Union: Police Raids Targeted Michigan Palestine Activists More Than 150 Campuses Held Day of Action Against Trump’s Attacks on Higher Ed Most Higher Ed Workers Still Paid Less Than Before Pandemic Puerto Rico Protests Against Higher Ed Cuts Follow Long Fight Against Austerity Want to support our work? Make a contribution. We invite you to support HELU's work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU's main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement. Contribute to HELU

Trends and Challenges in Higher Education Non-Exempt Staff Workforce: Insights from CUPA-HR's April 2025 Report

The landscape of higher education staffing is undergoing significant transformations, as highlighted in the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) April 2025 report, The Non-Exempt Higher Education Staff Workforce: Trends in Composition, Size, and Pay Equity. This comprehensive study delves into the evolving composition, size, and pay equity of non-exempt staff within U.S. colleges and universities from the 2016–17 to 2023–24 academic years.

The Higher Education Inquirer has been reporting on the College Meltdown since 2016, tracking the unraveling of institutional stability across much of U.S. higher education. Our coverage has especially focused on declining college enrollment at for-profit colleges, community colleges, small state universities, and private colleges and universities—sectors hit hardest by demographic shifts, rising costs, and growing public skepticism about the value of a college degree. The CUPA-HR report adds another layer to this narrative, highlighting how the backbone of campus operations—non-exempt staff—are being affected.

Declining Workforce Numbers

The report reveals a troubling trend: the non-exempt staff workforce has steadily declined over the past seven years. Full-time non-exempt positions dropped by 9%, while part-time roles fell by 8%. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this decline, with full-time jobs shrinking by 3.3% and part-time roles plummeting by 17.2%.

Composition of the Workforce

Despite the shrinking workforce, non-exempt staff still made up 28% of the higher education labor force in 2023–24. This is significantly lower than in the overall U.S. economy, where non-exempt positions represent more than half of all jobs. These roles—custodians, electricians, administrative assistants, and dining hall workers—are essential to day-to-day campus functions.

Pay Equity Disparities

CUPA-HR also highlights ongoing inequities in compensation. Women and people of color remain underrepresented in the highest-paying non-exempt roles and often earn less than White male colleagues doing similar work. Pay disparities are especially pronounced for women over the age of 42 and for professionals of color at wealthier institutions—institutions that tend to employ more diverse staff, but pay them less.

Institutional Implications

These findings raise urgent questions about sustainability, morale, and service quality on campuses already under strain. As colleges confront declining enrollments, shrinking budgets, and demands for greater equity and accountability, the erosion of the non-exempt workforce risks compounding the challenges. Institutions must consider robust equity audits, fair compensation practices, and inclusive hiring and retention strategies.

Conclusion

CUPA-HR’s April 2025 study is a stark reminder that the College Meltdown is not only about enrollment and finances, but also about the people who keep campuses running. The non-exempt staff, often invisible in strategic planning discussions, are central to the student experience and institutional mission. Their declining numbers and ongoing inequities reflect deeper systemic problems that higher education leaders can no longer afford to ignore.

For more insights, visit the full report: The Non-Exempt Higher Education Staff Workforce: Trends in Composition, Size, and Pay Equity.

Maximus AidVantage

[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

Diminished Consumer Protections

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers' union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

Trump Admin announces it will throw borrowers into mandatory collections. (Student Borrower Protection Center)

The Trump Administration unleashed several attacks on students, student loan borrowers, and their families this week. On Wednesday, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders impacting students, families, and higher education. Meanwhile, at the start of this week, the Trump Administration also announced plans to start subjecting millions of struggling borrowers in default to mandatory collections. Read our statement:

Advocates Slam Trump Administration for Throwing Millions of Americans With Student Debt Into the Jaws of Government Collections Machine Move Comes as Millions of Americans Are Struggling to Navigate Unprecedented Economic Uncertainty and Record Number of Americans With Student Loan Debt Are Behind on Student Loan Bills April 21, 2025 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Trump Administration announced plans to begin subjecting millions of Americans in default to mandatory collections, including wage garnishment, tax refund, and Social Security benefit offsets. According to the Administration’s announcement, starting on May 5, 2025, borrowers will begin receiving collection notices through the U.S. Treasury Offset Program with administrative wage garnishment expected to resume later in the summer. The decision to resume the government’s collections machine marks the first time in five years that the federal government will penalize Americans who fall behind on their student loan payments. The announcement also comes as Americans are navigating unprecedented economic uncertainty—struggling to cover the rising costs of everyday goods, dealing with the economic fallout of mass firings of more than 24,000 federal workers all while being unable to access the full suite of affordable repayment options to help better manage their student loans. Today’s announcement referenced a future “robust communication campaign” to assist borrowers, but did not provide any information about what, if any, steps the administration is taking to ensure the student loan system will meet borrowers’ needs and fulfill their statutory and contractual rights. In response, Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) Executive Director Mike Pierce released the following statement: “For 5 million people in default, federal law gives borrowers a way out of default and the right to make loan payments they can afford. Since February, Donald Trump and Linda McMahon have blocked these borrowers’ path out of default and are now feeding them into the maw of the government debt collection machine. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will further fan the flames of economic chaos for working families across this country.”

Read the Full Statement

China mocks Trump’s tariffs with AI video of US sweatshop workers (Trending Clips)

United Steel Workers Goes All in on Solidarity at Convention

 

More than 2,000 members from across the United States, Canada and the Caribbean spent four days charting the future of our union and recommitting themselves to the solidarity that powers the union at the USW’s triennial constitutional convention earlier this month. International President David McCall opened the convention by calling on union members to fight back against wealthy elites who want to silence workers across North America. “To turn back the tide of economic injustice and corporate greed, we need to truly be all in,” McCall said. “We can hold nothing back, and we need every member to join in the fight – for as long as it takes.” In debating resolutions ranging from fair trade to civil and human rights, delegates shared their struggles and victories in the fight against corporate greed. They also heard from trade unionists from other countries and a panel of federal workers who warned of broad attacks on workers’ rights coming out of Washington, D.C. While billionaires like Elon Musk may be emboldened under the current administration, AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler declared that with 71% of Americans supportive of unions, union members are in a “generational moment” to build the labor movement. AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Fred Redmond reminded delegates that “we know the way forward.” The way forward is going all in on solidarity. Delegates demonstrated what that looks like by taking action right from the convention floor by calling their members of Congress to demand passage of the bipartisan Protect America’s Workforce Act. Delegates left Las Vegas fired up and ready to carry that energy forward into their workplaces and communities.   “Being all in isn’t a one-time action – and it isn’t a bet,” McCall said. “It’s our way of operating, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.” You can find full coverage of our convention, including photos, videos, resolutions, and more, on the USW website.

What’s Happening & Why: HELU Calls on Academic Workers to Stand Up (Higher Ed Labor United)

 

What’s Happening and Why: HELU Calls on Academic Workers to Stand Up If institutions won’t stand up to the Trump administration, then it’s up to academic workers, students, communities, and citizens to stand up for them. Because we have the strongest levers of power over our local institutions.  While international students have become the first target on campuses, it’s important to remember that a portion of faculty (and in particular contingent faculty who are more precarious), administration, and campus service workers are also vulnerable to ICE. The consequences of these actions could have far-reaching effects. Due process of the law is not for specific groups. We all have it or no one has it.  This absolutely is an attempt to silence dissent in the country, especially on college campuses. This absolutely is authoritarianism. This absolutely is in line with the current attacks on higher education which were laid out in Project 2025. And in line with the crackdown on student protests before Trump took office.  And what’s worse is that many of our institutions are refusing to stand up for students.  Thankfully, unions are already responding. We have to rise to this moment or higher education will never be the same. Read the entire HELU statement Take Action Support a fair contract for Lane Community College faculty Contribute: Justice for Rümeysa Öztürk Support Wellesley Academic Workers on Strike See all HELU Solidarity Asks Want to support our work? Make a contribution. We invite you to support HELU's work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU's main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement.   Contribute to HELU

We have met the enemy...

Class conflict has always been woven into the fabric of American higher education. The struggle over access, affordability, and control of knowledge production has long pitted economic elites against working-class and middle-class students, faculty, and staff. Since the 1960s, these tensions have only deepened, exacerbated by policy shifts that have served to entrench inequality rather than dismantle it.

The 1960s marked a critical turning point in the political battle over higher education. Ronald Reagan’s war on the University of California system while he was governor set the tone for a broader conservative backlash against public higher education, which had been expanding to accommodate the postwar baby boom and increasing calls for racial and economic justice. Reagan’s attacks on free tuition and student activism foreshadowed decades of policies designed to limit public investment in higher education while encouraging privatization and corporate influence.

Since the 1970s, economic inequality in the US has grown dramatically, and higher education has been both a battleground and a casualty in this ongoing class war. Today, the sector is experiencing a long-running meltdown, with no signs of reversal. The following key issues illustrate the breadth of the crisis:

Educated Underclass and Underemployment

The promise of higher education as a pathway to economic security has eroded. A growing segment of college graduates, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, find themselves in precarious employment, often saddled with student debt and working jobs that do not require a degree. The rise of the educated underclass reflects a broader trend of economic stratification in the US, where social mobility is increasingly constrained.

Student Loan Debt Crisis

Student loan debt has surpassed $1.7 trillion, shackling millions of Americans to a lifetime of financial insecurity. The cost of higher education has skyrocketed, while wages have stagnated, leaving many borrowers unable to pay off their loans. Rather than addressing this crisis with systemic reform, policymakers have largely chosen half-measures and band-aid solutions that fail to address the structural drivers of student debt.

The Role of Foreign Students in US Higher Education

The influx of international students, particularly from wealthy families abroad, has been used as a revenue stream for cash-strapped universities. While diversity in higher education is valuable, the prioritization of full-tuition-paying international students over domestic students, especially those from working-class backgrounds, reflects a troubling shift in university priorities from public good to profit-seeking.

Academic Labor and Adjunctification

Higher education’s labor crisis is one of its most glaring failures. Over the past several decades, universities have replaced tenured faculty with contingent faculty—adjuncts and lecturers who work for low wages with no job security. This adjunctification has degraded the quality of education while exacerbating economic precarity for instructors, who now make up the majority of faculty positions in the US.

Identity Politics and DEI as a Substitute for Racial Justice

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become a central focus of university policies, yet they often serve as a superficial substitute for genuine racial and economic justice. Originating in part from efforts like those of Ward Connerly in California, DEI programs provide cover for institutions that continue to perpetuate racial and economic inequities, while failing to address core issues such as wealth redistribution, labor rights, and equitable access to higher education.

Privatization of Higher Education

Public funding for universities has declined, and in its place, privatization has surged. Universities have increasingly outsourced services, partnered with corporations, and relied on private donors and endowments to stay afloat. This shift has transformed higher education into a commodity rather than a public good, further marginalizing low-income students and faculty who cannot compete in a system driven by financial interests.

Online Education and the For-Profit Takeover

The rise of online education, fueled by for-profit colleges and Online Program Managers (OPMs), has introduced new layers of exploitation and inequality. While online education promises accessibility, in practice, it has been used to cut costs, lower instructional quality, and extract profits from students—many of whom are left with degrees of questionable value and significant debt.

Alienation and Anomie in Higher Education

As economic pressures mount and academic work becomes more precarious, feelings of alienation and anomie have intensified. Students and faculty alike find themselves disconnected from the traditional mission of higher education as a space for critical thought and democratic engagement. The result is a crisis of meaning that extends beyond the university into broader society.

The Power of Elite Universities

At the other end of the spectrum, elite universities continue to amass enormous endowments, wielding disproportionate influence over higher education policy and urban development. These institutions contribute to gentrification, driving up housing costs in surrounding areas while serving as gatekeepers to elite status. Their governing structures—dominated by trustees from finance, industry, and politics—reflect the interests of the wealthy rather than the needs of students and faculty.

The Way Forward

To avoid the full entrenchment of an oligarchic system, those who hold power in higher education must step aside and allow for systemic transformation. This means prioritizing policies that restore public investment in education, dismantle student debt, protect academic labor, and democratize decision-making processes. The fight for a more just and equitable higher education system is inseparable from the broader struggle for democracy itself.

As history has shown, real change will not come from those at the top—it will come from the courageous efforts of students, faculty, and workers who refuse to accept a system built on exploitation and inequality. The time to act is now.

Universities Are Becoming Real Estate Giants—and It's Hurting Communities

As housing costs soar and faculty wages stagnate, colleges and universities are turning to a so-called solution: workforce housing. Marketed as a win-win to help recruit and retain middle-income academic workers—those priced out of both subsidized and market-rate housing—this trend has quietly become a major land grab. But behind the rhetoric of affordability and institutional care lies a troubling truth: big banks and universities are partnering to privatize housing and reshape cities in ways that displace vulnerable communities.

According to Tucker Kaufmann of JPMorganChase—one of the largest financial institutions in the world—universities are "well-positioned" to take on this new real estate role. Kaufmann frames this as a shift in mindset: “It’s about getting people to think about it differently.” But we should be asking: who is doing the thinking—and who is left out of the conversation?

Deverian Baldwin, author of In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower, has spent years exposing how higher education institutions act as unregulated city-builders. Far from being benevolent employers or “anchor institutions,” universities often operate more like corporations—accumulating land, avoiding taxes, and driving gentrification under the guise of community development. Workforce housing is just the latest vehicle for this expansion.

What Is Workforce Housing—And Who Benefits?

Workforce housing is aimed at those earning 60–120% of area median income (AMI)—a group Baldwin might describe as "precarious professionals," squeezed by rising costs but not considered poor enough for traditional subsidies. In theory, this model helps faculty, staff, and grad students live closer to campus. In practice, it creates new market pressures on neighborhoods that are already facing displacement.

In 2022, a third of U.S. renter households were cost-burdened. But instead of addressing root causes—like stagnant wages, predatory lending, or the commodification of housing—universities are stepping in as landlords. With land and capital at their disposal, they can build new developments or purchase existing ones, positioning themselves as the solution to a crisis they help perpetuate.

And let’s be clear: this isn’t just about meeting employee needs. It’s about revenue. Workforce housing offers steady cash flow, and in many cases, universities don’t even pay property taxes on their holdings—leaving cities to foot the bill for infrastructure, schools, and services.

The Real Cost: Gentrification and Displacement

Baldwin’s research underscores a stark reality: universities increasingly behave like corporate developers. Their real estate strategies—cloaked in the language of public service—have devastating consequences for low-income communities, especially Black and brown neighborhoods near urban campuses.

When universities build workforce housing, they often do so on underutilized or “surplus” land. But in cities where land is scarce, that often means expanding into working-class areas. As higher-paid university employees move in, property values rise, rent hikes follow, and long-standing residents are pushed out.

The narrative of “revitalization” ignores the cost to these communities. It also masks the power imbalance: universities operate without public accountability, shielded by their nonprofit status and backed by powerful financial institutions like JPMorganChase. This is not just housing policy—it’s economic displacement, dressed in institutional branding.

Developer or Educator?

Universities claim that workforce housing improves “town-gown” relations and helps them recruit talent. But Baldwin warns that these justifications often hide a more cynical calculus: expand the brand, grow the endowment, and control the neighborhood. Whether through public-private partnerships or nonprofit intermediaries, universities are carving out real estate empires while sidestepping democratic oversight.

Some institutions purchase existing multifamily housing, like a California university-affiliated nonprofit that bought 120 units for faculty. Others build from scratch, such as a New England campus partnering with developers to erect new housing complexes. In both cases, the university gains influence over local housing markets—without bearing the responsibilities of a traditional landlord or civic entity.

These projects are rarely subject to community input. And when they are, the concerns of low-income residents are often sidelined in favor of institutional priorities. Even well-intentioned efforts risk accelerating the very gentrification they claim to mitigate.

Toward Accountability and Justice

To avoid deepening inequality, universities must fundamentally rethink their role—not just as employers, but as power brokers in urban space. That means moving beyond token stakeholder meetings and isolated affordability set-asides. It means asking who gets to live in a neighborhood, and who gets pushed out.

Baldwin argues for stronger oversight, tax reform, and truly democratic planning processes. Universities should be held accountable for the social and economic impacts of their development—especially when public money, land, or resources are involved.

Mixed-income housing, community land trusts, and partnerships with tenant groups are one path forward. But even these must be guided by the principle that housing is a human right—not a recruitment tool or investment strategy.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Mission

Workforce housing, at its best, is a patch on a broken system. At its worst, it’s a real estate strategy that deepens inequality while shielding powerful institutions from scrutiny. Universities claim to serve the public good—but when they act like landlords and developers, they erode the very communities they’re supposed to uplift.

As Baldwin reminds us, we must resist the myth of the benevolent university. Institutions of higher education are not neutral actors—they are central players in urban displacement and economic exclusion. If they want to help solve the housing crisis, they must start by relinquishing power, paying their fair share, and prioritizing justice overgrowth.