Todd S. Nelson: Massive Wealth Built on Soul-Crushing Student Loan Debt

Todd S. Nelson rose from academic beginnings—a B.S. from Brigham Young University and an MBA from the University of Nevada, Reno—to dominate the for-profit higher education space. Over nearly four decades, Nelson has amassed vast personal wealth leading University of Phoenix, Education Management Corporation (EDMC), and Perdoceo Education, even as each institution left embattled students and regulatory fallout in its wake.

Under Nelson’s leadership, Apollo Group (parent of University of Phoenix) mountains of revenue—$2.2 billion and over 300,000 students by 2006—coincided with a $41 million payday in that year alone. He resigned amid pressure over deceptive admissions practices.

Nelson’s move to EDMC in 2007 triggered another enrollment explosion—from 82,000 to over 160,000 students by 2011—propelled by federal student aid. Annual revenues reached nearly $2.8 billion, even as employees were alleged to be encouraged to enroll “anyone and everyone” to meet quotas. This aggressive focus on recruitment came with enormous personal compensation—approximately $13.1 million annually—while students endured mounting debt and dwindling outcomes.

A 2015 landmark settlement exposed EDMC’s alleged violations under the False Claims Act. The Justice Department accused the company of operating as a “recruitment mill,” illegally funneling federal funds through false certifications. EDMC agreed to pay $95.5 million in damages and forgive more than $102 million in student loans, affecting about 80,000 former students—averaging around $1,370 per student.Internal documents and court filings paint a grim picture: incentive-based pay for recruiters, breach of fiduciary duties, and a business model the trustee called “fundamentally fraudulent.”

Nelson’s chapter at Career Education Corporation (later Perdoceo) echoed the same script. Campuses shuttered, including Le Cordon Bleu and Sanford-Brown, left students stranded with untransferable credits—and yet Nelson’s compensation remained soaring. In 2019, he earned $7.4 million and held about $12 million in equity.

Whistleblower accounts from inside Perdoceo’s operations are damning. One former recruiter described pressure to enroll students “by any means necessary,” including coercive calls and emotional manipulation—often targeting vulnerable applicants with low income or lacking basic readiness. Despite those practices, Perdoceo reaped profits, with Nelson publicly touting revenue growth even as the Department of Education issued a formal notice in May 2021: thousands of borrower defense claims were pending against the company, alleging misrepresentations on credits, employment prospects, and accreditation.

Further regulatory investigations deepened through early 2022, focusing on recruiting, marketing, and financial aid practices—yet no executive accountability has followed.

The narrative that emerges is stark: Todd S. Nelson repeatedly led institutions to profit-fueled expansion using students’ federal dollars, while suppressing outcomes and exposing students to debilitating debt. Lawsuits, settlements, and investigative reports expose deceptive enrollment practices, false claims, and regulatory violations—but the executives—including Nelson—walk away with wealth and are rarely held personally responsible.

---

Sources

• Wikipedia: Todd S. Nelson—compensation figures and resignation amid scrutiny.

• TribLIVE: Allegations of “anyone and everyone” being enrolled to meet quotas under Nelson’s reign at EDMC.

• Career Education Review: Insights on quality decline amid enrollment growth at EDMC and Perdoceo.

• Department of Justice and NASFAA: 2015 EDMC settlement—$95.5 million damages, $102 million in loan forgiveness for hundreds of thousands.

• Bankruptcy court filings: Allegations of fraudulent business model and incentive-driven recruitment.

• Republic Report & USA Today: Whistleblower testimony on Perdoceo’s predatory recruiting tactics.

Judge rules White House unlawfully blocked Harvard's research grants (PBS News Hour)

 

University of Kentucky Athlete Arrested After Infant Found Dead in Closet – Amid Kentucky’s Near-Total Abortion Ban

Lexington, KY (September 3, 2025) — A University of Kentucky student and athlete, 21-year-old Laken Ashlee Snelling—a senior member of the UK STUNT cheer team—has been arrested and charged in connection with the death of her newborn, authorities say.

Allegations and Legal Proceedings

Lexington police were called to a Park Avenue residence on August 27 after they discovered the unresponsive body of an infant hidden in a closet, wrapped in a towel inside a black trash bag. Snelling admitted to giving birth and attempting to conceal both the infant and evidence of the birth, according to arrest documents.

Snelling faces three Class D felony charges:

• Concealing the birth of an infant

• Tampering with physical evidence

• Abuse of a corpse

Each charge carries potential penalties of 1 to 5 years in prison and fines up to $10,000.

At her first court appearance on September 2, Snelling pleaded not guilty and was released on a $100,000 bond, with the court ordering her to live under house arrest at her parents’ home in Tennessee. Her next hearing is scheduled for September 26.

A preliminary autopsy by the Fayette County Coroner’s Office revealed that the infant was a boy, but the cause of death remains inconclusive. Officials confirmed that a thorough death investigation is ongoing.

Context: Kentucky’s Near-Total Abortion Ban

Kentucky currently enforces one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws. Since August 1, 2022, the state’s trigger law has rendered abortion completely illegal, except when necessary to prevent the pregnant individual’s death or permanent impairment of a major, life-sustaining bodily function. No exceptions are made for rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities.

Attempts to challenge the ban have largely failed. A 2024 lawsuit disputing the near-total prohibition was voluntarily dismissed earlier this year, and the law remains firmly in place. Additionally, a constitutional amendment that would have explicitly declared that Kentucky's state constitution does not protect abortion rights was rejected by voters in November 2022.

Public Reaction and Additional Details

Snelling, originally from White Pine, Tennessee, had built a public persona that included cheerleading and pageant appearances. Months earlier, she had posted on TikTok expressing a desire for motherhood—listing “having babies” among her life goals. Viral maternity-style photos—later removed from her social media—have intensified public scrutiny.

A Broader National Context

Snelling’s case arises within a wider national conversation about the legal and societal implications of criminal investigations following pregnancy outcomes. Since the repeal of federal protections for abortion rights, concerns have grown that miscarriages, stillbirths, or even self-managed abortions may now be subject to legal scrutiny—raising fears about reproductive autonomy and medical privacy.

---

Sources

• The Guardian: University of Kentucky athlete charged after dead infant found hidden in closet (Sept. 2, 2025)

• People: Univ. of Kentucky STUNT Team Member Arrested After Allegedly Hiding Dead Newborn in Her Closet (Sept. 2, 2025)

• TurnTo10: University of Kentucky athlete pleads not guilty to hiding newborn in closet (Sept. 2, 2025)

• WWNYTV: College student pleads not guilty after dead infant found in closet (Sept. 3, 2025)

• The Sun (UK): Laken Snelling cheerleader baby case (Sept. 2, 2025)

• WKYT: Fayette County coroner releases autopsy results after infant found in closet (Sept. 3, 2025)

• AP News: Kentucky abortion law lawsuit dismissed (2024)

• Wikipedia: Abortion in Kentucky (updated 2025); 2022 Kentucky Amendment 2

• New York Post: Kentucky cheerleader who hid newborn had listed “having babies” as life goal (Sept. 2, 2025)

• Fox News: Kentucky athlete once posted about wanting babies (Sept. 2, 2025)

• India Times: Viral maternity photos of Kentucky student after newborn death case (Sept. 2, 2025)

• Vox: How abortion bans create confusion and surveillance risks (2025)

The Minimum Viable Education System: How Close Are We to Collapse? (Glen McGhee)

For years, higher education leaders have avoided one of the most uncomfortable questions in the field: What is the minimum threshold of authentic learning required to keep the system operational? That threshold exists — and recent data suggest we may have already crossed it. The warning signs are visible in eroding public trust, declining employer confidence, and a growing inability to authenticate credentials. What we are watching now is not a temporary disruption, but the managed decline of mass higher education as we have known it.

A truly viable education system has to deliver four essential functions. It must transmit knowledge — not only basic literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking, but also the domain-specific skills employers recognize, along with the ability to evaluate information in a democratic society. It must authenticate credentials by verifying learner identity, ensuring assessments are legitimate, maintaining tamper-proof records, and clearly differentiating between levels of competence. It must serve as a pathway for social mobility, providing economic opportunities that justify the investment, generating real wage premiums, and fostering professional networks and cultural capital. And it must have reliable quality assurance, with competent faculty, relevant curriculum, trustworthy measurement of learning outcomes, and external accountability strong enough to maintain standards.

Research into institutional collapse and critical mass theory shows that each of these functions has a minimum operational threshold. The authentic learning rate must exceed 70 percent for degrees to retain their signaling value. Below that point, employers begin to see the credential itself as unreliable. Estimates today range from 30 to 70 percent, depending on the institution and delivery method. Employer confidence must stay above 80 percent for degrees to remain the default hiring credential. When fewer than eight in ten employers trust the degree signal, alternative credentialing accelerates — something already underway as skills-based hiring spreads across industries. Public trust must also remain high, but Gallup’s 2023 data put confidence in higher education at just 36 percent, far below the survival threshold. On the financial side, stability is eroding, with roughly 15 percent of U.S. institutions at risk of closure and more failing each year.

Despite these trends, parts of the system still function effectively. Elite institutions with rigorous admissions, strong alumni networks, and powerful employer relationships continue to maintain credibility. Professional programs such as medicine, engineering, and law retain integrity through external licensing and oversight. Technical programs tied closely to industry needs still provide authenticated learning with direct employment pathways. Research universities at the graduate level preserve rigor through peer review, publication requirements, and close faculty mentorship. These pockets of quality create the illusion that the overall system remains sound, even as large portions hollow out.

But the cracks are widening. Public trust is at 36 percent. Fraud rates are climbing beyond detection capacity, with California’s rate estimated at 31 percent. Grade inflation is erasing distinctions between levels of achievement. Authentic learning appears to be hovering somewhere between 30 and 70 percent, putting the system in a yellow warning zone. Financially, the sector remains unstable, with 15 percent of institutions on the brink.

Higher education is also becoming sharply stratified. At one end are the high-integrity institutions that still maintain meaningful standards, a group that may represent just 20 to 30 percent of the market. In the middle are the credential mills — low-integrity schools operating on volume with minimal quality control, perhaps 40 to 50 percent of the market. On the other end, alternative providers such as bootcamps, apprenticeships, and corporate academies are rapidly filling the skills gap. This stratification allows the system to stagger forward while its core mission erodes.

Collapse becomes irreversible when several failure points converge. Employer confidence dropping below 50 percent would trigger mass abandonment of degree requirements. Public funding cuts, fueled by political backlash, would intensify. Alternative credentials would reach critical mass, making traditional degrees redundant in many sectors. A faculty exodus would leave too few qualified instructors to maintain quality. Rising student debt defaults could force the federal government to restrict lending.

The available evidence suggests the tipping point likely occurred sometime between 2020 and 2024. That was when public trust cratered, employer skepticism intensified, financial fragility spread, and the post-pandemic environment made fraud and grade inflation harder to contain. We may already be living in a post-viable higher education system, one where authentic learning and meaningful credentialing are concentrated in a shrinking group of elite institutions, while the majority of the sector operates as a credentialing fiction.

The question now is whether the surviving components can reorganize into something sustainable before the entire system’s legitimacy evaporates. Without deliberate restructuring, higher education’s role as a public good will vanish, replaced by a marketplace of unreliable credentials and narrowing opportunities. The longer we avoid defining the collapse threshold, the harder it will be to stop the slide.

Sources: Gallup, Inside Higher Ed, BestColleges, Cato Institute, PMC (National Center for Biotechnology Information), Council on Foreign Relations

HBCUs and Ranking Bias

For generations, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have played an outsized role in advancing American higher education and social progress. Yet when mainstream ranking systems—U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, QS, Times Higher Education—publish their lists of “top” universities, HBCUs consistently appear far lower than their contributions merit.

The issue is not simply one of prestige. Rankings shape student choices, philanthropic giving, research funding, and even federal and state policy decisions. When HBCUs are systematically undervalued, their students, faculty, alumni, and surrounding communities also lose out.

The Metrics Problem

Most rankings reward wealth and selectivity above all else. Endowment size, alumni giving, faculty research expenditures, and SAT/ACT scores weigh heavily. HBCUs, with smaller endowments and student populations that are often first-generation and lower-income, are penalized. In reality, these metrics reward structural privilege rather than educational value.

Meanwhile, measures of social mobility and student success—where HBCUs excel—are minimized. A 2020 UNCF study found that HBCUs account for just 3% of U.S. colleges and universities but produce nearly 20% of all African American graduates. They also generate a disproportionate number of Black professionals in STEM, law, medicine, and education.

Outcomes That Rankings Overlook

• STEM Impact: According to the National Science Foundation, nearly 25% of African American graduates with STEM bachelor’s degrees earned them at HBCUs.

• Medical and Legal Professions: More than half of African American doctors and lawyers received their undergraduate degrees at HBCUs.

• Economic Mobility: A 2021 Brookings study concluded that HBCUs are “engines of upward mobility,” moving low-income students into higher income brackets at rates equal to or exceeding elite institutions.

These achievements are not just individual successes—they represent broader contributions to economic development, civic engagement, and social justice.

Cultural and Community Value

Rankings also ignore the cultural significance of HBCUs. These institutions have preserved African American traditions, nurtured social movements, and cultivated leadership across politics, business, science, and the arts. From the Civil Rights Movement to today’s political leadership, HBCU alumni have consistently shaped U.S. history.

A Call for Fairer Assessments

If rankings continue to define value in higher education, they must evolve to reflect the realities of institutions serving historically marginalized populations. Metrics should account for:

• Student outcomes relative to resources

• Economic mobility and community impact

• Contributions to diversity in professional fields

• Support for first-generation and Pell Grant recipients

Until then, HBCUs will remain “underrated by the raters”—not because they underperform, but because the measuring stick itself is skewed.

HBCUs should not be judged against a system designed to privilege elite, wealthy, predominantly white institutions. Instead, they should be recognized for what they are: pillars of access, equity, and excellence in American higher education.

---

Sources:

• UNCF (2020). HBCUs Make America Strong: The Positive Economic Impact of Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

• Brookings Institution (2021). The Economic Mobility of Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

• National Science Foundation (2022). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering.

• American Council on Education (ACE) reports on HBCU contributions.

Most Popular Articles in the Higher Education Inquirer (8-26 to 9-2)

The Higher Education Inquirer continues to attract readers with investigations into corruption, scandal, and the financial burdens placed on students and families. This week’s most-read articles reflect a strong interest in for-profit institutions, university leadership controversies, and the growing student loan crisis.

Apollo Wants Investors to Buy Back the University of Phoenix. They Shouldn’t. (David Halperin)

Having failed to complete deals to sell the troubled giant for-profit University of Phoenix to major state universities in Arkansas and Idaho — after people in those states got cold feet — the school’s owner, private equity behemoth Apollo Global Management, just before the holiday weekend announced an initial public offering for the school. 

Phoenix’s parent company had been publicly traded until AGM and two other firms took the company private in 2017. Now they have gone back to Wall Street to re-sell the school to investors. 

But should investors want to buy this operation? The presence of the heavily-advertised University of Phoenix in the college market has been bad for U.S. students, taxpayers, and the economy, because it has led many students to enroll in a school that often deceives people, and often leaves students with heavy debts and without the careers they sought — when they could be using taxpayer support and their own money to enroll in better value programs. 

Moral and macro-economic concerns aside, it’s not even clear that buying Phoenix will be good for investor bottom lines. 

The University of Phoenix, which has received tens of billions from federal taxpayers for student grants and loans — at times more than $2 billion in a single year — has faced numerous law enforcement investigations and actions for its deceptive recruiting of veterans, military service members, and other students across the country.

Most notably, in 2019, Phoenix reached a record $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which claimed the school had lured students with false claims about partnerships with major employers. Phoenix ran ads falsely indicating that the school had deals with companies including AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and the American Red Cross to create job opportunities for its students and tailor school programs for such jobs, when that was not the case. The deceptive claim went to the heart of prospective students’ motivations for enrolling. Andrew Smith, then the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at the time of the agreement, “Students making important decisions about their education need the facts, not fantasy job opportunities that do not exist.”

And last year California’s attorney general reached a settlement with Phoenix to resolve allegations that the school’s aggressive recruitment tactics directed at military students violated consumer protection laws. 

The now almost entirely online school did a two-year dance with the University of Idaho that drew immense criticism from lawmakers, executive branch officials, newspaper editorial boards, and others in that state before the deal was finally called off in June.

Bloomberg reported earlier this year that an IPO might value the University of Phoenix operation, which had $810 million in revenue for 2023-24 (81 percent of that from federal taxpayer dollars), at $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion. And the new Trump administration has signaled in multiple ways that it is reducing protections for students against predatory college abuses, a development that may make investors more willing to buy a piece of a school like Phoenix.

But new federal legislation requires schools to provide some financial value for students. Also, state attorneys general, who have curbed and even slayed a number of for-profit giants over a decade, are watching; the media understands this issue, as it did not in the last wild west era fifteen years ago; and more potential students are wary after a generation of abuses.

So it may end up being much tougher to thrive in the predatory college business than some might think. 

David Halperin

Attorney and Counselor

Washington, DC  

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

The Academic Job Search Season: Stress, Survival, and Structural Problems

Every fall, the job search season kicks into high gear. For many academics—graduate students, contingent faculty, and even mid-career professionals—the process is exhausting. Updating résumés, scouring job boards, crafting cover letters, and collecting references has become a ritual of stress. Career guides and webinars offer tips, but they rarely address the structural issues that make academic job hunting such a fraught experience.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is marketing its own “September Collection” of advice: five free articles on managing applications, jump-starting an industry job search, applying outside academe, and coping with the increasingly common “tandem job search” faced by Ph.D. couples. On the surface, this content promises guidance and expert insight. Yet beneath the tips lies a deeper reality: academia’s labor market is in crisis.

The Disappearing Job Market

Managing job applications has become an overwhelming task because the number of secure academic positions has shrunk dramatically. Tenure-track lines are scarce, and adjunctification has normalized poverty wages and instability for tens of thousands of scholars. According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), three out of four faculty positions are now contingent—part-time, non-tenure-track, or adjunct. Many of these jobs pay less than minimum wage once preparation, grading, and commuting are factored in.

Meanwhile, universities continue to produce Ph.D.s at record levels, ensuring a glut of qualified applicants for every rare tenure-track posting. The advice to “manage your applications” often masks this reality: candidates are competing for scraps in a system that treats intellectual labor as disposable.

Beyond the Ivory Tower: Exits and Exile

Several of the Chronicle’s highlighted articles focus on leaving academia altogether. Job seekers are told how to “jump-start” industry careers or apply for jobs “outside of academe.” This is not just pragmatic advice—it reflects a broader shift.

Universities have become credential mills, producing far more advanced degree holders than the system can absorb. In 2022, the U.S. awarded over 55,000 doctoral degrees—yet fewer than 10,000 tenure-track positions opened nationwide. The so-called “two-body problem” for dual-academic couples has become a euphemism for professional exile: one or both partners must give up their academic careers or live apart indefinitely.

Debt and Desperation

The situation is compounded by the student debt crisis, which affects graduate students as well as undergraduates. Graduate borrowing accounts for 40% of all federal student loan debt, often exceeding $100,000 for Ph.D.s in the humanities and social sciences. Job seekers enter the market already burdened with debt, only to find themselves competing for contingent jobs that pay less than $25,000 a year.

In contrast, BRICS countries such as China are producing graduates without debt, often tuition-free, and with state-backed pathways into science, engineering, and medical professions. The U.S. system, by comparison, looks less like a ladder of opportunity and more like a trap of financial servitude.

The Role of Billionaires

Adding insult to injury, billionaire donors and corporate interests increasingly shape U.S. higher education. From the Koch network funding business and policy schools, to tech billionaires investing in “disruptive” ed-tech, private wealth dictates academic priorities. The result is a university system aligned with corporate needs—STEM fields for industry pipelines, financialized research, and administrative expansion—while the humanities and social sciences are starved of funding.

Job seekers are told to adapt to this market logic. Attend career fairs. Build transferable skills. Manage stress. But the real dysfunction lies in the fact that billionaires and trustees wield more power over universities than faculty and students combined.

From Individual Struggle to Collective Fight

The Chronicle’s Fall Virtual Career Fair, scheduled for October 15th, is framed as a solution: networking, résumé reviews, stress management. Yet these offerings treat the problem as one of individual navigation, not systemic collapse.

If there is to be resistance, it will not come from résumé workshops or LinkedIn polls about “workplace dysfunction.” It will come from collective struggle: graduate unions, adjunct organizing, debt strikes, and alliances across borders. Just as workers once had to fight internationally against the globalized forces of capital, academic workers will need to see their struggle as more than seasonal job stress.

The job search season is not just a stressful ritual—it is a symptom of a broken, financialized system. For many, the harsh truth is this: the problem isn’t your résumé. It’s the university itself.

---

Sources

• American Association of University Professors (AAUP), The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2022–23

• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Doctor’s Degrees Conferred by Post-Secondary Institutions

• Brookings Institution, Graduate Student Debt: Dimensions and Policy Implications, 2020

• Coalition on the Academic Workforce, A Portrait of Part-Time Faculty Members, 2012

• The Chronicle of Higher Education, Career Resources and Virtual Fairs, 2024

• Inside Higher Ed, Adjuncts and the Academic Labor Crisis

“My Wallet Already Hates Me”: A Cornell Newcomer’s Fintech Dilemma—or a Fintech Ad in Disguise?

A first-week post on r/Cornell captured a familiar panic: rent and utilities in Ithaca feel like a second tuition bill, coffee and snacks blur together, and the fear of stumbling into credit-card debt is real. The student wanted to build credit without getting burned and was weighing “debit cards that build credit” (e.g., Fizz or Chime) versus a traditional secured credit card. That trade-off is bigger than one student’s choice—it’s a snapshot of how campus life, fintech marketing, and the cost of college collide.

But some readers quickly wondered: was this an earnest student, or an advertisement in disguise?

Is this a student—or an ad?

Reddit’s comment section raised red flags. Several Cornellians and alumni noted that the same text had popped up on other college subreddits, including UCLA’s, suggesting copy-paste marketing rather than a nervous freshman. One commenter cut straight to the point: “Thinking it’s a type of ad.”

Others were skeptical of the voice: why would a first-year sound like a fintech case study, especially while emphasizing brands like Fizz and Chime? A staff commenter put it bluntly: “I was wondering why someone taking like a freshman was worrying about rent and utilities…”

This skepticism highlights a broader issue: financial products increasingly infiltrate student forums, often blurring the line between peer-to-peer advice and stealth advertising. Whether or not the Cornell post was staged, the debate shows how easily fintech brands can enter campus discourse by presenting themselves as organic “student concerns.”

The Ithaca math: why money feels tight fast

Ithaca is expensive for students, especially in Collegetown. As of September 2025, Apartments.com lists average rents around $1,965 for Collegetown, with citywide averages near $2,000 for one-bedrooms and $1,650 for studios—numbers that swallow part-time paychecks quickly.

Cornell’s own cost-of-attendance pages also show sizable line items for room, board, books, and personal expenses—costs students actually feel week to week.

The fintech pitch

Two names mentioned—Fizz and Chime—illustrate the type of fintech solutions pitched as “safe” alternatives to credit cards.

• Fizz (student-focused): Reports to Experian and TransUnion (not Equifax), but charges a subscription fee.

• Chime Credit Builder: A secured credit card marketed as “debit-like,” requiring you to preload funds. It reports on-time payments but not utilization, and carries no annual fee or interest.

Critics argue that highlighting these brands in multiple subreddits, rather than in a neutral discussion of secured credit cards, looks less like authentic peer advice and more like marketing.

What the community said instead

Beyond the ad suspicions, other commenters offered genuine advice:

• Budgeting basics: Use Mint, YNAB (with student discount), or any app to track every purchase—yes, even coffee.

• Keep it small: One alum recommended putting just a single recurring charge, like Spotify, on a secured or student credit card and setting it to autopay. By graduation, the student would have years of on-time payments and a strong credit score.

• Don’t compete with wealthier peers: As one commenter put it, “A majority of students are bankrolled by their parents and couldn’t tell you how much they spend per month.”

Cornell survival toolkit (practical, not preachy)

• Squeeze transportation costs. Cornell says registered students get unlimited rides on TCAT with their ID—use it instead of rideshares when the hills aren’t brutal.

• Food without the sticker shock. Anabel’s Grocery (student-run, on campus) accepts SNAP/EBT and aims to undercut local prices; hours are limited, so plan ahead.

• Don’t buy every book. Course reserves let you borrow required texts for short windows; you can also request that the library add a book to reserves. Interlibrary options can fill gaps.

• Emergency backstops. Check the Access Fund and the university’s Emergency Funds page; individual colleges (e.g., AAP) also run support funds with specific rules and caps.

The bigger takeaway

Whether the original post was genuine or stealth marketing, the themes are real. Students at Cornell face high living costs, weak financial literacy support, and fintech pitches promising “safety” but often hiding fees or quirks in reporting. The real work isn’t in picking the right debit-credit hybrid but in building reliable financial habits—and in questioning why financial products are invading student forums in the first place.

---

Sources

• Apartments.com: Ithaca and Collegetown average rents, September 2025.

• Cornell University: Cost of attendance & financial aid pages.

• Fizz Policies: membership fee and bureau reporting.

• Chime Credit Builder overview: reporting, no interest/annual fee, no preset limit.

• CFPB: How secured cards work; rebuilding credit basics; credit-card resources.

• Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia: Secured card market update.

• CFPB: Buy Now Pay Later risks; overdraft rulemaking context.

• Cornell Transportation: TCAT rides for registered students.

• Anabel’s Grocery (SNAP/EBT and hours); NYC Food Policy Center on Anabel’s mission.

• Cornell Libraries: Textbook reserves and request program.

• Cornell emergency and college-level support funds.

20th Anniversary of Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education

First published in November 2005 by Monthly Review Press, Reclaiming the Ivory Tower quickly became a breakthrough organizing handbook for contingent, often adjunct, faculty in U.S. higher education. Authored by Joe Berry, a labor educator with the Chicago Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor, the book combined structural analysis with practical organizing tools and remains widely influential. 

Author’s Ongoing Influence

Joe Berry’s longstanding work—as a historian and labor educator affiliated with institutions like the University of Illinois’s Chicago Labor Education Program and Roosevelt University—has helped shape adjunct organizing both in Chicago and beyond. Berry's most recent focus is with a new project, Higher Ed Labor United (HELU), and with Democratic Socialists of America.

Two Decades On: The Struggle Persists

Though adjunct faculty now make up the majority of instructors at many colleges, the precarious conditions Berry described—marked by low pay, limited benefits, and job insecurity—endure. His organizing models, featuring campus committees and community alliances, have borne fruit in isolated victories. Yet, systemic inequities remain.

Reclaiming the Ivory Tower remains a foundational resource for grassroots organizing in academia. Its emphasis on coalition-building and collective action continues to inspire adjuncts, labor activists, and academic allies.

Power Despite Precarity 

Just at the time of HELU’s birth, and as COVID was still raging, Berry and his colleague, partner and fellow contingent faculty Helena Worthen, published a follow up book, Power Despite Precarity: Strategies for the contingent faculty movement in higher education (2021, Pluto Press). Using one of the most successful local unions in higher education, the CA Faculty Association (SEIU, AAUP) for contingents, the book tells the story of their limited, but very real, successes, and suggests some strategic visions for the movement and our goals for higher education.

A New Wave of National Coordination

In March 2024, Inside Higher Ed reported that Higher Ed Labor United—a developing national coalition—was emerging to bridge divisions between higher education workers, regardless of union affiliation or job title. Joe Berry serves on its interim steering committee, signaling his continued leadership in academic labor unity.

HELU’s vision is threefold: to serve as a political voice, a think tank for higher education labor, and a supporting infrastructure for organizing across campuses. The coalition thus builds on Berry’s grassroots foundations by adding a national dimension to the effort.

Timeline of Adjunct Organizing: 2005–2025

2005–2009: Organizing spreads through AFT and NEA-affiliated adjunct campaigns, adopting Berry’s strategies of solidarity with tenure-track faculty and students.
2010–2014: Digital movements like #AdjunctNation increase visibility. Labor drives gain traction at private and niche institutions.
2015–2019: The SEIU’s Faculty Forward initiative secures pay gains and multi-year contracts in cities like Boston and LA.
2020–2022: COVID-19 exacerbates adjunct precarity. Virtual organizing leads to some wins, but layoffs and instability rise.
2023–2025: Broader solidarity emerges—adjuncts band with student and staff labor movements. Union campaigns increasingly connect to critiques of austerity and corporatization.

Looking Ahead

With its 20th anniversary slated for November 2025, Reclaiming the Ivory Tower stands as much more than a historical landmark—it’s a blueprint for current and future organizing. While awareness of adjunct labor issues has grown, sustainable and structural transformation requires persistent organizing, cross-campus solidarity, and the sort of national coalition-building that HELU represents.

---

Sources

• Berry, Joe. Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education. Monthly Review Press, 2005. [monthlyreview.org reference; meet the author site]

• “Higher Ed Workers Seek to Coordinate Nationally.” Inside Higher Ed, March 26, 2024. Includes details on HELU and Joe Berry’s role

• National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions data trends

• Inside Higher Ed reporting on adjunct unionization, strikes, and SEIU campaigns 

Every Day Should Be Labor Day

As Americans celebrate Labor Day, the traditional holiday honoring workers, it is worth asking a blunt question: why do we set aside only one day to recognize the people who keep this country running? For the majority of working-class Americans, labor is not a seasonal event—it is a daily struggle. And yet, political and economic systems continue to undervalue, underpay, and exploit the very workforce that sustains them.

The numbers are stark. The U.S. Department of Labor reports that over 100 million Americans are part of the labor force. Yet median wages have barely budged in decades, while the top 1% of earners have seen their wealth multiply. In higher education, adjunct professors often earn less than $30,000 a year while carrying the teaching load of full-time faculty, and the majority of college graduates leave school with over $30,000 in student loan debt, only to find themselves in jobs that fail to utilize their skills or provide financial security.

The “gig economy” promised flexibility and empowerment, but in reality it has created precarious work with no benefits, no sick leave, and few protections. Companies like Amazon, Uber, and DoorDash rely on a workforce that bears nearly all the risk while executives reap outsized rewards. The same dynamic extends to knowledge industries: research assistants, graduate students, and postdocs often perform essential labor for universities without fair compensation, health care, or job security.

Labor Day should not simply celebrate the ideal of work—it should spotlight injustice. It should remind policymakers, university administrators, and corporate leaders that the human cost of economic growth is real and rising. Childcare costs, rent, healthcare premiums, and student debt are not abstract numbers—they are barriers that prevent workers from achieving economic stability or pursuing meaningful lives outside of work.

Across the country, workers are pushing back. Teachers strike to demand fair pay and better conditions. Nurses, long on the frontlines of a pandemic, advocate for safer staffing levels and respect. Fast-food workers, warehouse employees, and adjunct faculty organize for recognition and dignity. These struggles reveal a truth that is too often ignored: every worker deserves more than symbolic recognition; they deserve economic justice, security, and respect every single day of the year.

For policymakers, higher education leaders, and business executives, the lesson is clear: labor should not be celebrated just once a year. Fair wages, comprehensive benefits, and meaningful protections should be the baseline for every workplace. The fight for workers’ rights is ongoing, and the consequences of ignoring it are profound—not just for individual families, but for the health of the American economy itself.

This Labor Day, Americans should reflect on a simple truth: the nation thrives not because of CEOs, venture capitalists, or administrators, but because millions of people show up to work every day under conditions that are far from ideal. If respect for labor is genuine, it cannot be confined to a single Monday in September. Every day should be Labor Day.

---

Sources:

• U.S. Department of Labor, Labor Force Statistics

• Federal Reserve, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households

• National Center for Education Statistics, Adjunct Faculty Data

• Economic Policy Institute, The State of American Wages

• Brookings Institution, Gig Economy and Worker Precarity

Scientific Authority: A Century of Bias in the Name of Progress

For more than a century, the authority of “science” has been used not only to cure disease or explain the universe but also to justify bigotry, exploitation, and exclusion. From eugenics to IQ testing, from biological determinism to race science, various pseudoscientific movements have cloaked prejudice in the language of objectivity and legitimacy. This history—still echoing in higher education, medicine, and public policy—demands deeper public understanding.

Eugenics and the Birth of Scientific Racism

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as evolutionary theory gained public attention, a darker interpretation emerged: eugenics, the idea that human populations could be improved through selective breeding. Championed by Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, eugenics quickly became a popular movement in the United States and Europe. Its adherents—often university-educated scientists and physicians—used statistical arguments and anatomical studies to promote forced sterilizations, anti-immigration laws, and the institutionalization of people deemed “unfit.”

Elite universities like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford were central to the eugenics movement. Harvard’s president, A. Lawrence Lowell, supported restrictions on Jewish enrollment, while professors like Charles Davenport led major eugenics research projects, funded by the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation. These efforts culminated in U.S. policies such as the Immigration Act of 1924 and Supreme Court rulings like Buck v. Bell (1927), which legitimized the sterilization of “feeble-minded” individuals. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes infamously wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

The Globalization of Bigoted Science

Eugenics was not limited to the United States. In Germany, American eugenic ideas influenced Nazi racial laws and programs. German doctors and scientists adopted race hygiene as state policy under Hitler, leading to sterilizations, medical experiments, and mass murder—what began as “science” ultimately culminated in the Holocaust.

Yet after World War II, even as Nazi atrocities were exposed, many in the West continued promoting soft forms of scientific bigotry under different names. Race-based intelligence theories were repackaged for Cold War audiences. Psychological studies, for instance, used IQ testing—originally developed by Alfred Binet for individualized education—as tools to argue for the innate intellectual inferiority of Black, Indigenous, and immigrant populations. American psychologists like Arthur Jensen and later Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve, 1994) insisted on a genetic basis for racial disparities in intelligence and income. Their ideas were roundly criticized but widely circulated in elite circles and conservative think tanks.

Medical Racism and Human Experimentation

Bigotry under the banner of science was not limited to intelligence testing. In medicine, scientific racism was used to justify brutal experimentation on marginalized populations. The most infamous case is the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932–1972), in which Black men in Alabama were denied treatment for syphilis by the U.S. Public Health Service so researchers could observe the disease’s natural progression. These men were never told they had syphilis, even after penicillin became widely available in the 1940s.

In Puerto Rico and other U.S. colonies, women were used in early birth control trials without informed consent. Poor people, incarcerated people, and mentally ill individuals were also subjected to invasive procedures under the guise of scientific advancement.

Even today, racial biases continue to shape medical education and practice. Myths such as Black people having “thicker skin” or feeling less pain still influence clinical decision-making, leading to disparities in treatment and outcomes.

The Rhetoric of “Objectivity” and the Persistence of Bias

What makes science-based bigotry particularly dangerous is the claim to objectivity. Unlike openly ideological or religious justifications for inequality, scientific arguments seem neutral, rational, and data-driven. This gave them an air of credibility that allowed policymakers, judges, and educators to embed discriminatory practices into laws, institutions, and curricula.

Throughout the 20th century, bigoted science influenced criminal justice (through phrenology and “criminal anthropology”), education (through tracking and segregated schooling), and labor markets (through biased aptitude testing and “merit-based” hiring). University researchers were frequently at the forefront of these movements, aided by philanthropic funding and government contracts.

Resistance from Within Science

It is important to note that many scientists, doctors, and educators resisted these abuses. Activists like W.E.B. Du Bois, a sociologist and the first Black American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard, used empirical research to debunk racist theories. In the mid-20th century, geneticists like Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould challenged biological determinism, showing that racial categories have no firm biological basis and that environmental factors play a dominant role in shaping intelligence and behavior.

Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (1981) exposed the flawed data and assumptions behind IQ science and craniometry. Lewontin, meanwhile, demonstrated that genetic variation within racial groups far exceeded variation between them, undercutting race as a meaningful biological concept.

Legacy and Modern Manifestations

Despite these corrections, echoes of science-based bigotry persist. Racial disparities in standardized testing, policing algorithms, facial recognition software, and genetic research reflect uncritical assumptions about “objectivity” and “merit.” Tech companies and university researchers now traffic in new forms of algorithmic bias that often reproduce the old hierarchies under new names.

Moreover, white supremacist groups and alt-right ideologues continue to misuse evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and social psychology to justify racial segregation and misogyny. The internet has made this misinformation harder to regulate and easier to disseminate.

Scientific Authority

The history of science-based bigotry reveals a troubling pattern: when scientific authority is wielded without ethical oversight or historical awareness, it can become a weapon of oppression. Higher education institutions—many of which played central roles in promoting pseudoscientific racism—must reckon with this legacy. That means more than issuing apologies or renaming buildings; it requires a critical reassessment of how knowledge is produced, validated, and applied.

Understanding the misuse of science in the past is essential to ensuring that the knowledge of the future uplifts rather than excludes. A truly democratic science must be self-critical, historically informed, and deeply engaged with questions of power and justice.

---

Sources:

• Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. W.W. Norton, 1981.

• Kevles, Daniel J. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Harvard University Press, 1985.

• Washington, Harriet A. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. Doubleday, 2006.

• Lombardo, Paul A. Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.

• Lewontin, Richard C. “The Apportionment of Human Diversity.” Evolutionary Biology, vol. 6, 1972, pp. 381–398.

• Allen, Garland E. "The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910–1940: An Essay in Institutional History." Osiris, vol. 2, 1986, pp. 225–264.

• Duster, Troy. Backdoor to Eugenics. Routledge, 2003.

• Reverby, Susan M. Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. University of North Carolina Press, 2009.You said:

100 Ways the Trump Administration Has Undermined the Environment, Human Rights, World and Domestic Peace, Labor, and Knowledge

The Trump administration, since returning to power in 2025, has escalated attacks on the foundations of democracy, the environment, world peace, human rights, and intellectual inquiry. While the administration has marketed itself as “America First,” its policies have more often meant profits for the ultra-wealthy, repression for the working majority, and escalating dangers for the planet.

Below is a running list of 100 of the most dangerous actions and policies—a record of how quickly a government can dismantle hard-won protections for people, peace, and the planet.

---

I. Attacks on the Environment

1. Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement—again.

2. Dismantling the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

3. Opening federal lands and national parks to oil, gas, and mining leases.

4. Gutting protections for endangered species.

5. Allowing coal companies to dump mining waste in rivers and streams.

6. Rolling back vehicle fuel efficiency standards.

7. Subsidizing fossil fuel companies while defunding renewable energy programs.

8. Suppressing climate science at federal agencies.

9. Greenlighting pipelines that threaten Indigenous lands and water supplies.

10. Promoting offshore drilling in fragile ecosystems.

11. Weakening Clean Water Act enforcement.

12. Dismantling environmental justice programs that protect poor communities.

13. Politicizing NOAA and censoring weather/climate warnings.

14. Undermining international climate cooperation at the UN.

15. Allowing pesticides banned in Europe to return to U.S. farms.

---

II. Undermining World Peace and Global Stability

16. Threatening military action against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.

17. Expanding the nuclear arsenal instead of pursuing arms control.

18. Cutting funding for diplomacy and the State Department.

19. Withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO).

20. Weakening NATO alliances with inflammatory rhetoric.

21. Escalating drone strikes and loosening rules of engagement.

22. Providing cover for authoritarian leaders worldwide.

23. Walking away from peace negotiations in the Middle East.

24. Blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, Yemen, and other war-torn areas.

25. Expanding weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite human rights abuses.

26. Using tariffs and sanctions as blunt instruments against allies.

27. Politicizing intelligence briefings to justify military adventurism.

28. Abandoning refugee protections and asylum agreements.

29. Treating climate refugees as security threats.

30. Reducing U.S. participation in the United Nations.

---

III. Attacks on Human Rights and the Rule of Law

31. Expanding family separation policies at the border.

32. Targeting asylum seekers for indefinite detention.

33. Militarizing immigration enforcement with National Guard troops.

34. Attacking reproductive rights and defunding women’s health programs.

35. Rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in schools and workplaces.

36. Reinstating bans on transgender service members in the military.

37. Undermining voting rights through purges and voter ID laws.

38. Packing the courts with extremist judges hostile to civil rights.

39. Weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents.

40. Expanding surveillance powers with little oversight.

41. Encouraging police crackdowns on protests.

42. Expanding use of federal troops in U.S. cities.

43. Weakening consent decrees against abusive police departments.

44. Refusing to investigate hate crimes tied to far-right violence.

45. Deporting long-term immigrants with no criminal record.

---

IV. Attacks on Domestic Peace and Tranquility

46. Encouraging militias and extremist groups with dog whistles.

47. Using inflammatory rhetoric that stokes racial and religious hatred.

48. Equating journalists with “enemies of the people.”

49. Cutting funds for community-based violence prevention.

50. Politicizing natural disaster relief.

51. Treating peaceful protests as national security threats.

52. Expanding federal use of facial recognition surveillance.

53. Undermining local control with federal overreach.

54. Stigmatizing entire religious and ethnic groups.

55. Promoting conspiracy theories from the presidential podium.

56. Encouraging violent crackdowns on labor strikes.

57. Undermining pandemic preparedness and response.

58. Allowing corporations to sidestep workplace safety rules.

59. Shutting down diversity and inclusion training across agencies.

60. Promoting vigilante violence through online platforms.

---

V. Attacks on Labor Rights and the Working Class

61. Weakening the Department of Labor’s enforcement of wage theft.

62. Blocking attempts to raise the federal minimum wage.

63. Undermining collective bargaining rights for federal workers.

64. Supporting right-to-work laws across states.

65. Allowing employers to misclassify gig workers as “independent contractors.”

66. Blocking new OSHA safety standards.

67. Expanding exemptions for overtime pay.

68. Weakening rules on child labor in agriculture.

69. Cutting unemployment benefits during economic downturns.

70. Favoring union-busting corporations in federal contracts.

71. Rolling back protections for striking workers.

72. Encouraging outsourcing of jobs overseas.

73. Weakening enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in workplaces.

74. Cutting funding for worker retraining programs.

75. Promoting unpaid internships as a “pathway” to jobs.

---

VI. Attacks on Intellectualism and Knowledge

76. Defunding the Department of Education in favor of privatization.

77. Attacking public universities as “woke indoctrination centers.”

78. Promoting for-profit colleges with predatory practices.

79. Restricting student loan forgiveness programs.

80. Undermining Title IX protections for sexual harassment.

81. Defunding libraries and public broadcasting.

82. Politicizing scientific research grants.

83. Firing federal scientists who contradict administration narratives.

84. Suppressing research on gun violence.

85. Censoring federal climate and environmental data.

86. Promoting creationism and Christian nationalism in schools.

87. Expanding surveillance of student activists.

88. Encouraging book bans in schools and libraries.

89. Undermining accreditation standards for higher education.

90. Attacking historians who challenge nationalist myths.

91. Cutting humanities funding in favor of military research.

92. Encouraging political litmus tests for professors.

93. Treating journalists as combatants in a “culture war.”

94. Promoting AI-driven “robocolleges” with no faculty oversight.

95. Gutting federal student aid programs.

96. Allowing corporate donors to dictate university policy.

97. Discouraging international students from studying in the U.S.

98. Criminalizing whistleblowers who reveal government misconduct.

99. Promoting conspiracy theories over peer-reviewed science.

100. Normalizing ignorance as a political strategy.        

Climate Denial and Conservative Amnesia: A Letter to Charlie Kirk and TPUSA

Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA have built an empire of outrage—rallying young conservatives on college campuses, feeding them culture war talking points, and mocking science in the name of “free thinking.” At the top of their hit list? Climate change. According to TPUSA, man-made global warming is a hoax, a leftist ploy to expand government, or simply not worth worrying about. But this isn’t rebellion—it’s willful ignorance. And worse, it’s a betrayal of the conservative legacy of environmental stewardship.

Let’s be clear: man-made climate change is real. It is measurable, observable, and already having devastating consequences across the planet. The science is not debatable. According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth’s average surface temperature has risen more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century—largely driven by carbon emissions from human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which aggregates peer-reviewed science from around the world, states unequivocally that “human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”

If Charlie Kirk and TPUSA were interested in truth, they wouldn’t be spreading climate denial. They’d be listening to the 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists who confirm that this warming is caused by humans. They’d look to the Department of Defense, which recognizes climate change as a national security threat. They’d pay attention to farmers losing crops to drought, families displaced by floods and wildfires, and millions of people suffering through record-breaking heat.

In 2023, Phoenix experienced 31 straight days above 110°F. In 2024, ocean temperatures reached the highest levels ever recorded, accelerating coral bleaching and threatening global fisheries. Canadian wildfires covered U.S. cities in toxic smoke. Coastal towns face rising seas. These are not “natural cycles.” They are the direct result of burning coal, oil, and gas at unsustainable levels—driven by short-term greed and fossil fuel lobbyists.

And that brings us to a painful irony. TPUSA claims to speak for the working class, for rural Americans, and for future generations. But these are exactly the people being hit first and hardest by climate change. Farmers in Texas and Kansas are watching their yields collapse. Gulf Coast communities are being battered by stronger hurricanes. Urban neighborhoods with little tree cover and poor infrastructure are turning into deadly heat islands. Denying climate change doesn’t protect these people—it abandons them.

But perhaps the worst betrayal is ideological. TPUSA calls itself conservative. Yet real conservatism means conserving what matters—our land, our water, our air, and our future. And in this regard, the Republican Party once led the way.

It was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who pioneered American conservation. He created national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. He didn’t call environmental protection socialism—he called it patriotism.

It was Republican Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. He founded the Environmental Protection Agency, understanding that pollution was not just bad for nature—it was bad for people and for capitalism itself.

Even Ronald Reagan, whose presidency is often associated with deregulation, signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. The result? The ozone layer began to heal—one of the greatest environmental successes in human history.

More recently, conservative leaders like Bob Inglis, Carlos Curbelo, Larry Hogan, and Susan Collins have advocated for carbon pricing, clean energy investments, and bipartisan climate action. Groups like RepublicEn, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, and the American Conservation Coalition are working to reintroduce common-sense environmentalism to the Republican movement. These are not radicals. They are conservatives who understand that freedom means nothing without a livable planet.

Young Republicans increasingly agree. Polls show that Gen Z conservatives are far more likely than older Republicans to support climate action. They’ve grown up in a world of extreme weather, mass extinction, and economic uncertainty. They know the cost of inaction. They see through the oil-funded lies.

So what exactly is TPUSA conserving? Not the environment. Not scientific integrity. Not the truth. They are conserving ignorance—and protecting the profits of ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and the very fossil fuel billionaires who knew the risks of climate change in the 1970s and chose to deceive the public anyway. (See: Harvard University’s 2023 study on Exxon’s internal climate models.)

If TPUSA is serious about freedom, they must realize that freedom cannot exist without responsibility. There is no free market on a burning planet. There is no liberty when wildfires choke your air, when hurricanes destroy your home, or when heatwaves kill your grandparents.

We challenge Charlie Kirk and TPUSA not to “own the libs,” but to own the truth. Talk to climate scientists. Visit frontline communities. Debate conservatives like Bob Inglis who actually care about the world they’re leaving behind. Break the echo chamber. Lead with courage instead of trolling for clicks.

The earth does not care about your ideology. It cares about physics. And physics is winning.

Sources:

NASA – Climate Change Evidence and Causes: https://climate.nasa.gov
NOAA – Global Climate Reports: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, 2023: https://www.ipcc.ch
Harvard – Exxon’s Early Climate Models, Science, Jan 2023
U.S. Department of Defense – Climate Risk Analysis, 2022: https://www.defense.gov
Pew Research – Gen Z Republicans and Climate Change, 2023
RepublicEn – https://www.republicEn.org
American Conservation Coalition – https://www.acc.eco
Montreal Protocol overview – United Nations Environment Programme

The truth is not left or right. It is grounded in science, history, and conscience. Conservatives once led on environmental protection. They still can—if they’re brave enough to face the facts.